MSS_Evaluation_Criteria_30_Jan_17.docx

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2

1. SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 Basis for Contract Awards: The source selection process for this acquisition will neither be based on the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) nor Tradeoffs. Within the best value continuum, FAR 15.101 defines best value as using any one or a combination of source selection approaches. The best value decision will be determined using a 4-Step evaluation process that includes responsiveness (submission and administrative requirements), technical capability, past performance and price where non-priced factors are significantly more important than price (see Figure 1). The Government may conduct evaluations on all four steps either concurrently or sequentially. Award will be made to those offerors who are deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposals conform to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required this solicitation).

The Government seeks to award to the offerors with the highest technical score and the greatest confidence that they will successfully perform. 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 technically acceptable, superior past performance of a higher-priced offeror outweighs the price difference. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest-priced offer(s) if the lowest-priced offeror(s) is/are judged to have a performance confidence assessment of “Satisfactory Confidence” or lower. In that event the Source Selection Authority will make an integrated assessment of all technically acceptable offers evaluated for past performance and price, applying the evaluation criteria described above to determine which technically acceptable offeror(s) provide(s) the best value to the Government in terms of overall past performance and total evaluated price.

The SSA and contracting officer may determine that the number of proposals, exceeds the number at which an efficient source selection can be conducted. For the purposes of efficiency, the Government may establish a competitive range, comprised of the most highly rated proposals based on evaluation criteria, as stated in FAR 15.306(c).

1.2 Award without Discussions: It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best effort to demonstrate technical, past performance and price. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines that discussions are necessary.

1.3 Clarifications: Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in instructions. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of the proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or to respond to adverse past performance information to which the offerors have not previously had an opportunity to respond. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract(s) without the opportunity for proposal revision.

1.4 Discussions: 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.

1.5 Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government plans on awarding approximately ten (10) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contracts for the MSS Program. However, the Government reserves the right to award more or fewer contracts if the SSA determines it is in the Government’s best interest considering the Government’s expected volume of work over the period of the contracts, available funding, the need to sustain adequate competition and the availability of best-value proposals following completion of evaluations of the proposals received.

1.6 Acceptance of all Solicitation Requirements: Unless exceptions are identified and supported as required by the last sentence of this paragraph, by submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale per Instruction to Offerors, Paragraph 3.1, Tab 3).

2. EVALUATION

2.1 The government will complete a 4-step evaluation process for each proposal received as illustrated below.

2.1.1. Submission Compliance. The government will complete an initial review of the offeror’s proposal to ensure adherence to proposal submission instructions in 52.212-1. Step 1a of the evaluation process titled “Submission Compliance” will ensure the proposal complies with all prescribed requirements which includes the timeliness of proposal submission, format compliance, and completeness of each volume. The government will consider an offeror ineligible for award if the proposal was not submitted by the required date, it is incomplete (missing items, signatures, etc.), or does not comply with format requirements. The Government will stop evaluation of the proposal if that occurs on an offeror’s proposal.

2.1.1.1. Volume I, Contract Administration. Additionally, in Step 1b, the government will evaluate Volume I, Contract Administration, to ensure completion of the required SF 1449 and applicable SF 30(s) as well as ensure the offeror provided the required tabs in the volume with valid and verifiable information. The government will consider an offeror ineligible for award if the volume is incomplete or otherwise unable to be evaluated unless the government opens discussions. If discussion are not opened, the offeror’s proposal will not move on to Step 2 of the evaluation process if this volume is incomplete or otherwise unable to be evaluated by the government.

2.1.2. Volume II, Technical Capability. Next in Step 2, the government will validate each offeror’s claim of technical capability using the government-provided template “Technical Self-Scoring Worksheet” (Attachment 2) and their submitted supporting documentation provided in Volume II. The government will only use the supporting documentation provided by the offeror in this volume to confirm the claimed capability and point value assignment. It is the government’s intent that only offerors whose claimed capabilities are fully validated by the government, based on supporting documentation provided by the offeror, will proceed to Step 3, Past Performance. Any claimed capability that does not have support documentation will not be considered “valid” by the government. If the government cannot validate a claimed capability based on the volume provided, the government will: 1) deem the technical capability of the offeror to be unacceptable; discontinue evaluation efforts for the offeror’s proposal and deem the offeror ineligible for award; 2) open discussions to give the offeror an opportunity to address the issue and /or revise their technical column (i.e., recalculating the total points given for technical capability or provide additional supporting documentation). The technical evaluation disposition will be at the discretion of the government’s best interest, the available competition on the solicitation, along with considerations of the acquisition milestone schedule and cost attributed to the source selection. The government reserves the right to determine the offeror ineligible for contract award if discussions are not opened by the contracting officer. If the government enters into discussions, all offerors initially deemed technically unacceptable will be given the opportunity to answer evaluation notice(s) to address the issue and ultimately, revise their technical volume for re-evaluation by the government.

