3. FA701424R0026_Addendum to 52.212-2 Evaluation Commercial Services ( Attachment 2) .pdf

FA701424R0026 Judge Advocate Litigation Support Service: Attachment 2

Attachment 2

FA701424R0026 Judge Advocate Litigation Support Service

Addendum to 52.212-2 Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial

Services.

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 Basis for Award. This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3 as supplemented. FAR 15.101 states that best value can be obtained by using any one or a combination of source selection approaches. The Government intends to award the contract following an objective assessment and validation of the Highest Technical Rated Offeror

(HTRO) with Realistic and Reasonable Price (RRP) -- consistent with Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR) 15.101-1 and 15.3 as supplemented by the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection

Procedures referenced in Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 215.300 and the

Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS) 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision.

1.1.1 Best value is defined as the offeror who meets the HTRO with a Government-validated technical score, reasonable price and realistic PECP. The Government is not selecting the Lowest Priced

Technically Acceptable proposal and will not conduct a subjective tradeoff.

1.1.2 A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR

9.104-1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required in FAR 52.212-

1 of this solicitation) and is deemed, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the

Government.

1.1.3 The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on the evaluation criteria described below. 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.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be awarded. The Government intends to award a single award Indefinite

Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Firm Fixed Price (FFP) with Labor Hour (LH) CLINs contract.

1.3 IDIQ Ceiling. Reserved

1.4 Minimum Guaranteed Task Order. The Initial Task Order – a comprehensive IDIQ-level phase-in with site surveys, a phase-in plan, and other program-level activities –will satisfy the minimum order requirement. This is not a requirements contract, and the Government is not obligated to issue any task order(s) beyond the minimum guaranteed initial task order.

1.5 Proposals Substantiation. An Offeror’s submittal of unsubstantiated and/or misleading claims, for even a single Past Technical Experience evaluation criterion, could result in the Government determining that the Offeror’s proposed self-rated score is disingenuous and/or artificially inflated. If this were to occur, the Government would unilaterally downward adjust the Offeror’s score, potentially down to zero

(0) points.

1.6 Discussions. The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions with one, some, or all Offerors if necessary. Evaluation Notices (ENs) may be used for clarification or communication purposes as well as discussions. Responses to the ENs for cost and past performance will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria stated herein. Failure to respond to ENs will eliminate the Offeror from further evaluation and consideration for award.

2.0 PROPOSAL CONFORMANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY

2.1 Proposal Conformance Offerors shall meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, technical requirements, representations and certifications, and other instructions identified within the solicitation. Offerors shall comply with content required within each of the proposal volumes and sections. Failure to conformance with any requirement of the solicitation may result in the Government determining the Offeror to be non-compliant and ineligible for award.

The Government will review each Offeror’s proposal documentation to ensure all required documentation was provided in response to the solicitation. The Government will rely on the documentation provided by the Offeror to facilitate the Contracting Officer’s determination of proposal conformance.

2.2 Responsibility. No award shall be made to an Offeror unless the Contracting Officer determines them to be responsible. To be determined responsible, an Offeror shall meet the general standards described in

FAR 9.104-1. The Contracting Officer may consider information provided within any volume of the proposal, and other information, not limited to proposal information, when making the determination of responsibility.

2.3 Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI). Organizational Conflict of Interest issues are treated in a manner similar to responsibility determinations. An Offeror’s actual or potential OCI concerns must be avoided, mitigated, or neutralized before that Offeror may receive an award of this contract.

3.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND FACTORS

3.1 Evaluation Methodology. The Government will utilize a HTRO methodology. The HTRO method requires the Offeror to score itself on Volume II Technical Data, based on the criteria described in

52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors and scoring details outlined 52.212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Products and Commercial Services. The Government will rank all proposals based on self-rated scores, from the highest self-rated scored Offeror to the lowest self-rated scored Offeror. The Government will begin the evaluation with the highest self-rated rated offeror.

