Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award Page 1

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

EVALUATION FACTORS

A. The government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

1. PRICE

2. TECHNICAL

3. PAST PERFORMANCE

In the integrated assessment, upon which the award assessment will be made, Past Performance is approximately equal to Price when being evaluated. Technical factor will be rated as

Acceptable or Unacceptable.

B. Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The government will evaluate offers for award purposes using the weighted average coefficient (M-001 paragraph A) of Edwards AFB (to include Plant

42 and AFRL) and NASA, to arrive at the total evaluated price. Total evaluated price shall evaluate the FAR 52.217-8 extension of services clause using the proposed coefficient.

Evaluation of the FAR 52.217-8 option shall not obligate the government to exercise the option.

C. A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the government may accept an offer whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

M-001 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This is a competitive, best value source selection using the Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) source selection process IAW FAR 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense

Federal Acquisition Supplement (DFARS) and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Supplement

(AFFARS) in which competing offerors past and present performance history will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to price. These regulations are available electronically at, http://acquisition.gov. By submission of its offer in accordance with the instructions provided in the Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors or Respondents, the offeror accedes to the terms of this model contract and all such offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. The tradeoff will occur only between the past performance factor and the price factor. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the solicitation and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation. Inaccurate, or incomplete price proposals may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award Page 2

Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, offerors' initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The

Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

A. PRICE EVALUATION (STEP 1)

Initially, offers shall be ranked according to price (lowest to highest weighted

Coefficient). For the purposes of evaluation, one Coefficient shall be calculated using the following weighted average:

Agency Proposed Coefficient Examples Weight

EAFB* 0.816 85%

NASA 0.885 15%

Weighted Coefficient Example: 0.826

*Including P42 and AFRL

a. The price evaluation will document the reasonableness of the proposed Coefficient.

b. Discussions are not contemplated; therefore, the offeror should submit its best coefficient upon initial submission of the offer.

B. TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY (STEP 2)

Next, the government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposal submitted by the lowest-priced offeror on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactors:

SUB-FACTOR 1: PROOF OF BONDING CAPABILITY

Description: Letter from bonding company will show the Offeror’s (Prime Contractor) capability to provide Payment and Performance Bonds. Letter will indicate capability to provide payment and performance bonds in the singular amount of $1,000,000.00 and combined project amount of $10,000,000.00.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror (prime contractor) submits bonding capability documents that evidence the ability to obtain a minimum single project bonding

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award Page 3 capacity of $1,000,000.00 and a minimum aggregate bonding capacity of $10,000,000.00 from an approved corporate surety whose name appears on the list contained in the Treasury

Department Circular 570. The document must also include the surety company’s name, address, phone number and points of contact.

SUB-FACTOR 2: SEED PROJECT PROPOSAL

1. The Seed project will be used to evaluate technical knowledge, and to satisfy the

Government’s contract minimum amount at the time of contract award. The Seed Project will

NOT be factored into the Evaluated Price, and will ONLY be awarded to the successful contract awardee. The Seed project will become the first task order against the resultant contract.

2. Magnitude of construction for this project is between $100,000 and $250,000.

Element 2-1: Reasonable Assumptions

Description: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to providing a detailed written plan of how the offeror will meet the requirements for the RPR Renovate Facility, B1212, in accordance with the requirements of the Seed Project Statement of Work (SOW) SOW dated

15 Nov 2019, and L-002 Proposal Preparation Instructions.

Measure of Merit: The solution to the seed project is acceptable when it is complete and accurate in accordance with the seed project SOW entitled RPR Renovate Facility, B1212, and adequately addresses the following:

a. A cover page including the project title, total project cost, list of assumptions, list of requirements, performance period, material lead times, and any special considerations, such as phasing of construction, commensurate with the accomplishment of the project.

b. The written narrative describing the approach to the subject project reflects reasonable assumptions as to the construction effort and applicable codes and regulations associated with the Seed Project.

c. The schedule showing the offeror’s intended progression demonstrates a realistic timeframe, a reasonable breakout of the major work components (to include any permits required, etc.) and the associated completion percentage assigned for the Seed Project follows a logical progression of the work effort from task order award to completion.

d. The Schedule of Material Submittals of all items that have a material effect on the Seed

Project, commensurate with the project's requirements.

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award Page 4

Element 2-2: Soundness of Approach

Description: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to include a detailed list of types and quantities of labor and materials and includes a detailed price proposal in accordance with the requirements of the SOW and Section L-002, Proposal Preparation Instructions.

