52.212-2 ADDENDUM – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD-.docx

52.212-2 Addendum

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

MROi On-Site Functional Office Support (OSFOS)

3 Jan 2023

52.212-2 ADDENDUM – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12 for commercial acquisitions. It is being conducted in-conjunction with FAR Part 13 Simplified Acquisition Procedures. While not mandatory, some of the evaluation procedures of FAR Part 15, and as supplemented by DFARS/AFFARS, may be additionally utilized at the discretion of the contracting officer. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of the Technical Proposal and Price Proposal. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by 52.212-1 Addendum of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Decision Authority reasonably determines that the technical and/or overall business approach of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference. The Decision Authority will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the Decision Authority 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 will award one (1) contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. Award will be based upon an integrated assessment of the following evaluation factors:

(1) TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

· Subfactor One: Air Force (AF) Depot Maintenance Operations Experience

· Subfactor Two: System Implementation Experience

· Subfactor Three: Experience with AF Depot Systems

· Subfactor Four: Agile Development Experience

(2) PRICE

· Subfactor One: Price Reasonableness

· Subfactor Two: Balance

· Subfactor Three: Completeness

· Subfactor Four: Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the Offeror’s specified expiration time, the government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

The Government intends to evaluate the proposals and make award without interchanges; therefore, it is imperative that offeror(s) submit their best terms initially. The Government may conduct interchanges with one, some, none, or all Offerors at its discretion.

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

(A) Basis for Award

The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals based upon the rating structure below. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of interchanges, will be considered for award. The Offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without interchanges. The government reserves the right to have interchanges with none, one, some or all offerors at its discretion.

The Technical Factor is significantly more important than Price.

(B) Factor ONE – technical PROPOSAL

1. Technical Proposals will be evaluated for acceptability in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section. The Technical Volume must convey to the Government that the offeror is capable, possesses adequate technical expertise and experience, possesses sufficient resources, and is able to plan, organize, and use those resources in a coordinated and timely fashion to meet the needs of the Government. The offeror’s proposal shall NOT simply copy and paste, rephrase or restate the PWS language for the Technical Volume.

The Subfactors are not equal. Subfactor importance is as follows:

· Subfactor 1: Extremely Important

· Subfactor 2: Very Important

· Subfactor 3: Important

· Subfactor 4: Somewhat Important

Each Proposal will be given a color technical rating based on the following:

Technical Ratings:

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is not awardable, or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

2. The Technical Proposals will be evaluated using the table above for the degree to which they meet the requirements of the following sub-factor criteria, combined with an assessment of risk as defined at Table B below. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with significant strengths and weaknesses.

Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating. These two ratings have approximately equal impact for the evaluation of each Technical subfactor. The Government’s evaluation will determine the extent to which an Offeror meets, exceeds, or fails to meet each subfactor, and combined with the importance of each subfactor as indicated above, including risk assessment as defined in Table B, an overall color-rating assigned to each offeror’s Technical Proposal.

The Technical Rating includes consideration of proposal strengths and deficiencies, defined below:

Strength: An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level (See FAR 15.001).

The Technical Risk Rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with proposal weaknesses, defined below:

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (See FAR 15.001)

Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (See FAR 15.001)

Technical risk shall be rated using the ratings listed in Table 2B.

Table 2B. Technical Risk Rating Method

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach and capabilities explanation and how they will use their approach and capabilities to accomplish/satisfy requirements, and not merely restate requirements.

(C) Factor Two – price

1. The pricing criteria used for evaluation are (1) price reasonableness, (2) Balance, (3) Completeness and (4) Total Evaluated Price.

a. Price Reasonableness The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 (Proposal Analysis Techniques). Generally, adequate price competition will satisfy the criteria for price reasonableness.

b. Balance Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items or sub-line items. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

c. Completeness The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with clause 52.212-1 of the RFP. Incomplete price submissions (i.e. not all CLINs filled in) will NOT be evaluated and the proposal may be eliminated from the competition (if edits to this factor are needed, I can/will finalize before release.

d. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the proposed prices for the base period of all CLINs and the option years (including FAR clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services listed on the TEP Worksheet. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. The TEP is for evaluation purposes only; evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. A no bid or an omitted CLIN price may result in an incomplete price submission. An omitted CLIN price may result in proposal elimination. The TEP is for evaluation purposes only, however all proposed CLIN prices are contractually binding as prices for contract and options.

(D) SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

(End of Provision)