Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

1.0 Basis for Contract Award: This solicitation is designated as a Small Business (SB) set-aside and will follow a subjective tradeoff source selection process. Competing Offeror’s past performance history will be evaluated as a more significant factor than cost or price considerations. By submission of their offer, the Offeror accedes to the following solicitation requirements: terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, and those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. The proposal’s responsiveness shall be evaluated based on its compliance with submission requirements, alignment with evaluation criteria, and demonstration of understanding the acquisition requirement. All technically acceptable offers will be considered equal. The tradeoff will occur only between past performance and price factors. 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. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

1.1 Price Ranking: The Government shall rank all offers by Total Evaluated Price (TEP) from lowest to highest. The TEP will be the total sum of all Firm Fixed CLIN(s). The price evaluation will document reasonableness and balanced pricing of the proposed TEP.

2.0 Technical Acceptability: Next, the Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate all the Offerors on a pass/fail basis, assigning a rating of Acceptable/Unacceptable defined in Table 1 below. An overall technical capacity rating of ACCEPTABLE will be required for all subfactors to be considered for award. Offers not meeting the measure of merit/minimum standard for acceptability will not be considered for award.

2.1 Subfactors:

Subfactor 1:

Technical Approach: The Offeror shall address their technical approach for meeting the Government’s minimum performance or capability requirements of the Specifications. At a minimum, the technical approach must address the following areas:

a. The technical approach should describe the Offeror’s proposed approach to performing each of the requirements set forth in the Specifications. Include any unique processes the Offeror intends to utilize in the performance of this requirement or cost savings methods to be utilized, if any.

b. If additional equipment is required, the Offeror shall provide a proposed method for obtaining any additional equipment not already owned (i.e. buy/lease etc.).

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal provides:

a. The technical approach describing the Offeror’s process for completing the requirements set forth in the Specifications that clearly shows the Offeror’s understanding of the work involved.

b. A technical approach describing the Offeror’s process of obtaining additional equipment if needed.

Subfactor 2:

Project Management: Offeror must identify key personnel who would be dedicated to this project if the contract was awarded. Provide their work experience relating to projects similar in scope to those expected under this contract. Everyone’s name, title, duty, years of experience, and experience relating to similar multi-discipline construction projects involving repair, alteration, or new construction of real property in size and scope is required. The Offeror shall provide this information for the following disciplines:

a. Project Manager (minimum 5 years construction/renovation experience)*

b. Site Superintendent (minimum 3 years of experience)

c. Quality Assurance Manager/Foreman (minimum of 2 years of experience)**

d. Safety Manager (minimum of 1 year of experience)**

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal provides the following: key personnel’s name, title, duty, years of experience, and experience level relating to similar multi-discipline construction projects involving repair, alteration, or new construction of real property in size and scope. At a minimum, the Offeror shall provide this information for the following disciplines:

a. Project Manager (minimum 5 years construction/renovation experience)*

b. Site Superintendent (minimum 3 years of experience)

c. Quality Assurance Manager/Foreman (minimum of 2 years of experience)**

d. Safety Manager (minimum of 1 year of experience)**

* The Project Manager is not required to be on-site during construction. The Site Superintendent will manage the day-to-day activities on-site.

** The Site Superintendent, Quality Assurance Manager, and Safety Manager may be the same person if they meet the experience for (b), (c) and (d) above.

Table 1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

To be determined technically acceptable at the factor level, the Offeror must be rated acceptable in each subfactor. A subfactor will be rated acceptable when all measure of merits of the subfactor are met. An award will only be made to technically acceptable proposals.

3.0 Past Performance: After the technical evaluation has been completed, the Contracting Officer shall evaluate recent and relevant performance information for all the technically acceptable Offerors based on the past performance documentation required in the Request for Proposal (RFP). The Government reserves the right to seek information on higher priced Offerors if none of the lower priced Offerors receive a “Limited Confidence” performance confidence rating. Relevant past performance consists of projects successfully performed of this magnitude and scope. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation to include on-going contracts.

3.1 Past Performance Purpose: 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, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, or No Confidence as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or 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.

If there are Offerors with no recent/relevant performance records, or if the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, then the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably nor unfavorably on the factor of past performance. The Offeror shall receive a “Neutral Confidence” rating in accordance with Table 3 below:

3.2 Past Performance Relevancy Determination: A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s present and past performance, including joint ventures (JVs), subcontractors, and/or teaming partners, will be made. When evaluating the relevancy of individual contracts, the evaluation will focus on the specific effort or portion of the effort proposed by the Offeror, JVs, or teaming partner associated with the contract under review. The Government will use Table 2 below when assessing Relevancy Ratings.

Table 2. Relevancy Definitions

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.

3.3 Past Performance Confidence Assessments: In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to assign greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this proposal. The Government will use Table 3 below when assessing Performance Confidence ratings.

Table 3. Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has high expectations that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence an expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the

Neutral Confidence

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

Limited Confidence low expectations that the Offeror will successfully perform the

No Confidence no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

If the lowest priced technically acceptable offer is judged to have a “Satisfactory Confidence” or above performance confidence rating, and that offer represents the best value for the Government the evaluation process will stop at this point. Award shall be made to that Offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

The Government reserves the right to award a contract to a higher priced offer with a higher Confidence rating than the lowest priced technically acceptable offer, if the proposal is deemed to represent the best value and is in the best interest of the Government.

3.4 Past Performance Clarifications: Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information in the format specified in Section L. Offeror’s may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (e.g. 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.

3.5 Past Performance Evaluation Period: 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 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 FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

4.0 Price Evaluation: Finally, the price evaluation will document the offers evaluated, balanced and reasonableness of the proposed TEP. Offerors whose TEP is unreasonable (in accordance with FAR 15.404 and FAR 31.201-3), or unbalanced (in accordance with FAR 15.404-1) may not be considered for award. Prices are materially unbalanced if they are significantly overstated in relation to the actual cost of that work. The price will also be evaluated to determine the Offeror’s understanding of the contract requirements as expressed by the solicitation.