Solicitation Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

Air Force Installation contracting center

24 May 2023

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

SECTION M

McConnell Air Force Base (AFB) Optimized Remediation Contract (ORC)

Evaluation Factors for Award

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) and the Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures. These regulations are available electronically at https://www.acquisition.gov/. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Past Performance and Price in which the competing offerors’ past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price. A contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, 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 represent the best value to the Government.

The Government intends to award to the lowest priced Substantial Confidence rated offeror with a fair and reasonable price. Proposals will be evaluated in ascending order from lowest priced to highest priced. Once three proposals receive a Neutral Past Performance Confidence rating or higher with a fair and reasonable TEP, to include at least one proposal with a Substantial Past Performance Confidence Rating then the evaluation will be complete, and no more proposals will be evaluated.

If no proposals receive a Substantial Confidence rating , or there are less than three (or no) proposals receiving at least a Neutral Confidence rating , the evaluation process will be continued until an offeror representing the best value to the Government is determined. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the past performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, https://www.acquisition.gov/ by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgement is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one (1) contract for the McConnell Air Force Base (AFB)

ORC.

1.2 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation the “correction potential” of any deficiency. Judgement such as “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government’s requirements and is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1.3 Discussions

It is the intent of the Government to award a contract without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions with Offerors, if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Offerors shall submit sufficient information and, in the format, specified in the proposal preparation instructions to permit a meaningful assessment of proposals. Communications and/or exchanges conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the government reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision. 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 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 IAW FAR 52.215-1.

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.

1.4 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and administrative requirements, in addition to those identified as factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

2.0 Evaluation Factors for Award

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the Offerors whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below:

Factor 1 – Past Performance Factor 2 – Price

2.1 Relative Importance

The relative importance of each factor is as follows: Past Performance and Price are listed in descending order of importance. Factor 1 (Past Performance) is more important than Factor 2 (Price). IAW FAR 15.304(e), the evaluation factor other than Price, is significantly more important than price.

2.2 Determination of Responsibility

Even though the assessment of Past Performance as a specific evaluation factor is separate and distinct from the Determination of Responsibility required by FAR 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, information obtained as part of the proposal evaluation process will be used to support the Determination of Responsibility for the successful Offeror(s). If the Contracting Officer determines a small business to be non-responsible, the Contracting Officer will refer the matter to the Small Business Administration which will decide whether to issue a Certificate of Competency (see FAR 9.104-3 and FAR 19.6).

3.0 Factor 1 – Past Performance

The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the Offeror’s ability to provide the McConnell AFB ORC services that meet the requirements of the PWS, based on the Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance. This assessment is based on the Offeror’s record of recent, relevant, and overall quality of past performance information that pertains to the product or services outlined in the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, general trends in the Offeror’s performance, the number and severity of problems, the effectiveness of any corrective actions taken, and the Offeror's overall performance record.

Each Offeror is requested to submit a maximum of five (5) recent (within the last 5 years) stand-alone C-type contracts or Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) task orders. Of these five contracts/task orders, a minimum of two (2) must have been performed by the Prime Offeror. Joint Venture Partners constitute Prime Offerors for purposes of this section.

3.1 Recency Assessment.

Offerors shall provide recent past performance information (PPI). To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

For present or ongoing efforts, the Offeror must have been performing the effort for at least 365 days from the date of issuance of the solicitation. PPI that does not meet the criteria required by the recency assessment will not be evaluated.

3.2 Relevancy Assessment.

(a) PPI not determined recent will not be evaluated for relevancy. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent PPI obtained to determine how closely the effort performed under those projects relate to this acquisition. The Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) and additional information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevance of past performance.

(b) For recent PPI reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will be assessed. Relevancy will be evaluated in accordance with the McConnell AFB ORC Relevancy Matrix (Attachment M-1), DoD standards, and criteria listed herein. Consideration will be given to criteria such as similarity, complexity, and diversity of tasks, type of effort, scope, value, geographic dispersion, and performance period. Higher relevance may be assessed for projects that are most similar to the effort, or portion of the effort, described in this solicitation. Higher relevance may be assessed for projects greater than $20,000,000. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevance.

(c) 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. The Government will utilize the DoD prescribed relevancy ratings provided in the table below.

Table 1 Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

*Higher relevance may be assessed for projects greater than $20,000,000.

Adjectival Rating

Description

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.

*Refer to Attachment M-1 ORC Relevancy Matrix for more detailed relevancy rating criteria

3.3 Performance Quality Assessment.

(a) The Contracting Officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information on all Offerors based on (1) the references provided by the Offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources (CPARS, etc.). IAW FAR 42.1503 (g), the CO shall use the past performance information in CPARS that is within three years of the completion of performance of the evaluated contract or order, and information contained in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), e.g., terminations for default or cause. The Government will only consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts.

For each recent and relevant PPI reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all PPI available, regardless of its source. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings.

(b) Adverse is defined as PPI that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system.

Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal or respond to adverse PPI to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. For adverse PPI 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.

(c) The Government will consider present/past performance information in the aggregate in addition to an individual contract basis. The Government will use the quality levels included on the Past Performance Questionnaire when assessing recent, relevant efforts.

TABLE 2 – QUALITY ASSESSMENT RATINGS/COLORS

Quality Assessment Rating/Color

Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E)/BLUE

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered.

Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

VERY GOOD (VG)/PURPLE During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered. Contractor took timely corrective action.