2.1.3. Volume III, Past Performance. In Step 3, the government will evaluate the past performance record based on the references provided by the offeror and any other available information obtained by other sources. A complete reference is provided by the offeror in Volume IV and includes: past performance information sheet printed by the PPI tool (Attachment 4), a completed Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 5) if no CPARS is available, Consent Letter (Attachment 6) and Client Authorization Letter (Attachment 7), if applicable. Only completed references will be included in the integrated assessment of recency, relevancy and quality of past performance for each offeror. The past performance evaluation will include verification of dates of service (recent) as well as a determination of relevancy and performance. Past performance will evaluate an offeror’s present and past performance records, including cost and schedule, to assess the Government’s confidence in an offeror’s ability to supply services that meet users’ needs. Performance confidence will be assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level. As a result of an analysis, each offeror with an acceptable submission and administrative compliance record and an acceptable technical capability shall receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment rating for the past performance factor as described below in Table 1.

2.1.3.1. To be recent, the effort must have been ongoing for at least six (6) months within the three (3) years immediately preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation. The Government will not evaluate past performance information that fails to meet this recency criteria.

2.1.3.2. The most relevant contracts will be those which most closely match the scope, magnitude, complexity and applicability of the contract. The scope considers the types of labor categories [43], and services/operational activities [5] on a single task order or contract. A scope of at least one (1) full service or two (2) MSS positions on a single contract is relevant. Magnitude considers the number of personnel provided on a contract and the overall dollar value of the performance reference [less than 10 full time personnel and a value of between $40K and $90k is relevant]. The solicitation minimum or maximum is not reflective of the overall program size for purposes of past performance evaluation. Complexity is considers that nationwide geographic locations (71 DoD/Air Force MTFs) and the business relationship between the prime and the subcontractor(s). Teams that have demonstrated successful performance together in the past will be considered more pertinent than a contract performed by the prime alone, subcontractor alone or either with different teaming partners/subcontractors. Applicability considers the customer as well as contract and pricing type performance. To be relevant, DHA and Air Force customers will be been served on a MAC ID/IQ, FFP type of contract. The Government may not agree with the offeror’s opinion of relevancy.

2.1.3.3. The Government may take the percentage of work into consideration from Attachment 1, Contractor Teaming/Organizational Structure (Tab 2c of the Technical Volume and Tab 4 of the Past Performance Volume), if applicable, when assigning the overall confidence rating. If the teaming structure provided is incomplete or unclear, it may result in a lower performance confidence rating. Submittal of past performance information for a teaming partner/subcontractor for a specific full service/operational activity who will not be performing that work with the offeror may not be considered relevant.

2.1.3.4. Submitted information may include data on efforts performed by other divisions, critical subcontractors, or teaming contractors, if such resources will be brought to bear or significantly influence the performance of the proposed effort. The Government may consider as relevant efforts performed for agencies of the federal, state, or local Governments and commercial customers. Each previous/current contract provided in the proposal will receive one of the relevancy ratings listed in Table 2 – Past Performance Relevancy Assessment below.

Table 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY ASSESSMENT

1. Provides at least one (1) full service/operational activity or two (2) labor categories;

1. Provides > 10 FTEs

1. Contract is a MAC ID/IQ, FFP - Value is greater or equal to $90K annually; and

1. Performs in at least two (2) states

1. Customer is DHA or AFMS.

1. Provides one (1) service/operational activity or two MSS labor categories;

1. Provides > 2 < 10 FTEs

1. Contract is a FFP contract - Value is between $40K and $90K annually; or

1. Performs in at least one (1) state

1. Customer is DoD

1. Provides at least one (1) MSS labor category;

1. Provides 1-2 FTEs

1. Contract Value is greater than $40K annually; and

1. Performs in at least one (1) or more states.

1. Any customer is acceptable

1. Provides none of the solicited medical support services; or

1. Contract value is less than $30K annually

2.1.3.5. The evaluation for the Past Performance volume will ensure that the offeror provided the record of relevant past performance on up to eight (8) previous/current contracts with three (3) being for the offeror’s performance as prime. The evaluation will ensure that past performance information is provided for each teaming partner/subcontractor whose percentage of contract workload is highest as documented in Section L, Attachment L-1, Team Composition Worksheet. The Government will use data provided by each offeror in this volume and data obtained from other sources i.e., in the evaluation and then assign a relevancy rating to each past performance reference per Table 2. NOTE: If the prime has no partners, all references can be for the offeror.

2.1.3.5.1. If three (3) references are not available from the offeror as a prime contractor, reference(s) as a teaming partner/subcontractor may be provided or key personnel; however, the Government will consider performance as the prime contractor more pertinent than performance as a subcontractor. Performance as a sub-contractor is considered more pertinent than performance of key personnel.

