3PEP LM_FA8517-21-R-0001.docx

SECTION L PROVISION

PAST PERFORMANCE AND PRICE TRADEOFF

FA8517-21-R-0001

L-900. Proposal Requirements

I. Proposal Format

A. General: The following instructions cover the preparation and submittal of the offeror’s proposal for this solicitation. Offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the Request for Proposal (RFP) may cause their proposal to be determined not eligible for award. If a joint venture arrangement exists for this acquisition, the offeror shall provide a copy of the joint venture agreement that is signed and dated by all joint venture members as part of the proposal submission. Joint Venture Agreements – Joint Ventures are allowable on competitive 8(a) set –asides; however, the joint venture agreement package or email notification of bid submittal by the joint venture must be received by SBA prior to proposal due date and the joint venture agreement must be approved before award of any resulting contract. If you are contemplating a joint venture on this project, you must advise your assigned SBA Business Opportunity Specialist (BOS) as soon possible. It is also recommended that the agreement be submitted as soon as practicable to ensure compliance with established regulations. Offerors shall submit only one proposal for the Third Party Equipment Purchasing (3PEP) program as the Government will review only one proposal per offeror. Proposals received are subject to the requirements specified in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.212-1, unless otherwise tailored in the Addendum to the solicitation. Proposals must be received by AFSC/PZAAC, ATTN: Sebrina Ingram-Hayes, through DoD SAFE (secure file exchange) no later than the date and time specified in Block 8 on the face page of the RFP. However, offerors are requested to submit Volume II, Past Performance Information, so that it is received ten (10) calendar days prior to the required due date for proposals. Failure to submit Volume II by the earlier date will not result in offeror disqualification.

B. Communications: Exchanges of source selection information between Government and offerors will be controlled by the Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO), Charles Harris at charles.harris.3@us.af.mil. Email may be used to transmit such information only if the email can be sent encrypted, and must include “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104” in the subject line of the email. Otherwise, source selection information will be transmitted via direct mailing. In order to facilitate the sending and receiving of encrypted emails, offerors must use MS Outlook email configured to support encryption or a different email product that is Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) compatible and configured to support encryption. If you intend to submit your source selection information via encrypted email, you will need to contact Sebrina Ingram-Hayes, sebrina.ingram-hayes.1@us.af.mil, and/or Charles Harris, charles.harris.3@us.af.mil prior to that first submittal in order to exchange certificates used for encryption. To ensure the process is working correctly, send a test encrypted message first (without including any source selection information). When submitting source selection information via email, file suppression utilities, to include but not limited to zip files, will not be accepted.

II. Volume Organization

A. General: Proposals shall be submitted to the Government in three separate volumes as set forth below:

*Price proposal information shall be submitted by encrypted email. Offerors shall use the instructions set forth in the RFP Attachment 1, Past Performance Information (PPI) for Offerors, to electronically submit the Past Performance information into the PPI Tool. The link to the PPI Tool is attached, as a link, to the solicitation posting.

Proposal volumes shall comply with the following format:

1. Each encrypted email used to submit the proposal package must be separated by volume. Each volume shall be marked with the RFP number and the offeror’s name and address, and the number of the Volume, i.e. I, II, III, etc. Proposals shall be in the English language and all monies shall be proposed in United States dollars.

2. Print shall be no smaller than a font size of 12. Charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, or spreadsheets shall not be greater than 11” x 17.” Each volume within the proposal shall be separately tabbed and identified. Margins shall be no smaller than 1 inch and each page within a volume shall be numbered consecutively. Elaborate formats, color presentations are not desired or required.

3. Page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs), if issued. The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the emails forwarding the ENs to offerors or on the EN form itself.

4. Each page should contain the following legend at the bottom of each sheet:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION--SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. General: Volume I, Completed RFP shall consist of the completed and signed RFP, to include any amendments issued, with a cover letter delineating any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions with accompanying rationale. However, offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP may cause their proposal to be determined not eligible for award. Offerors shall ensure that all clauses and provisions that require “fill-in” information are appropriately completed, including the proposed prices associated with the contract line items in the Price Proposal Matrix spreadsheet of the RFP.

