Section M 27 August 2009.pdf

Section M - 6 July 2009

SECTION M

1. M- BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: The Government intends to conduct a competitive performance price tradeoff (PPT) best-value source selection and award three multiple award, Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts for the 309 th

MXW

Equipment Support requirement. However, the Government reserves the right to award more or fewer total contracts or no contract at all if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines it is in the Government's best interest. This acquisition is a Small Business Set-

Aside. There is a $51 million program estimate, and the contract ordering period will be a five-year basic. Competing Offerors’ past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price considerations. By submission of its offer, the

Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. All technically acceptable offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. In other words, no proposal will be found more technically acceptable than another. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. A statement by the contractor of ‘Exception’ or ‘No Exception’ shall be included in the Proposal Volume IV, Contract Documentation. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

2. Technical Acceptability. Initially, the Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable, Reasonably

Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable (RSOBMA), or Unacceptable. The proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactors:

2.1. Subfactor 1. Task Order Management Plan: The Government will assess whether the Offeror’s task order management plan meets management requirements for:

2.1.1. On-site supervision authorized to make decisions -- responsive to emergencies and problems (personnel, workmanship, etc.). Will answer questions within four hours between the regular shifts of 6:00 am to 3:30 pm Mountain Standard Time, Monday through Friday. A 24-hour response time is required on all other shifts to include weekends and holidays, unless otherwise specified at the task order level.

2.1.2. Procedures and communication tools required to effectively manage and successfully implement this program to include, but not limited to, the following:

providing qualified personnel, managing change orders, scheduling (e.g. extra shifts, swing, graveyard, weekend, holidays, etc.), functional testing, identifying significant risks (and mitigating risks when appropriate), and reporting project status.

2.2. Subfactor 2. Quality and Safety Plan: The Offeror meets the requirements of subfactor two by providing a quality and safety plan that effectively addresses the following:

2.2.1. Quality control. Ensure that equipment and machinery that is removed, relocated, modified, and installed performs to manufacturer’s or customer’s specifications, including professional appearance of finished work.

2.2.2. Safety equipment, procedures, and processes (e.g. federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and codes, etc.)

2.2.3. Cleanup (e.g. daily and at completion of task; tool and Foreign Object Damage

(FOD) control, etc.)

2.2.4. A method for controlling and accounting for tools used (at a minimum, contractors shall uniquely identify their own tools and supply a list of tool IDs to the contracting officer)

2.2.5. Identifying and correcting quality deficiencies in a timely manner.

2.3. Subfactor 3. Contractor Statement of Work (CSOW): Offerors are required to provide an effective CSOW that provides all requirements from the PWS and how the

Offeror will meet those requirements. The Government will evaluate whether the contractor’s CSOW shows an understanding of the requirement, procedures and timelines for completion, methodology to ensure compliance, as well as the accuracy and clarity of format and content. The Government must find the CSOW acceptable in order to give an acceptable rating to the Technical Capability factor. The Government reserves the right to evaluate the CSOW through sampling or through line by line review at its discretion. The CSOW will be incorporated as an attachment of the resultant contract award.

3. Price Evaluation. Next, the Government shall rank all technically Acceptable and

RSOBMA offers by price.

3.1 Price Reasonableness: Unrealistically low or high proposed prices/rates, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the requirement or has provided an unrealistic proposal. Offers should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their reasonableness.

The burden of proof for credibility of proposed prices/rates rests with the Offeror. All the proposed pricing will be reviewed for price reasonableness in accordance with the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1.

3.2 TEP: The Government will compute a Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The evaluation will consist of Government notional hours for the different labor categories/skill levels multiplied by the Offerors’ Routine, Emergency, and Extend Hours and Holiday

Composite Labor Rates for the same categories/skill levels. The Government will estimate the notional hours using historical costs and engineering judgment. The TEP is for award purposes only and is not contractually binding, however all rates that comprise the TEP are contractually binding and thus all rates must be populated. An omitted rate may result in an unfavorable proposal.

3.3. Balanced Pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more price elements, such as labor rates are significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced labor rates. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

4. Performance Confidence Assessment. Following the procedures in paragraphs 5 and 6, the

Government shall then conduct a performance confidence assessment in which both relevancy and past performance ratings of evaluated offerors will be integrated into an overall confidence assessment. The contracting officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information based on:

(1) Past and present efforts provided by the Offeror.

(2) Data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources.

4.1. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the

Offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in this RFP, based on the Offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall Performance Confidence Assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory

Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence as defined in

AFFARS MP5315.3 (see table below). Past performance regarding predecessor companies or sub-contractors that will perform work on this requirement will be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal Offeror. The Government will use the Section J Attachment: Team List, Roles and Responsibilities to determine which subfactor each contractor/team member is playing in. Contractors not participating in a particular subfactor will not be evaluated for that subfactor. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history shall receive the rating "Unknown Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

4.2. Recency is satisfied by performance less than three years old. The Government will not consider performance on contracts/ task orders where performance was concluded more than three years prior to the solicitation issue date or newly awarded contracts that do not have performance history.

