52.212-2 Addendum Evaluation.pdf

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (Oct 2014)

1. GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1. This competitive best value source selection will be conducted in accordance with (IAW) FAR Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items; FAR Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, DoD Source Selection Procedures effective 20 August 2022 and Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5315.3 for Source Selection as revised 2 May 22 using the Subjective Tradeoff source selection process. Award will be made to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9 and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements and is judged, through an integrated assessment of the specific evaluation criteria, to represent the best value to the Government. In accordance with FAR 52.212-1, the Government reserves the right to award without discussions, but may conduct discussions if the Government determines it is necessary.

1.2. To be eligible for award, offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions; representations and certifications; evaluation factor requirements; and be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9. If an offeror fails to meet all solicitation requirements, the Government may not make an award to that offeror.

1.3. The Government intends to select one contractor. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of proposal(s) submitted and the availability of funds.

1.4. The CLINs series for this contract range from: 0001 – 4014.

2. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY:

2.1. Evaluation Methodology. The Government will utilize trade-off evaluation methodology whereby past performance may be traded off for price. This may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced contractor where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority determines that the past performance of the higher priced contractor outweighs the price difference. Non-price factors when combined are more important than price. However, as proposals become equalized, the evaluated price becomes more important.

2.2. Evaluation Factors. Proposals will be evaluated using three evaluation factors: (1) Technical/Management Approach (2) Past Performance, and (3) Price.

2.3. Technical/Management Approach. (Volume I of Proposal) The offerors’ proposals shall demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the nature and scope of work required. The Government will not search for data to cure problems or address inconsistencies in an Offeror’s proposal. This factor will be evaluated at the subfactor level as Acceptable/Unacceptable. An overall factor-level rating will not be assigned. To be eligible for award, an offeror must receive an “Acceptable” rating in all subfactors.

There are two subfactors under Factor 1, Technical/Management Approach; they are (1) Management Structure and (2) Transition and Staffing.

2.4. Past Performance. (Volume II of Proposal) The Government will evaluate each offeror's recent and relevant present past performance as defined within this document. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the contractor's ability to perform the full range of services, IAW PWS requirements and other technical factors, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is based on the contractor's overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. Each contractor will receive one overall performance confidence rating as shown in Table 3 of this document. For purposes of this evaluation, the “offeror” includes any joint ventures, subcontractors and/or teaming partners proposed as part of the Prime Contractor’s team under this effort. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying services that meet contract requirements including PWS requirements, price and schedule and any other aspects of the contract reported.

2.5. Price. (Volume III of Proposal) An offeror’s proposed price must be determined fair, reasonable, and balanced to be rated eligible for award. Offerors should submit their best price proposal with the original submission in the case that the Government decides to award without discussions. All Price proposals will be evaluated by the total overall evaluated price (TOEP). The TOEP of each proposal will be calculated by adding the total proposed price for all CLINs including the Transition, base period, option periods and fifty percent (50%) of the offeror’s Option Year 4 price (the price for the optional extension of services IAW FAR 52.217-8). All CLIN values provided by the Government, such as the surge work CLIN, will be part of the TOEP and shall not be adjusted.

2.6. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions in accordance with FAR 52.212-1 and make an award based on acceptable initial proposals. Accordingly, offerors are advised to submit proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable without additional information.

2.7. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions but may conduct discussions if the Government determines it is necessary. If the Government elects to open discussions, the competitive range may include proposals rated as Technically “Unacceptable” at the sole discretion of the Government. The Government may make a final determination as to whether the Offeror’s technical proposal is acceptable solely based on the initial proposal submitted. Therefore, Offerors are advised to submit proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable without additional information.

2.7.1. If the Government holds discussions, the Government may issue evaluation notices to offerors in the competitive range. Responses will be requested from applicable offerors and discussions will be opened. Formal responses to evaluation notices (if applicable), discussion items, and final proposal revisions will be considered in making the award decision.

2.8. Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) will be requested from each offeror in the competitive range at the conclusion of discussions. Any revision or non-concurrence to contract terms and conditions submitted in the FPR may not be subject to further discussion or negotiation and may render the offer unacceptable to the Government. This provision is not intended to restrict the offeror’s opportunity to revise figures (e.g., prices, discounts, percentages, rates, etc.); rather, it is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government which could result if new or revised terms and conditions are submitted in the FPR that have not been fully disclosed, discussed, and understood during discussions or negotiations. Hence, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the FPR, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

3. EVALUATION FACTORS

3.1. Factor 1 – Technical/Management Approach. The offerors’ proposals shall demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the nature and scope of work required, as stated in the PWS. The Government will not search for data to cure problems or address inconsistencies in an Offeror’s proposal.

There are two (2) subfactors under the Technical/Management Approach evaluation factor. They are (A) Management Structure and (B) Transition/Staffing. Factor 1 proposals will be assessed at the subfactor level IAW Table 1.

TABLE 1: Factor 1 Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

3.1.1. Subfactor A: Management Structure. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for meeting the requirements of the solicitation within the requested information from paragraph 7.3.1 of the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1.

3.1.2. Subfactor B: Transition and Staffing Plan. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for meeting the requirements of the solicitation within the requested information from paragraph 7.3.2 of the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1.

3.2. Factor 2 - Past Performance.

3.2.1. The Government will evaluate this factor to assess the contractor's recent and relevant present and past performance work record to determine confidence in the contractor's probability of successfully performing as proposed. For purposes of this evaluation, the "contractor" includes any joint ventures, subcontractors and/or teaming partners proposed as part of the prime contractor's team under this effort.