C. Volume II - Past Performance

1. General: The offeror shall utilize the PPI Tool in order to submit Volume II, Past Performance. The offeror shall submit Present and Past Performance Information for itself and any joint venture member in accordance with the format contained in the PPI Tool, RFP Attachment (1), Relevancy Assessment, and the following paragraphs. The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture member’s present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any subcontractor(s), even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement, or be considered critical to the delivery of timely 3PEP orders.

2. Past Performance Format: The requested present and past performance information shall be provided in a separate volume (i.e., electronic copies) labeled "Volume II - Past Performance". A summary page shall be provided for this acquisition, describing the proposed role of the offeror and any joint venture member (nature of work and percentage of overall work). Each offeror/joint venture member shall utilize the PPI Tool to complete information for four (4) active or completed efforts in the past five (5) years from the issuance date of the RFP that the offeror/joint venture member considers relevant in demonstrating its ability to perform the proposed effort. If the total number of such contracts exceeds four (4), each offeror/joint venture member shall address its four (4) most recent and relevant contracts. Please note that the offeror/joint venture member shall be the party to submit all performance information in the PPI Tool. The offeror's/joint venture member’s present and past performance information may include data on efforts performed by other predecessor companies, affiliates, other divisions or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the instant proposed effort. The information in the PPI Tool shall clearly indicate the division or corporate organization that performed or is presently performing the contract. Contracts listed may include those with the Federal Government, state and local governments or their agencies, and commercial customers.

3. Ordering Type Contracts Submission: If the contract you are submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, including but not limited to an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), only after issuance of a delivery/task order does performance occur. Given this, an individual order (or series of orders) under the basic ordering contract shall be submitted, in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. All information provided to the Government, for an ordering type contractual vehicle, shall be at the order level (i.e. a delivery/task order).

When determining what order (or series of orders) to submit for evaluation, please reference Section M, Paragraph II.C, for details on how the Government will evaluate each submitted effort for recency, relevancy, and quality. In order to achieve optimal programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort and complexities, as described in Section M Paragraph II.C.3, the offeror should consider submitting a series of orders, if possible. However, a series of orders should only be submitted if the series of orders is for continuous scope demonstrating relevancy to the instant acquisition. Not all ordering type contractual vehicles will have series of orders that meet this criteria. In this instance, only the single order demonstrating relevant scope should be submitted for evaluation.

When submitting an individual order (or series of orders) under an ordering type contractual vehicle, it is important that the offeror’s past performance information be accurate, complete, and in the correct format. If the information is not submitted in the correct format, the Government will not be able to evaluate the effort for recency, relevancy, and quality. There are specific places for submission of this information in the PPI Tool and the RFP Attachment (2), Relevancy Assessment. Please ensure the information submitted, in the PPI Tool and the RFP Attachment (2), Relevancy Assessment, is for each order (or series of orders), in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. This includes but is not limited to information such as the dollar value, period of performance, and quantity produced/managed for each order or series of orders. See paragraph 3.1 for further information on how to submit series of orders.

3.1 Series of Orders: When submitting a series of orders for evaluation, the offeror should list the orders under the basic ordering type contractual vehicle that demonstrate relevancy, as defined in the Relevancy Definitions in Section M Paragraph II.C.4. Per Section M Paragraph II.C.4., relevancy consists of not only scope complexities, but programmatic/logistical considerations. The programmatic/logistical considerations include dollar value, length of effort, and quantity produced. If an offeror submits a series of orders for evaluation, the total dollar value of each order (in the series of orders), the period of performance dates of each order (in the series of orders), the total quantity produced/managed on each order (in the series of orders) shall be submitted. The total dollar value of each order (in the series of orders) shall be added up to calculate the Total Dollar Value to be used in the evaluation, for the submitted effort. The total period of performance of each order (in the series of orders) shall be added up to calculate the Total Period of Performance to be used in the evaluation, for the submitted effort. The total quantity produced/managed on each order (in the series of orders) shall be added up to calculate the Total Quantity Produced to be used in the evaluation, for the submitted effort.