NOTE: The contract/ task order in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance if any part of the contract performance falls within the three-year timeframe, to include task orders and trends.

4.3. When evaluating Subfactor 3, CSOW, for past performance, only the following elements from the PWS will be used for evaluation:

a) Removal, relocation, and/or installation of equipment and machinery. Repairs, modification, and maintenance of equipment and machinery. Job site refurbishment services necessary to accommodate the relocation or installation of equipment and machinery.

b) Compliance with national, state, local, and base regulations and codes for mechanical work, fire protection, safety, health, environmental protection, and other cognizant authority applicable to the specific task order. Electrical work shall comply with the most current NEC and NFPA 70E.

c) Modifications of electrical, mechanical, HVAC, plumbing, pneumatic, and any other associated and connected systems.

4.4. The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical Acceptability subfactors (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). The quality assessment may consist of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, CPARS, interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials, and if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government.

4.5. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

4.6. Past performance ratings will be based on the definitions identified on the Section J

Attachment: Past Performance Questionnaire. See definitions below:

E EXCEPTIONAL - Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many

(requirements) to the Government's benefit. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

V VERY GOOD - Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some

(requirements) to the Government's benefit. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

S SATISFACTORY - Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

M MARGINAL - Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

U UNSATISFACTORY - Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

NA NOT APPLICABLE - Contractor did not participate in this type of activity under this contract.

UTA UNABLE TO ASSESS - The individual completing this questionnaire does not possess the background or knowledge to accurately answer. (e.g. Contracting Officer answering technical questions)

P PROPRIETARY – The answer will lead to release of proprietary data and cannot be provided.

4.7. Each evaluated Offeror will receive one of the Past Performance Confidence Assessment ratings for the Past Performance factor, IAW AFFARS MP5315.305 (see table below).

4.8. The following relevancy definitions will be used to determine relevancy:

4.8.1. Very Relevant – Past performance involves essentially the same effort, magnitude, and complexity that this solicitation requires (e.g., on-site supervision, procedures and communication tools to manage task orders, quality, safety, clean-up, FOD control, tool control, correcting deficiencies; equipment and machinery removal, PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has an expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE

No performance record is identifiable or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

relocation, installation, repair, modification, maintenance; job site refurbishment, code compliance, modification of connected systems, etc.).

4.8.2. Relevant – Past performance involves much of the same effort, magnitude, and complexity that this solicitation requires (e.g., on-site supervision, procedures and communication tools to manage task orders, quality, safety, clean-up, FOD control, tool control, correcting deficiencies; equipment and machinery removal, relocation, installation, repair, modification, maintenance; job site refurbishment, code compliance, modification of connected systems, etc.).

4.8.3. Somewhat Relevant – Past performance involves some of the same effort, magnitude, and complexity that this solicitation requires (e.g., on-site supervision, procedures and communication tools to manage task orders, quality, safety, clean-up, FOD control, tool control, correcting deficiencies; equipment and machinery removal, relocation, installation, repair, modification, maintenance; job site refurbishment, code compliance, modification of connected systems, etc.).

4.8.4. Not Relevant – No experience involving the same effort, magnitude, and complexity that this solicitation requires.

4.9. Higher relevancy will be assessed for contracts most similar in magnitude and complexity to the current acquisition requirements and will have a corresponding impact on the Offeror’s overall performance confidence assessment rating. Relevancy of contracts will be evaluated individually. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy.

4.10. Offerors’ past performance will be given a confidence assessment rating based on a subjective, integrated assessment of the recency, relevancy, and quality of past performance. Offerors will be ranked according to the Government’s confidence assessment rating in accordance with the Table above.

4.11. In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFP.

5. If the three lowest priced evaluated technically acceptable offers are judged to have performance confidence assessment ratings of "Substantial Confidence," the evaluation process will stop at this point. Award will be made to those three Substantial Confidence

Offerors without further consideration of any other offers.

6. If the three lowest priced evaluated technically acceptable offerors are not judged to have a

Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment, the next lowest priced technically acceptable or RSOBMA offer will be evaluated and the process will continue, in order by price, until three technically acceptable offers are judged to have Substantial

Confidence performance assessments or until all offerors are evaluated. At this point, the evaluation is complete and the SSA shall make a best value assessment award decision.

Note: Discussions must be held if any of the offerors in the competitive range have been determined to be RSOBMA and that the competitive range consists only of those offerors whose past performance has been evaluated as described above.

7. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section

L. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond.

Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

8. The Government intends to award a contract with discussions with respective Offerors. The

Government however, reserves the right to award without discussions if deemed in its best interest.