2.1.3.5.2. If an offeror is a joint venture (JV) with no past performance information, the past performance record of all companies forming the JV will be considered and the past performance section must contain references from each company forming the JV. If the JV company, as the offeror, has a past performance record, the past performance record of the JV company will be considered for evaluation purposes. If the JV company has less than three (3) past performance records for the offeror, the past performance records of the individual companies comprising the JV will be considered to make up the minimum number of three (3) past performance references for the offeror. If a JV is comprised of both a small and large business, performance by the small business company will be considered more relevant than performance by the large business company.

2.1.3.5.3. If an offeror is a Mentor Protégé (MP) with no past performance information, the mentor’s past performance record will be considered. However, the Government will consider performance references provided for both the mentor and the protégé more relevant than performance references for just the mentor.

2.1.3.5.4. Each contract shall be considered a single reference for purposes of this evaluation. If past performance proposal provides separate task orders for a single contractor into multiple references, the Government will consider those task orders as a single reference. Contract or task/delivery orders containing option periods will also be evaluated as a single past performance reference over the life of the contract. Federal Supply Schedule contracts or GSA orders will be evaluated as separate references.

2.1.3.5.5. Past Performance Questionnaire sent to the reference by the offeror must be included in Volume III in each reference Tab (1A through 2E). The evaluator must sign all questionnaires. The source selection evaluation team will NOT consider any past performance questionnaires that are incomplete or unsigned by the customer. In addition, the Government may utilize: (1) official Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting Systems (CPARS) reports from the Past Performance Information Repository System (PPIRS) or similar systems of other Government departments and agencies, (2) questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition, (3) information from the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), (4) interviews with program managers and contracting officers, and (5) other sources known to the Government, including commercial sources.

2.1.3.5.6. Primary customer contacts will complete the questionnaire using the performance ratings per Table 3 – Performance Level below. Other sources of past performance information will also be assigned this level of performance rating by the Government during the evaluation.

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

2.1.3.5.7.1. Adverse past performance is considered to be any overall rating below Satisfactory on any questionnaire, survey, or Government evaluation referenced in Paragraph M.6.4.1. Offerors with adverse past performance will be afforded an opportunity to address alleged performance issues if the offeror has not already been provided an opportunity to comment on the issues IAW FAR 15.306(a)(2) and FAR 15.306(b)(4). Where a relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any actual implemented corrective actions (not merely planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective action has been implemented and to evaluate its effectiveness.

2.1.3.6. Assigning Ratings: As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating (Table 1). Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the technical subfactors and price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. As a result, these offerors will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

2.1.3.6.1. More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

2.1.4 VOLUME III – PRICE FACTOR

Step 4 is the government’s evaluation of the offeror’s price volume for completeness and price reasonableness pricing using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 in order to ensure pricing that is fair and reasonable.

2.1.4.1. The offeror’s submission for Volume III, Price will be evaluated in terms of completeness and price reasonableness using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 in order to insure pricing that is fair and reasonable.

2.1.4.1.1. Completeness: The Government will review the Pricing submissions for completeness of all hourly and unit rates as well as Total Evaluated Price. The completeness review will focus on whether the offeror used the Government-developed Excel file as required (Section L.5), and whether the pricing tables included blanks, or unreadable files, copies or data were received. Incomplete price submissions may not be evaluated and the proposal may be eliminated from the competition.

2.1.4.2. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by calculating the TEP of the estimated workload provided in Attachment 3, MSS Pricing Model. The estimated workload and the TEP are for evaluation purposes only. They do not reflect the overall contract maximum or likely order level. The Government will then rank all technically acceptable proposals by past performance confidence rating, then price. In the event the contracting officer determines to enter into discussions, any offeror which was originally rated as not acceptable for Technical Capability may have an opportunity to become acceptable in the competition.

2.1.4.2.1. Total Evaluated Price (TEP):

The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the offeror’s total prices for Year 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 for Service Type #1 and Service Type #2 categories. Although the TEP is shown in Cell A32 of the “Instructions & TEP” Tab in Attachment 3, MSS Pricing Model, it is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure the TEP, fully burdened Hourly Rates and fully burdened Unit Rates cells are complete and accurate.

2.1.4.2.2. The Government will conduct a price analysis in lieu of a cost analysis. The source selection will be conducted with the expectation of adequate price competition and will rely on market forces and price analysis to ensure that awarded prices are reasonable. Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation is the preferred and intended price analysis technique. Other techniques and procedures, if deemed necessary, may be used to ensure a fair and reasonable price, to include but is not limited to the following: a comparison of all offerors proposed fully burdened labor rates, comparison of previously proposed prices and previous Government and commercial contract prices with current proposed prices for the same or similar service/items, comparison with competitive market prices of similar indexes, and GSA Schedule(s) or Department of Labor wage/salary indexes or comparison of proposed prices with the Independent Government Cost estimate. The proposed total evaluated price and all fully burdened NTE hourly rates and fully burdened NTE unit rates will be evaluated for reasonableness.

image1.jpeg image2.emf