Caution: All orders within the series of orders being submitted should be for the same continuous scope demonstrating relevancy to the instant acquisition. The Government reserves the right to request additional information from the offeror or Points of Contact (POC) provided to verify that the series of orders is for the same continuous scope.

4. Key Personnel: The evaluation of offeror’s/joint venture members will not consider key personnel.

5. Joint Venture Member/Teaming Member Consent Form: In addition to the information provided in the PPI Tool (RFP Attachment (1)) and Relevancy Assessment (RFP Attachment (2)) for each entity as required above, the offeror must submit a consent letter executed by each of its proposed teaming member(s) authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the prime offeror to allow the prime offeror an opportunity to respond. A sample Joint Venture Member/Teaming Partner Consent Form is attached to this RFP (see RFP Attachment (5)). The consent form shall be completed by the team member(s) identified in your proposal. The completed consent forms shall be submitted as part of your Past Performance Volume II.

6. Small Business Compliance in Past Performance Efforts: On the four (4) contracts submitted in Volume II, Past Performance, include relevant information in the PPI Tool concerning the offeror’s/joint venture member’s compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business (SB) Concerns. When subcontracting possibilities existed on the contracts submitted by the offeror/joint venture member, address whether or not the offeror/joint venture member awarded subcontracts to SB concerns, veteran-owned SB concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned SB concerns, Historically Underutilized Business Zones (HUBZone) SB concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned SB concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. If none of the submitted contracts included this clause, whenever subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror/joint venture member policy to use SB concerns, veteran-owned SB concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned SB concerns, HUBZone SB concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned SB concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

7. PPI Tool and Relevancy Assessment Attachment: The offeror/joint venture member must submit information for each past performance effort in the PPI Tool and the RFP Attachment (2), Relevancy Assessment. The offeror/joint venture member (if applicable) shall focus its responses in the PPI Tool and RFP Attachment (1), Relevancy Assessment so that they clearly correlate present and past performance with the requirements of this RFP. The information must clearly describe the relevance of the effort to the work proposed. Provide the most current information for the POCs identified in the PPI Tool. At least two of the following (in descending order of availability) should be identified as current POCs in the PPI Tool:

(a) Procuring PCO/Contract Negotiator or equivalent

(b) Program/Project Manager, or equivalent

(c) Administrative PCO/Contract Administrator or equivalent

If problems were encountered during the performance of the identified contracts, provide evidence of the ability to isolate the root causes of problems and actions taken to resolve those causes in the information provided in the PPI Tool for each contract identified for evaluation. Problems not addressed in the PPI Tool, but found by the Government during the evaluation of the information in this volume, will be assumed to still exist. Note: In the case of Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS), if your input has already been provided and the rationale/circumstances have not changed, DO NOT repeat them here.

8. Past Performance Questionnaire: The Present/Past Performance Questionnaire (see RFP Attachment (3)) will be one means used by the Government to obtain present/past performance information. The Government reserves the right to change, alter, and/or supplement the questionnaire without further notice to the offeror(s). The offeror shall send out – and track the completion of - the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires (See RFP Attachment (3)) to each of the offeror’s/joint venture member’s POCs identified in the PPI Tool. The responsibility to send out and track the completion of the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires rests solely with the offeror - i.e., it shall not be delegated to any other entity. The Transmittal Letter (see RFP Attachment (4)) shall be used by the offeror in sending out the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires. Exert your best effort to ensure that at least two POCs per relevant contract submit a completed Present/Past Performance Questionnaire directly to the Government not later than the date established in the RFP for receipt of proposals. POCs may submit their completed Present/Past Performance Questionnaire either electronically or by mail. If sending electronically, follow the procedures outlined in paragraph I.B. Communications above, and email to: sebrina.ingram-hayes.1@us.af.mil and charles.harris.3@us.af.mil.