The Government intends to validate the Technical Experience, Past Performance, and evaluate Cost/Price of the Offeror with the highest Government-validated self-rated score using the following steps:

Step 1: The Government will identify and select the HTRO received and then move to Step 2.

Note: In the event multiple offerors have the same self-rated score the Government will proceed through steps 2 and 3 with all offerors having the highest self-rated score.

Step 2: Government will validate Gate –Small Business Participation Plan on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. Only the offerors deemed acceptable, move to Step 3. Unacceptable offerors will be eliminated from further evaluation.

Step 3: The Government Technical Experience and Past Performance Teams will validate the self-rated score of the HTRO for Technical Experience and Past Performance with work samples, respectively. The offeror with the validated highest technical rated self-score will move to Step 4.

Note 1: In the event the self-rated score cannot be validated the Government will go back to Step 1 and identify the next HTRO.

Note 2: In the event multiple offers have the same validated scores, the Government will use tiebreakers from the technical evaluation. The following tiebreakers will be used in the following order:

Tie Breaker 1

The first tiebreaker shall be based on the self-scoring for 52.212-1 Hard Copy Documentations

Management at PWS Task 1.1.2 – Number of hardcopy document preparation and indexing service contracts from various Government and non-Government sites, within the Continental United States

(CONUS) or Outside the Continental United States (OCONUS) and across the DAF where the contractor

(1) organized, prepared, and unitized document collection; (2) indexed boxes or files of documents;

and/or (3) numbered document pages sequentially.

Tie Breaker 2

The second tiebreaker shall be based on the self-scoring for 52.212-1 Electronically Stored Information at

PWS Task 1.1.8 –Number of contracts for ESI processing for the various works specified in the 1.1.8 of the PWS within the Continental United States (CONUS) or Outside the Continental United States

(OCONUS).

Tie Breaker Determination

The Offeror with the highest score in the first tiebreaker will be considered the HTRO and will be evaluated for an RRP. If the tied Offerors score the same for the first tiebreaker, then the evaluation will move to the second tiebreaker and so on.

If all tiebreakers are evaluated at maximum scores, then the Government will validate claimed positions above the maximum count to determine maximum scores in the same order as the tiebreakers listed above. Offerors can enter information for more positions than the maximum counts in the “Offeror

Response” column of the Offeror Self-Rated Scoring Matrix.

Step 4: The Government Cost/Pricing team will evaluate the cost/price of HTRO to ensure cost/price is complete, balanced, reasonable, and cost realism, as well as the PECP is realism. If offeror’s cost/price is determined to be complete, balanced, and reasonable an award is made to the realistic offeror. However, if the offeror’s price does not meet the cost/price criteria, then the next HTRO will proceed through steps

2 or 3, as applicable. An award will be made if this offeror successfully meets all the evaluation criteria.

3.2 EVALUATION FACTOR OVERVIEW. The Government will use the following evaluation factors to evaluate Offerors’ proposals according to the methodology set forth in section 3.1: The Government will then validate and evaluate the factors as outlined below:

Volume I: Factor 1: Small Business Participation Plan

Volume II: Factor 2: Technical Data

Volume IIA: Subfactor 1: Technical Experience

Volume IIB: Subfactor 2: Past Performance Volume III: Factor 3:/Price (Complete, Balanced, Most Probable Cost, Realistic PECP, and Fair and

Reasonable)

3.2.1 Volume I: Factor 1: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLANS

Each Offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan (SBPP) shall be validated, based on the elements below, to determine if the Offeror provides an adequate approach to meeting the participation objectives and demonstrates an understanding of those objectives. The SBPP must address each of the following elements in sufficient detail.

I. An adequate description of the extent of participation of proposed Small Businesses (SB) when subcontracting possibilities exist, including the company names with CAGE codes the offeror plans to use in the performance of this resultant contract; and, II. An adequate description of the subcontracted work to be performed by these proposed firms is provided; and, III. The goals must be expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned contracted dollars. The total Small Business participation shall be a minimum of 35% of the total planned contracted dollars.