The Government will evaluate the contractor's recent and relevant demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet user's needs, including quality, cost, and schedule.

3.2.2. A Recency determination rating will be assigned for each contract PPI reference provided. Recent past performance is defined as active work/services (minimum of 12 months) that was/were performed during the five (5) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation. This includes contracts that were started prior to this time, but still in effect with active performance (minimum of 12 months) as of five (5) years from the date of this solicitation. The Government will not consider performance that concluded more than five (5) years prior to the date of issuance of this solicitation. A contract PPI reference determined to not be Recent will not be evaluated for relevancy. Contractor's performance record during the entire contract period will be evaluated. For purposes of this evaluation, the “offeror” includes any joint ventures, subcontractors and/or teaming partners proposed as part of the Prime Contractor’s team under this effort.

3.2.3. A Relevancy determination of the contractor's present and past performance will be made based on the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the contractor, joint venture, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government will validate the relevancy information contained in the proposed PPI Summary. The Government is not bound by the contractor's opinion of relevancy. Relevancy for this solicitation is defined IAW with Table 2.

TABLE 2 – Relevancy Definitions

Very Relevant Present/Past performance efforts included customer service support in a minimum of four (4) of the eight (8) functions to be performed under this contract and as described in the PWS, which are:

- Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS)

- Real-time Personnel Identification System (RAPIDS)

- Automatic Records Management System (ARMS)

- Defense Civilian Personnel Data System (DCPDS)

- Military Awards and Decorations

- Face-to-Face Customer Service on a Government Instillation

- Computer Systems Management, hardware, and troubleshooting, to include experience with Oracle.

- Managing Cybersecurity Functions

AND staff geographically dispersed between three (3) or more locations AND a total contract value of $10M or more.

Relevant Present/Past performance efforts included customer service support in a minimum of three (3) of the eight (8) functions to be performed under this contract and as described in the PWS, which are:

- Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS)

- Real-time Personnel Identification System (RAPIDS)

- Automatic Records Management System (ARMS)

- Defense Civilian Personnel Data System (DCPDS)

- Military Awards and Decorations

- Face-to-Face Customer Service on a Government Instillation

- Computer Systems Management, hardware, and troubleshooting, to include experience with Oracle.

- Managing Cybersecurity Functions

AND staff geographically dispersed between two (2) or more locations AND a total contract value of $7.5M or more.

Somewhat Relevant Present/Past performance efforts included customer service support in a minimum of two (2) of the eight (8) functions to be performed under this contract and as described in the PWS, which are:

- Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS)

- Real-time Personnel Identification System (RAPIDS)

- Automatic Records Management System (ARMS)

- Defense Civilian Personnel Data System (DCPDS)

- Military Awards and Decorations

- Face-to-Face Customer Service on a Government Instillation

- Computer Systems Management, hardware, and troubleshooting, to include experience with Oracle.

- Managing Cybersecurity Functions

AND performance at one (1) or more locations AND a total contract value of $5M or more.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires – anything less than as defined for somewhat relevant.

3.2.4. Confidence Assessment Rating. A confidence assessment rating will be determined based on the relevant past performance information provided in each contract PPI reference and any additional sources found by the Government. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the contractor's ability to perform the full range of services, IAW PWS requirements and other technical factors, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is based on the contractor's overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. Each contractor will receive one overall performance confidence rating as shown in Table 3.

TABLE 3 – Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

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.

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.

3.2.5. The Government will, as deemed necessary, confirm past and present performance data identified by offerors in their proposals and obtain additional past and present performance data, if available from other sources. Past performance information may be obtained through one or more of the following: 1) the Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS); 2) similar systems of other Government departments and agencies; 3) questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition;

4) DCMA channels; 5) interviews with program managers and COs; and 6) other sources known to the Government, including commercial sources. The main purpose of the past performance evaluation is to appropriately consider each offeror’s demonstrated record of contract compliance by supplying services that meet users’ needs by examining references determined by the Government to be recent and relevant in relation to this requirement and the assigned NAICS code 561110 – Office Administrative Services.

3.2.6. In the case of contractors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the contractor may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance. In this case, the contractor's past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of "neutral."

3.3. Factor 3 – Price

3.3.1. Price will be evaluated using techniques established in FAR 15.404-1 to ensure the Government receives a fair, reasonable, and balanced price.

3.3.1.1. In addition to the price analysis as described at FAR 15.404-1(b), price proposals will be analyzed to identify any potential unbalanced pricing (See FAR 15.404-1(g)). If the Government sees a wide variation in proposed contract line-item prices, the technical evaluation team will be informed as soon as possible during the initial evaluation of proposals so the appropriate personnel may seek clarity through offeror exchanges. Absent any issues related to the stated requirement, unbalanced pricing may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal.

3.3.1.2. There is a great expectation of competition for this requirement; thus, offerors are cautioned to present their best price proposal up-front. The offeror’s price proposal shall represent the offeror’s best effort to respond to the solicitation.

3.3.1.3. Price will be evaluated on the total overall evaluated price. The total overall evaluated price consists of the total proposed price for all the firm fixed price Contract Line-Item Numbers (CLINs) for the transition, the basic contract period plus all option periods, to include 50% of the fourth option period for the 52.217-8 six (6) month extension.

NOTE: Evaluation of the option periods shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.