Section M - Evaluation Factors For Award (7 Jun 22).pdf

FY23 Multiple Award Contract for Small Purchase Orders Hanscom Air Force Base, MA - Section M

7 June 2022

Section M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY/CONFIDENCE

2.2 FACTOR 2 – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

2.3 FACTOR 3 – GEOGRAPHIC PROXIMITY

2.4 FACTOR 4 – PRICE

7 June 2022

FY23 Multiple Award Contract for Small Purchase Orders Hanscom Air Force Base, MA - Section M

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

As identified and explained in Section L, this solicitation is being conducted in accordance with FAR 15.101-1, utilizing a Tradeoff selection process. All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation factors listed in Paragraph 2. The Government may conduct interchanges with some, none, or all Offerors at its discretion. The Government reserves the right to select the most highly qualified Offers based on the proposal, as received, without discussions. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. No more than seven (7) Offerors will be selected for an IDIQ award.

Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to be the best value to the Government.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

When determining the offerors selected for this IDIQ award, evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price. The evaluation factors other than price (Factors 1, 2, and 3) are of equal importance. The Government will determine which offerors are the most highly qualified based on the following evaluation factors:

2.1 FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY/CONFIDENCE

2.1.1 The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, relevant experience of the prime contractor on a range of general construction projects. Recent experience includes projects underway or those completed and turned over within 5 years of the RFP issue date. Examples of relevancy include projects of similar size, type, scope of work, complexity, and location. Experience identified in the COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE- CONSTRUCTION OR PRIME CONTRACTOR form (Section L Attachments 1) will receive more consideration than experience provided in the supplemental narrative. The Government will place greater importance on projects performed as a prime contractor than as a subcontractor.

The agency will give more consideration to the following:

a) A higher number of relevant projects as the Prime contractor, up to a maximum of five each.

b) Projects showing experience with a variety of general construction efforts.

c) Projects performed on Military installations.

d) Projects performed in the New England region.

d) Fully completed projects, rather than substantially complete projects.

e) Projects completed within 5 years of this solicitation date.

2.1.2 The Government reserves the right to verify the experience record of cited projects or other recent projects by reviewing the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), other

7 June 2022

DOD or Government appraisal systems or to interview owners or references. The Government may check any or all cited references to verify supplied information.

2.1.3 To receive credit for extent (amount) of experience, the Offeror shall demonstrate a history of recent, relevant experience.

2.1.4 The Government will perform a performance confidence assessment of the offeror’s probability of successfully meeting the contract requirements, considering the degree of success offeror’s recent (underway or turned over no longer than five (5) years preceding the date of this solicitation), relevant experience. The Government will assess the past performance on projects submitted under Factor 1 and reserves the right to conduct telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the proposal and/or to review other recent projects rated in CPARS or other agency performance databases, review and/or contact offeror-furnished references, or to review personal knowledge.

2.1.5 The Government will next consider how well the offeror performed on the contracts. The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance. With respect to relevancy, past performance on projects with more relevance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment rating than past performance on projects of lesser relevance. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate past performance of the division or unit submitting the offer. Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality, timeliness, management of the work, subcontractor management, including timely payment to subs or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and designer or contractor, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting errors, warranty work, etc. The Government will target areas covered in the requirements of this proposal including records of confirming to quality, schedule, cost control, customer satisfaction, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M Manuals, training, problem resolution for errors, warranty work, and safety. The Government will not release the Interview Forms to the Offeror at any time, in order for the Government to solicit candid, unbiased interview comments. The Government places a higher value on projects that document successful outcomes and are supported by outside source confirmation, for example, but not limited to telephone databases, offeror-furnished references, or personal knowledge. The rating for this factor will be expressed as a degree of confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the contract requirements. The rating system used for the past performance relevancy/confidence assessment is described below.

Adjectival Rating Description Satisfactory Confidence Present/past performance effort involves similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence Present/past performance effort partially involves similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance records, the Government has some expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

7 June 2022

No Confidence Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

2.2 FACTOR 2 – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

2.2.1 Offeror’s proposals shall demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the nature and scope of work required in the SEED Project SOW dated 31 March 2022, Building 1210. Each technical subfactor will be assigned a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” based on the adjectival rating descriptions in the table below. Proposals that exceed the subfactor criteria will not receive higher ratings. A rating of “Acceptable” will be required in all technical subfactors to be eligible for award.

2.2.2 Technical Subfactors

A. Subfactor 1 – Offeror’s proposed approach to meet B1210 Renovation requirements demonstrates a detailed understanding of the elements and trades necessary to successfully complete the project within the stated timeframe.

B. Subfactor 2 – Offeror’s proposed schedule incorporates the necessary elements of the project and demonstrates a logical workflow.

C. Subfactor 3 – Offeror’s proposed approach demonstrates an effective quality control process to ensure minimal issues/rework.

Technical Subfactors will be rated as either acceptable, or unacceptable as outlined in the table below.

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the Building 1210 SEED Project SOW.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the Building 1210 SEED Project SOW.

2.3 FACTOR 3 – GEOGRAPHIC PROXIMITY

2.3.1 The government will evaluate the Offeror’s geographical proximity to the Civil Engineering Headquarters located on Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts

Adjectival Rating Description Exceptional The offeror’s primary office is located within 60 miles of the Civil Engineering

Headquarter located on Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts

7 June 2022

Very Good The offeror’s primary office is located outside of 60 miles, but within the New England Region

Satisfactory The offeror’s primary office is located in the United States.

2.4 FACTOR 4 – PRICE

2.4.1 Price is significantly less important than evaluations factors other than price. Price will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis.

2.4.2 The price will be used to award the initial task/delivery order (the SEED project) to one of the offerors selected for an IDIQ Award. This initial task/delivery order will be made to the successful IDIQ awardee with the lowest priced proposal, deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9.