Once the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires are completed by your POCs, the information contained therein shall be considered source selection sensitive and shall not be released to you, the offeror. Therefore, any exchange/contact between the offeror/joint venture member and its own POCs in regards to comments made on the questionnaire is not permitted.

9. Client Authorization Letter: In the event that commercial contracts are presented as present/past performance sources of information, a client authorization letter shall be issued to those commercial POCs requesting/authorizing them to complete a Present/Past Performance Questionnaire. A sample client authorization letter is attached to this RFP (see RFP Attachment (6)). The offeror is required to send the client authorization letter(s) with the Present/Past Performance Questionnaire(s) to each POC on commercial contracts. A separate copy of client authorization letter(s) for each commercial contract shall be included in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance submission for the Government’s use in case additional questionnaires need to be sent by the Government after the RFP due date.

10. Follow-up Discussions: The Government may conduct follow-up discussions with any of the people identified in the PPI tool or in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance Volume. Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Government may obtain other information by sending out additional questionnaires and/or through other sources, other than those listed within the PPI tool.

11. RFP Attachment Legend: RFP Attachments ((2) Relevancy Assessment and (3) Present/Past Performance Questionnaire) must include the following legend at the top and bottom of the page:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

D. Volume III, Price Proposal

1. General Instructions:

a. The offeror shall submit pricing information in Volume III. The offeror shall complete the RFP Attachment 7 (Price Proposal Matrix) in the RFP.

b. Proposed unit/Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) prices shall be rounded to the nearest whole dollar. If any proposed unit/CLIN price does not meet the required rounding, the Government will round that unit/CLIN price to the nearest whole dollar. The Government-adjusted unit/CLIN price will become the offeror’s proposed amount.

c. Data beyond that required by this instruction shall not be submitted. All data relating to the proposed price, including all required supporting documentation, must be included in the section of the proposal designated as the price volume. Under no circumstances shall this data and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal.

d. Compliance with these requirements is mandatory and failure to comply may result in rejection of the proposal.

e. In accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b) and 15.403-3(a), data other than certified cost or pricing data may be required to support a determination of price reasonableness. Data shall be provided in accordance with FAR 15.403-5. If, after receipt of proposals, the PCO determines that there is insufficient data available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1 apply, the offeror shall be required to submit additional cost or pricing data.

f. In accordance with DFARS 215.371-3, cost and pricing data may be required in the event only one offer is received. If no exception in FAR 15.403-1(b) applies, the cost and pricing data shall be certified.

SECTION M PROVISION

TRADEOFF PROCEDURE

(PAST PERFORMANCE AND PRICE TRADEOFF)

FA8517-21-R-0001

M-900. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will use the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award up to three contracts in the 8(a) pool of 3PEP providers, and there will also be 3PEP program reserves established as described in paragraph Phase 1. Tradeoffs may be made between past performance and price, with past performance considered significantly more important than price, although price remains an important consideration in the evaluation. 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. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. 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 RFP and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph II below.

NOTICE TO OFFERORS: The Government intends to award up to three contracts for 8(a) as a result of the 3PEP solicitations. To ensure the Government maintains effective competition throughout the contractual period of performance, the PCO may use two phases in the 3PEP acquisition process.