Table 1(T-1): Minimum Quantitative Requirements

Business Size Sub

Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) x.x%

Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HUBZone) x.x%

Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB) x.x%

Service-Disabled Veteran- Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) x.x%

Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) x.x%

Small Business Association 8 (a) Program x.x%

Total (minimum of 35%) x.x%

3.2.1.1 Small Business Utilization Rating

The rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s approach for meeting the

Government’s Small Business Participation objective of a minimum of 35% of the total planned contracted dollars. The Offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One rating will be assigned to the Small Business Utilization factor. A rating of unacceptable for Small Business

Participation will be considered a deficiency and render the offeror ineligible for award without revising the proposal.

Table 2(T-2): Small Business Utilization Rating

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the small business participation objective within the terms of the requirement.

Unacceptable Proposal fails to indicate an adequate approach and understanding of the small business participation objectives within the terms of the requirement.

3.2.2 Volume II: Factor 2: TECHNICAL DATA

The government will validate self-rated scores for each subfactor (technical and past performance) based on the guidance listed in each subsection below.

3.2.2.1 Volume IIA: Subfactor 1: Technical Experience

3.2.2.1.1 Technical Experience Evaluation. The Government will validate the self-rated scores of the

HTRO. To do this, the Government will use the work samples and Appendix C to 52.212-1 Cross

Reference Matrix provided by the Offeror. If the Government is unable to find the substantiating information within the referenced page, paragraph, table, etc., the Government will not search further for the substantiating information. If the Government is unable to validate that Offeror’s self-rated score based on the work samples and Cross Reference Matrix, the Government will unilaterally downward adjust the Offeror’s self-rated score, potentially down to zero (0) points.

The Government will only adjust the Offeror’s self-rated score downward, not upward. Such adjustments are within the sole discretion of the Government and are based upon the substantiation of the self-rated score provided by the Offeror. If the Government downward adjusts the Offeror’s self-rated score as a result of the validation process, and that Offeror is no longer the highest Government-validated self-rated

Offeror, then the Government will re-rank the proposals based on the updated score and begin the evaluation process again with the new highest Offeror’s self-rated score. This process will continue until the Government identifies the highest Government-validated self-rated score.

3.2.2.1.2 Maximum scoring. The maximum scores for each Element within the Technical

Approach and Experience scoring criteria are outlined in Table 3 (T-3) on the following page.

3.2.2.1.3 Volume IIB: Subfactor 2: Past Performance

3.2.2.1.3.1 Past Performance Evaluation. The Government will then separately validate the Past

Performance of the Offeror with the highest Government-validated self-rated scores for Technical

Experience. The Government will evaluate the Past Performance of each work sample provided by the

Offeror in support of their Technical Approach and Experience self-rated score. The Government’s evaluation will assess the Offeror’s/Team Member’s/Subcontractor’s ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the Offeror’s/Team Member’s/Subcontractor’s demonstrated performance record.

3.2.2.1.3.2. Maximum Scoring. The maximum scores for all CPAR Rating within the Past Performance scoring criteria is 12,000 points. See Table 4 (T-4) on the next page.

Table 3(T-3): Technical Approach & Experience

FACTOR IIA: Elements Maximum Score

Hardcopy Document Management 24,000

Electrically Stored Information Management 24,000

Trial and Specialty Services 24,000

Other Professional Services 16,000

Total 88,000

3.2.2.1.3.3 Recency. Recency is defined as within/over last five (5) years. Five years within the solicitation issue year, which is 2024. The latest year of contract performance shall be not later than June

2019. Any contract performance outside the 2019-2014 period shall be considered not recent past performance.

3.2.2.1.3.4 Relevance. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to an Offeror’s officially documented past performance on the utilized work samples and adherence to contractual terms and conditions. It is important to the Government to understand the level of quality of the Offeror’s or Team Member’s performance on the provided work samples. As such, the

Government will validate the relevancy of CPARS past performance experience against elements stated in the Cross Reference Matric (Appendix C Attachment 6)

3.2.3. Volume III: Factor 3: Cost/Price: The Offeror’s cost proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, for completeness, reasonableness, and balance. The

Professional Employee Compensation Plan (PECP) will be evaluated for realism. Only proposals determined to be reasonable, complete, and balanced, and with a realistic PECP determined to be realistic will be eligible for award.