Measure of Merit:

a. The Project Cost Estimate demonstrates a reasonable and complete approach in construction methodology for line items, labor classifications, materials, quantities, and is consistent with the coefficient proposed. Calculations are correct and other documents necessary to support the solution are included.

b. Contractor provides a detailed price proposal using the Construction

Specification Institute (CSI) MasterFormat coding system, broken out by line-item price. Also, the price breakout shall specify how the contract coefficient is applied to the proposed price of this effort. The proposed coefficient for CLIN

0001 shall be applied to the Seed project.

The offeror's proposal will be rated Acceptable or Unacceptable as defined in DoD Source

Selection Procedures, Table C-1. If the lowest priced offeror is deemed to be technically acceptable they will advance to the Performance Confidence Assessment evaluation. If the lowest priced offeror is deemed unacceptable, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated for technical acceptability.

Table C-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

C. PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT (STEP 3)

Finally, the CO shall seek recent and relevant performance information on (1) the past efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources in order to determine the offeror's Performance Confidence Assessment, which is comprised of three factors: Recency, Relevancy, and Quality.

D. Definitions

1. RECENT – An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. Performance that is more recent will have more impact than less recent performance. Recent contracts are: (a) contracts, which have been completed within the last 3 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation, or (b) contracts that

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award Page 5 are currently being performed (with a performance record of at least 1 year from the date of issuance of this solicitation) (see Standard Form 1442, Block 3).

2. RELEVANT – Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving

SABER, Job Order Contracts (JOC), Task Order Contracts (TOC), Multi-skill/Multi-discipline Construction type Contracts involving similar scope/complexity and magnitude of effort this solicitation requires (See DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4 and Solicitation Relevancy Definition Chart A, pg. 8). Scope is more important than magnitude; magnitude is more important than contract type and contract environment and contract type are equal.

3. QUALITY - The Government will consider the performance quality of relevant efforts that are recent. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, and Contractor

Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) information. It may include interviews with government customers and fee determining officials, interviews with commercial clients, and interviews with Defense Contract Management Agency

(DCMA) officials or other sources known to the Government. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of correction actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited

Confidence, No Confidence, or Neutral Confidence as defined in DoD Source Selection

Procedures Table 5. Offerors with no recent/relevant performance history or if the offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating "Neutral Confidence", meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably (neutral).

E. 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 solicitation.

F. The Government will consider both the past performance of the joint venture entity and of the individual partners of the venture. Past performance regarding joint venture partners will not be rated as highly as past performance information for the joint venture entity itself.

G. The Government will consider the past performance of the protégé/mentor entity as well as the individual past performances of protégé and mentor. Past performance regarding individual

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award Page 6 protégé and mentor will not be rated as highly as past performance of the protégé/mentor entity itself.

H. Past performance regarding subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will not be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror.

I. If the lowest priced evaluated technically acceptable offer is judged to have a “Substantial

Confidence” performance confidence assessment, that offer represents the best value for the government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

J. If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment or until all offerors are evaluated. The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offeror, if the lowest priced offeror is judged to have a performance confidence assessment of “Satisfactory Confidence” or lower. The

Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

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

Section L.

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. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. 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.

M. The Government anticipates adequate price competition and intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to

Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award Page 7

DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4

Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award Page 8

DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments

Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Method

Adjective Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory

Confidence

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 No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence 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.

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award Page 9

Solicitation Relevancy Definitions (Listed in order of Importance) Chart A

Solicitation Relevancy Definitions Chart A

Assessment Area

Very Relevant Relevant Somewhat

Relevant

Not

Relevant

Scope /

Complexity

Contractor has performed as a prime contractor on a SABER contract

Contractor has performed as a prime contractor on a multi-discipline, ID/IQ construction type contract (other than SABER).

Contractor has performed on a multi-discipline, ID/IQ construction type contract.

Magnitude

Contractor has managed a complex construction type contract comprised of 8 or more different construction disciplines.

Average $6M or greater per year

Contractor has managed a construction type contract comprised of 5-7 different construction disciplines.

Average $4M or greater per year

Contractor has managed a construction type contract comprised of 3-4 different construction disciplines.

Average $2M or greater per year

Contract

Type

Performance under a Firm-

Fixed Price IDIQ type Contract

Performance under a Fixed

Price non-IDIQ type Contract, Task Order or

Purchase Order

Performance under any contract type other than a Fixed

Price Contract, Task Order or

Purchase Order

Contract

Environment

Contract

Performance on a United States

Air Force or Air

Reserve Base

(CONUS)

Contract

Performance on a

DoD installation

Contract performance at a

Federal, State, County, or City facility within the

United States.

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award Page 10

Solicitation Quality Definitions (Listed in order of Importance) Chart B

Rating Definition

Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the

Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the

Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

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

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

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

Neutral Performance was not observed or not applicable to the current effort being reported against.