Phase I: The 3PEP Program intends to award up to three contracts to the 8a Program participants, and identify at the time of award Program Reserves. Program Reserves will consist of up to three contractors that provide the best value to the Government in accordance with the Evaluation Basis for Award provision below. If the PCO determines at any point within the contract period of performance that it is in the best interest to increase the current pool of 3PEP Program participants, the Government will offer contract(s) to the Program Reserves until the 3PEP Program participant pool is at a level deemed acceptable by the PCO. The PCO has the sole and full discretion in determining the number of Program Reserve contracts to award based upon the need for increased competition, excessive workloads, poor performance, reduction in participant pool, and/or other bases deemed appropriate by the PCO. Also, if deemed appropriate by the PCO, 3PEP providers in the 8(a) pool that graduate from the 8(a) program during performance of this contract may be afforded the opportunity to be included into the Small Business Set Aside (SBSA) Program Reserve pool. This Program Reserve process will be bilateral, requiring contractor acceptance for contract formation. The resulting contract will not exceed the remaining period of performance for this contract, will include the same terms and conditions of the resultant contract, and will share in the aggregate ceiling of the 3PEP Program. The award of a contract to a Program Reserve only entitles that contractor to the minimum award as outlined within this contract. The identification of a contractor as a Program Reserve does not create any obligation for the Government or the contractor and will not be the basis for a claim of equitable adjustment. Likewise, the awarding of a contract to a Program Reserve contractor is a contemplated future action and not a basis for challenge, claim, or protest by the existing 3PEP Acquisition Program participants. If Program Reserves are no longer viable (i.e. graduate from program, etc.), the Government reserves the right to add new contractors into the 3PEP Program Reserve pool through a new competition.

Phase II: The PCO will determine whether it would be in the Government’s best interest to initiate an open season to add additional Contractors to any of the 8a pools at any time, subject to the following conditions:

1. An open season notice is published in Federal Business Opportunities in accordance with FAR Part 5, Publicizing Contract Actions.

2. An open season Solicitation is issued under current Federal procurement law.

3. The Solicitation identifies the total anticipated number of new contracts that the Government intends to award.

4. Any Offeror that meets the eligibility requirements set forth in the open season Solicitation may submit a proposal in response to the Solicitation.

5. The award decision under the open season Solicitation is based upon requirements and the same evaluation factors/sub-factors as the original Solicitation.

6. An Offeror’s proposal must meet all of the requirements of the original Solicitation.

7. If the intent of the addition is to “replace” 3PEP SB contractors acquired, merged, removed, etc., an Offeror’s proposal must receive a performance confidence assessment rating that is the same as or higher than the Contractor with the lowest performance confidence assessment rating within the 3PEP SB Pool being applied for. For example, if all contractors within the 8a Pool received a Satisfactory Confidence assessment rating, the offeror must receive a performance confidence assessment rating of Satisfactory or Substantial.

8. If the intent of the addition is to “add” 3PEP SB contractors to increase the total number of contractors in a given program reserve pool, contractors will be selected using the same performance confidence assessment ratings found in section C. Volume II, Past Performance Factor, used to select the original awardees.

9. The terms and conditions of any resulting awards are identical to the existing version of the 3PEP SB Pool and,

10. The period of performance term for any new awards is coterminous with the existing term for all other Contractors.

Immediately upon elevation of a Program Reserve to Program Participant, the Contractor is eligible to submit a proposal in response to subsequent Price Lists and receive task order awards with the same rights and obligations as any other Contractor.

Note: The current 3PEP awardees are exempt from this competition. Offerors are instructed to propose on either FA8517-21-R-0001 or FA8517-21-R-0002, but not both. Offerors submitting a proposal under both RFPs may be determined noncompliant with the terms and conditions of the RFPs and may be determined to be not eligible for award under either RFP.

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by volume):

A. General

1. Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions, however the Government reserves the right to hold discussions as outlined FAR 15.306. If the PCO 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 PCO, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, 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.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. Completed RFP: Volume I, Completed RFP shall be evaluated to ensure the RFP and any amendments issued are signed, and all “fill-in” clauses and provisions are completed as required. The cover letter shall be evaluated to determine the number, types, and accompanying rationale of exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions. The Government reserves the right to determine any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions as being non-compliant with the stated solicitation requirements, and thus render the proposal not eligible for award.