Schedule of Price Rates. The proposed schedule of price rates will be evaluated against market rates utilizing GSA schedules, historical rates paid for same or similar work performed and the governments independent cost estimates. Moreover, the schedule of price rates will be evaluated for the five-year ordering period using the six factors listed below:

3.2.3.1.1 The task order pricing issued under this RFP shall be used to determined TEP.

3.2.3.1.2 Reasonableness. Adequate price competition establishes a fair and reasonable price. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. If adequate competition is not obtained, the Government will determine

Table 4(T-4) Past Performance Scoring

Past Performance CPAR rating

Percentage of

CPR rating

(cannot exceed 100% in total)

Points for

Each Rating

Weight

Factor

Max Possible

Points

CPARS rated “Exceptional” over the last 5 years TBD 1000 7 12,000

CPARS rated “Very Good over the last 5 years. TBD 950 6 9,000

CPARS rated “Satisfactory” over the last 5 years. TBD 800 5 5,000

CPARS rated “Marginal” over the last 5 years. TBD (250) 6 (1,500)

CPARS rated “Unsatisfactory” over the last 5 year. TBD (1000) 7 (7,000)

Total 0%

12,000 prices fair and reasonable using one or more of the price analysis techniques at FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). An

Offer that is determined to be unreasonably high will not be considered for award.

Submission of certified cost or pricing data is not required; however, if the cost information is needed by the Contracting Officer to determine a fair and reasonable price, the Offeror shall submit the other than certified cost or pricing data as requested.

3.2.3.1.3 Unbalanced Pricing. The Government will evaluate proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to price, variable quantity matrix factors, and separately priced line items.

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 (1) or more contract line items is significantly over or understated. The Government may also consider an offer unbalanced if there is a significant difference between proposed labor rates in the same labor category between option periods or the proposed prices from year to year are above what would be considered a reasonable adjustment for escalation. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3.2.3.1.4 Completeness. The proposal will be reviewed to determine the extent to which all the price elements have been addressed. The Offeror’s proposed price and other information will be evaluated to ensure continuity and traceability of prices to the technical volume and between the initial proposal and any revisions thereto. The review will determine the adequacy of the Offeror’s proposal in addressing and fulfilling the RFP requirements.

3.2.3.1.5 Realism. The proposed direct rates for the five-year ordering period will be evaluated for realism. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s and first-tier subcontractor(s)/teaming partner(s)’ (if applicable) PECP for realism by assessing the compatibility of proposed price with proposal scope and effort IAW FAR 52.222-46. For the PECP to be realistic, it must reflect what it would cost the Offeror to perform the effort, if performed with reasonable economy and efficiency in the relevant geographic area, based on recognized national and regional compensation surveys. It must also demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to successfully recruit and retain qualified professional employees in the geographical area where the work is being performed.

3.2.3.1.6 Professional Employee Compensation Plan Submission. The compensation plan(s) will be evaluated to determine if the compensation level proposed is unrealistically low IAW the scope and effort of the PWS. The analysis will be based on labor rates in the National Capital Region (U.S. Postal Codes

20762/20330) and/or DC Metropolitan Area (Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV). The

Government may utilize SOC rates from BLS.gov, government civilian rates, similar contract labor rates, salary.com, other similar or relevant websites, or anything else it deems appropriate or beneficial in its evaluation of realism. Failure to comply with the requirements in FAR Provision 52.222-46 may constitute sufficient cause to justify rejection of the proposal.

3.2.4. Award

Award will be made to the responsible HTRO with an Acceptable Small Business Participation Plan and a price that is Complete, Reasonable, and Balanced with a realistic PECP.

END OF SECTION 52.212-2