Section M DWS 15 April 2024.pdf

Section M: LOWEST PRICE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE (LPTA) PROCESS WITH PAST

PERFORMANCE ACCEPTABILITY EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award:

A. Source Selection Methodology:

This acquisition will utilize the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedure in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror's proposal will be made based on the elements in Section II below. Among those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable and have acceptable past performance, award will be made to the offeror having the lowest total evaluated price.

Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Contract terms and conditions consistent with customary commercial practices are specified in the solicitation/contract, with otherwise tailored terms and conditions specified in the Addendum to the solicitation/contract.

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by Volume):

A. General

1. Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. The requirement is met when:

a. Completed SF 33

b. Signed SF33

c. Each CLIN is priced.

C. Volume II, Technical Factor

1. General: Each technical subfactor will be given a technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror's technical approach for meeting the Government's requirement. In order for the Offeror’s proposal to be considered technically acceptable and eligible for award, all technical subfactors shall receive an Acceptable rating.

The offeror's proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions defined below.

Technical Adjectival Ratings Description:

Acceptable: Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable: Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2. Technical Subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Technical and Management Approaches

The requirement is met when provides a sound, compliant technical and management approach that meets the requirements of the SOW and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of the requirements.

Subfactor 2: Schedule

The requirement is met when provides a sound, compliant Schedule that meets the requirements of the SOW and demonstrates an accurate and complete understanding of the following activities:

a. Preparation and processing of submittals.

b. Mobilization and demobilization.

c. Purchase of materials.

d. Delivery.

e. Fabrication.

f. Utility interruptions.

g. Installation.

h. Work by Owner that may affect or be affected by Contractor's activities.

i. Testing.

j. Punch list and final completion.

k. Activities occurring following final completion.

Subfactor 3: Quality Control Program

The requirement is met when the Offeror provides a quality control program identifying the following activities:

A. Verified Quality-Control Personnel Qualifications: Engage qualified full-time personnel trained and experienced in managing and executing quality-assurance and quality-control procedures similar in nature and extent to those required for Project.

1. Project quality-control manager may also serve as Project superintendent.

B. Explanation of Submittal Procedures: Describe procedures for ensuring compliance with requirements through review and management of submittal process. Indicate qualifications of personnel responsible for submittal review.

C. Demonstrated understanding of required Tests and Inspections base on SOW.

D. Demonstrated Process to maintain Continuous Inspection of Workmanship: Describe process for continuous inspection during construction to identify and correct deficiencies in workmanship in addition to testing and inspection specified. Indicate types of corrective actions to be required to bring work into compliance with standards of workmanship established by Contract requirements and approved mockups.

E. Demonstrated methods used for Monitoring and Documentation: Maintain testing and inspection reports including log of approved and rejected r e s u l t s . Include work C o n t r a c t i n g Officer has indicated as nonconforming or defective. Indicate corrective actions taken to bring nonconforming work into compliance with requirements. Comply with requirements of authorities having.

Subfactor 4: Safety Program

The requirement is met when the Offeror provides a safety program that shall show that their management organization includes administrative, liaison, and technical functions to direct, monitor, control, and allocate resources for these tasks and allied safety efforts with other tasks of the project.

Subfactor 5: Maintain Mission Areas:

The requirement is met when the Offeror provides a proposed management plan to maintain water service to mission-critical facilities as identified in the SOW Section 1.5.

D. Volume III, Past Performance Factor

1. General: The past performance assessment will assess the offeror's/joint venture members' ability (which includes, if applicable, the extent of its critical subcontractors' involvement) to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror's demonstrated present and past work record.

The Government will evaluate the offeror's/joint venture members' and if applicable, the critical subcontractors' demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users' needs, including cost and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor's performance will be considered. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror's past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

2. Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

a) Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror's Present/Past Performance volume. Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government's Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant. Limit your Present/Past performance volume to 4 relevant examples.

b) Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record.

Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

c) Key Personnel: The evaluation of the offeror's/joint venture members' present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any key personnel even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

3. Ordering Type Contracts Submission: In an ordering type contractual vehicle, performance is demonstrated at the order level (i.e. a delivery/task order). Therefore, in accordance with Section L, if the contract you are submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, including but not limited to an Indefinite Delivery "D" type contract per FAR 16.5), the offeror should have submitted an individual delivery/task order (or series of orders) for evaluation, in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. The Government shall use the information submitted for each order (or series of orders) to evaluate the effort's recency, relevancy, and quality.

4. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor.

Past Performance Evaluation Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Descriptions:

Acceptable Based on the offeror's performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror's performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror's performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or "neutral") past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered "acceptable."

E. Volume IV, Cost/Price Factor- The Total Dollar Value is the total of all CLINs which will be used in the evaluation.