C. Volume II, Past Performance Factor

1. General: The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture members’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

2. Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

a) Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume. Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

b) Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror and/or joint venture member has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

c) Critical Joint Venture Members: The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture members’ present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any subcontractor(s) even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement or be considered critical to the delivery of timely 3PEP orders.

d) 4. Key Personnel: The evaluation of offeror’s/joint venture members will not consider key personnel.

e) Confidence Assessments: Subsequent to the Government’s assignment of relevancy ratings to each effort identified in the offeror’s Volume II.a, the Government will make a confidence determination of the offeror’s capabilities to successfully perform the 3PEP effort. Confidence assessments will be determined from all the information provided by the offeror, as well as information that the Government obtains from their customers, Government databases, and other credible sources. The Government may consider an offeror’s contracts in the aggregate in the assessment of a confidence rating should the past and present performance data lend itself to this approach. That is, if an offeror’s three contracts were performed concurrently (in part or in whole), such may be considered in the assignment of the overall confidence rating. Then considering the offeror’s respective role and their work in aggregate, a confidence assessment rating will be assigned for the team as a whole.

3. Ordering Type Contracts Submission: In an ordering type contractual vehicle, performance is demonstrated at the order level (i.e. a delivery/task order). Therefore, in accordance with Section L, if the contract you are submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, including but not limited to an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), the offeror should have submitted an individual delivery/task order (or series of orders) for evaluation, in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. The Government shall use the information submitted for each order (or series of orders) to evaluate the effort’s recency, relevancy, and quality.

3.1 Series of Orders: If a series of orders was submitted for evaluation, in lieu of the basic ordering contract, the offeror should have provided the total dollar value, total period of performance, and total quantity produced.

· The Government shall add up all total dollar values in the series of orders to arrive at a Total Dollar Value for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

· The Government shall add up the period of performance of each order to calculate the Total Period of Performance for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

· The Government shall add up the total quantity for each order to calculate the Total Quantity Produced for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

The Total Dollar Value, Total Period of Performance, and Total Quantity Produced/Managed, for the series of orders, will be used to evaluate the submitted effort’s programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, as described in Section M, Paragraph II.C.4 Note. As explained in Section M, Paragraph II.C.4. Note, the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort and complexities will be evaluated to arrive at a Relevancy Rating for the effort. The more orders in the series of orders, the higher the potential programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort could be.

Caution: All orders within the series of orders being submitted should contain the same continuous scope. These orders within the series of orders should demonstrate relevance to the instant acquisition. The Government reserves the right to request additional information from the offeror of POC provided, in order to verify that the series of orders is for the same continuous scope.

4. Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of each contract submitted for evaluation. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent four (4) submitted contracts. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s Volume III of its proposal:

· VERY RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Each very relevant effort shall demonstrate at a minimum:

· Sourcing of at least 300 items or more that demonstrate the same, or similar, Federal Stock Classes, as identified in the 3PEP Statement of Work, and included

· A pool of at least 50 vendor subcontracts, and,

· An accumulative period of performance of at least 5 years.

· Estimated Per Unit Minimum Cost: $40

· RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Each relevant effort shall demonstrate at a minimum:

· Sourcing of at least 100 - 299 items or more that demonstrate the same, or similar, Federal Stock Classes, as identified in the 3PEP Statement of Work, and included

· A pool of 20 - 49 vendor subcontracts, and,

· An accumulative period of performance of at least 3 years and up to 5 years.

· Estimated Per Unit Minimum Cost: $30

· SOMEWHAT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Each somewhat relevant effort shall demonstrate at a minimum:

· Sourcing of at least 25 - 99 items or more that demonstrate the same, or similar, Federal Stock Classes, as identified in the 3PEP Statement of Work, and included

· A pool of 1 - 19 vendor subcontracts, and,

· An accumulative period of performance of at least 1 years and up to 3 years.

· Estimated Per Unit Minimum Cost: $20

· NOT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

A contract is defined as an agreement between two parties that includes a period of performance, scope of work, and an approved funding obligation. An IDIQ/Requirement basic contract in itself is not relevant because it does not include an approved funding obligation. However, an IDIQ/Requirement order, or series of orders, may be considered relevant based on the above definitions of relevancy.