SATISFACTORY (S)/GREEN During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL (M)/YELLOW During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

UNSATISFACTORY(U)/RED During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or failed) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

NOT APPLICABLE

(N)/WHITE

Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

3.4 Performance Confidence Assessment.

(a) The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the

Government has in the Offeror’s ability to provide the McConnell AFB ORC services that meet the requirements of the PWS, based on the Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, or No Confidence as defined in the table below. Merely having problems does not automatically equate to a limited or no confidence rating, since the problems encountered may have been on a more complex program, or an Offeror may have subsequently demonstrated the ability to overcome the problems encountered. Clearly demonstrating management actions employed in overcoming problems allow the Offeror to be considered a higher confidence candidate. For example, submittal of quality performance indicators or other management indicators that clearly support an Offeror has overcome past problems.

(b) Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history or the Offeror’s performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating “Neutral Confidence”, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. Performance Confidence will be evaluated in accordance with the DoD prescribed ratings provided in the table below.

Table 3 Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Adjectival 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.

4.0 Factor 2 – Price

(1) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s total evaluated price (TEP) for completeness, reasonableness, and unbalanced pricing on individual Contract Line-Item Numbers (CLIN) or Sub-CLINs. The TEP consists of all the Offeror's proposed sub-CLINs, regardless of year in which they may be exercised. A proposal is complete when all price data, as outlined in the RFP has been submitted in the proper format (provided). A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

(2) The Government will evaluate whether Contractor has proposed in accordance with the

Contract Line Item (CLIN)/Sub-CLIN structure. The offeror shall not “stretch” by including zero-dollar Sub-CLINs. This may constitute unbalanced pricing and be determined to present an unacceptable risk to the AF.

• For example, the Performance Period (PP) for a site is Site Closeout (SC) in seven (7) years. The proposal includes zero-dollar Sub-CLINs for Long Term Management (LTM) activities for years six (6) and seven (7).

(3) Failure to demonstrate cost savings through optimization for Option Period Sub-CLINs identified for Long-Term Management (LTM) in Schedule B will render an offeror’s proposal invalid. Optimization cost savings will be evaluated as part of the TEP. Please refer to Section L para. 5.5 Submission of Optimization Cost Savings for instructions regarding demonstration of cost savings through optimization.

(4) Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

(5) The total price shall be inclusive of all options including a FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services, 6-month extension of services. Pricing of options and the 6-month extension will be included in the TEP for evaluation purposes.

(6) The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2), in order to ensure a fair and reasonable price. Examples of such techniques include, but are not limited to the following:

(a) Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation. Normally, adequate price competition establishes a fair and reasonable price (see 15.403-1(c)(1)).

(b) Comparison of proposed prices to historical prices paid, whether by the Government or other than the Government, for the same or similar items. This method may be used for commercial items including those “of a type” or requiring minor modifications.

(i) The prior price must be a valid basis for comparison. If there has been a significant time lapse between the last acquisition and the present one, if the terms and conditions of the acquisition are significantly different, or if the reasonableness of the prior price is uncertain, then the prior price may not be a valid basis for comparison.

(ii) The prior price must be adjusted to account for materially differing terms and conditions, quantities and market and economic factors. For similar items, the contracting officer must also adjust the prior price to account for material differences between the similar item and the item being procured.

(iii) Expert technical advice should be obtained when analyzing similar items, or commercial items that are “of a type” or requiring minor modifications, to ascertain the magnitude of changes required and to assist in pricing the required changes.

(iv) Per DFARS Case 2020-D008 and section 803 of the FY 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, historical prices paid by the Government cannot properly comprise the only factor when determining prices fair and reasonable. If additional information is required to determine proposed prices fair and reasonable, contractors are required to make a good faith effort to comply with the Government’s reasonable requests to furnish data other than certified cost or pricing data.

(c) Use of parametric estimating methods/application of rough yardsticks (such as dollars per pound or per horsepower, or other units) to highlight significant inconsistencies that warrant additional pricing inquiry.

(d) Comparison with competitive published price lists, published market prices of commodities, similar indexes, and discount or rebate arrangements.

(e) Comparison of proposed prices with independent Government cost estimates.

(f) Comparison of proposed prices with prices obtained through market research for the same or similar items.

(g) Analysis of data other than certified cost or pricing data (as defined at 2.101) provided by the Offeror.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/dfars/dfars219.htm#b15404 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P348_59683 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/02.htm#P10_631

The first two techniques at 15.404-1(b)(2) are the preferred techniques. However, if the Contracting Officer determines that information on competitive proposed prices or previous contract prices is not available or is insufficient to determine that the price is fair and reasonable, the Contracting Officer may use any of the remaining techniques as appropriate to the circumstances applicable to the acquisition.

(7) The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing as defined in

FAR 15.404-1(g).

(a) Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line-items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. The greatest risks associated with unbalanced pricing occur when --

(i) Startup work, mobilization, first articles, or first article testing are separate line-items;

(ii) Base quantities and option quantities are separate line items; or

(iii) The evaluated price is the aggregate of estimated quantities to be ordered under separate line items of an indefinite-delivery contract.

(b) All offers with separately priced line items or subline items shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced. If cost or price analysis techniques indicate that an offer is unbalanced, the contracting officer shall --

(i) Consider the risks to the Government associated with the unbalanced pricing in determining the competitive range and in making the source selection decision; and

(ii) Consider whether award of the contract will result in paying unreasonably high prices for contract performance.

(c) An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

5.0 CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

The Contract Documentation volume will be reviewed for completeness. The Offeror’s proposal shall include a signed copy of the Model Contract and Solicitation, Sections A through L, signed amendments to the solicitation (if any), and all other information required under the Contract Documentation volume. An incomplete package may be excluded from the competitive range and/or removed from further evaluation.

LIST OF SECTION M ATTACHMENTS

M-1 ORC Relevancy Matrix http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P432_79270