NOTE: The Scope of effort in the above definitions not only includes the NSN complexities identified for each effort within the 3PEP RFP, but also includes, but not limited to, quantity managed and length of effort, along with a track record of delivering equipment items commensurate to those required under the 3PEP program, per the SOW. The main elements of the scope and magnitude shall include, but not be limited to, the demonstrated ability to do the following:

a. Manage qualified vendors to ensure they meet performance and quality requirements.

b. Evaluate adequacy of data/drawings as they relate to sourcing the items.

c. Shall provide electronic ordering and tracking of items with the Government.

d. Increase the utilization of qualified SB manufacturers and vendors to the maximum extent practical.

e. Respond to pricing actions on the buy list.

When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the complexities, and the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort as separate aspects. If both of these aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract effort, the overall relevancy rating assigned to that contract may be affected. For example, if the submitted contract meets essentially the same complexities, but involves only some of the scope and magnitude of effort, a lesser relevancy rating may be assigned.

5. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below.

Adjectival Rating Definition

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.

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.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral”. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

6. Small Business Compliance in Past Performance Efforts: Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated the offeror’s/joint venture members’ compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of SB Concerns. That is, on the four (4) respective contracts submitted for evaluation by the offeror/joint venture member, when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the offeror/joint venture member award subcontracts to SB concerns, veteran-owned SB concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned SB concerns, HUBZone SB concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned SB concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. (Please note that FAR 52.219.8 does apply to ALL offerors) If none of the contracts submitted by the offeror/joint venture members included this clause, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror/joint venture member policy to use SB concerns, veteran-owned SB concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned SB concerns, HUBZone SB concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned SB concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

D. Price Factor. The offeror’s proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance in accordance with paragraphs A and B below. A Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated in accordance with paragraph C.

A. Reasonableness: The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government-obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.4 may be required to support the proposed price.

B. Balance: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. An overstated or understated CLIN price may be due to (a) illogical progression of rates, factors or unit prices, (b) unit prices that do not take into account quantity variations, or (c) the “front loading” of CLINs; either of these situations would reflect an inaccurate “true” cost for that CLIN. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced line items or sub-line items. Prices submitted will be compared and evaluated to ensure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each offeror’s response to the pricing structure in RFP Attachment 7 (Price Proposal Matrix). Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

C. TEP: The sum of the evaluated prices for each Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLIN will represent the TEP. The evaluated CLIN prices will be calculated as follows:

a. All dollar amounts provided shall be rounded to the nearest whole dollar.

b. Proposals shall be evaluated, for award purposes only, based upon the total price proposed for the basic requirements (basic award) and other price-related issues. The TEP shall include all costs associated with providing the final item to the Government. Each item will have two (2) firm fixed prices: Freight on Board (FOB) origin (no transportation costs (TC)) and FOB destination (to include TC). The unit price of each item will include the offeror’s service cost, commercial packaging and associated transportation costs as applicable, and any costs associated with Unique Identification (UID), as appropriate. The prices shall be identified as FFP for each item as identified below. No additional cost for items will be paid by the Government at the time of evaluation or during contract performance.

c. Offerors are to submit pricing for following:

i. 8(a): The Government will release ninety (90) items for offerors to price. Each offeror must submit a price for a minimum of seventy percent (70%) of the items (63 items). Offerors submitting a price for less than 70% of the items may cause their proposal to be determined to be noncompliant with the terms of the RFP and determined to be not eligible for award. After reviewing all 90 items, the Government will create a subset consisting only of items that all offerors have priced. Any items with a Technical Support Request (TSR) submission will not be included in the subset. The Government will then use for evaluation purposes only the subset, consisting only of items that all offerors have priced, to calculate unit prices in accordance with the formula in the paragraph below. Offerors are advised that the evaluation of item prices shall not obligate the Government to award each item.

d. For evaluation purposes only, unit prices will be calculated using the following formula:

i. Total evaluated unit price = ((B+C)/2).

ii. Total evaluated item cost = total evaluated unit price * E.

Note: Column A in the example below consists only of items that all offerors have priced.

The example above is provided for demonstration purposes only. The Government-estimated quantities and prices contained within are arbitrary numbers. The example is in no way reflective of the actual/total requirements as defined in the RFP. It is provided only as a means of identifying how the various types of calculations will be performed.

image1.emf