Addendum - Evaluation - Commercial Items.pdf

ADDENDUM

52.212-2 EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

1.0 General Instructions

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

The Government intends to award a firm fixed-price contract under Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP) in accordance with FAR Part 13 – Simplified Acquisition Procedures and FAR Part 12- Acquisition of Commercial Items, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at http://www.acqusition.gov. Contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Addendum 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors- Commercial Items of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors to provide the best overall offer to the Government. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the evaluation process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.2 Award Decision

A single contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by 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 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 Contracting Officer reasonably determines that the superior technical performance of the higher priced offer outweighs the price difference. The Contracting Officer will base the contract award decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all evaluation criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government evaluation team and the Contracting Officer will strive for maximum objectivity, the evaluation process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.3 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one (1) contract for the AFMETCAL Program. However, based on price and other considerations, the Government reserves the right to not award a contract.

1.4 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

Attachment 5

1.5 Exclusion of Grossly Deficient Proposals

The Government may exclude a proposal from this competition prior to evaluating the proposal against the evaluation factors, if an initial assessment of the proposal shows the proposal to be grossly deficient. Grossly deficient proposals are proposals that fail to address essential requirements of the solicitation, fail to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory requirements set forth in the RFQ, or in some other manner do not represent a reasonable initial effort by the offeror to address the instructions and evaluation criteria of the

RFQ.

1.6 Discussions

The Contracting Officer (CO) reserves the right to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from both a technical and price standpoint.

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the final award decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

1.7 Solicitation Requirements, Terms, and Conditions

The Purchase Description (PD) contains requirements that must be contractually satisfied in order to be eligible for contract award. These requirements are essential characteristics for execution of this contract. Furthermore, 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 factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award.

Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

2 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Technical

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

Relative Importance of Factors. The relative importance of each factor is as follows: The Technical Factor and Past Performance are significantly more important than Price; however, Price will contribute substantially to the Contract Award Decision.

2.2 Factor 1: Purchase Description Technical Requirements

The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the proposed systems for Factor 1 as Acceptable or Unacceptable as described in Table 1 below. If Factor 1 is evaluated as “Unacceptable” it will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable.

Only those proposed systems determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

Table 1

PURCHASE DESCRIPTION TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

The proposed systems shall be evaluated against the Purchase Description (PD) Technical Requirements.

Description: This factor evaluates the ability to offer a complete description of the proposed system and its ability to meet the PD requirements. The evaluation shall take into account the level of detail, theory, analysis, and test data used to substantiate the proposed claims.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is Technically Acceptable when the offeror’s proposed system meets all the PD requirements.

2.3 Factor 2: Past Performance

If Factor 1 is found to be Acceptable, the Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the proposed systems by assigning one of the ratings described in Table 2 below for only subfactor 2. If factor 1 is found to be Unacceptable, the Government’s technical evaluation team shall mark the proposed system’s factor 2 as not evaluated. Only those proposed systems determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or because of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

2.3.1 Ratings

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2 – Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below.

Table 2

2.3.2 Evaluation Process

The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements.

Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical factor. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

2.3.2.1 Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past 5 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.3.2.2 Relevancy Assessment

TABLE 2- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

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.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE

(NEUTRAL)

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.

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical factor. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor or teaming partner. The past performance information forms (PIFs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts (DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 3):

Table 3 Rating Definition

VERY RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

2.3.2.3 Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality (how well the contractor performed on the contracts) of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical factor; however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available.

Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(v), the assessment will consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with subcontracting plan goals for small disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns, monetary targets for SDB participation, and notifications submitted under FAR 52.219-25, Small Disadvantaged Business Participation Program—Disadvantaged Status and Reporting.

Attachment 5 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm

The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Quality Assessment Rating/Color

Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E)/BLUE During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

VERY GOOD (VG)/PURPLE During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered.

Contractor took timely corrective action.

SATISFACTORY (S)/GREEN During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL (M)/YELLOW During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

UNSATISFACTORY(U)/RED During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or fail) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

NOT APPLICABLE

(N)/WHITE

Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

2.3.3 Assigning Ratings

As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating.

Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

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

2.4 Price Factor

Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) reasonableness, (3) unbalanced pricing, and (4) Total Evaluated Price. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable, and/or unaffordable will not be considered for award. Additionally, an offer may be rejected if the CO determines unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.4.1 Completeness

The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness.

2.4.2 Reasonableness

The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated in order to determine if it is reasonable. 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. For additional information, see FAR 31.201-3.

2.4.3 Unbalanced pricing

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated.

2.4.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Offeror’s TEP will be evaluated by using offeror’s completed TEP worksheet. Prices on TEP worksheet shall match prices listed in Supplies or Services and Prices/Cost Section. The total evaluated price will be calculated as follows:

(a) On the basic year, the evaluated price will be the unit price proposed multiplied by the specified unit quantity (e.g. 2 EACH).

(b) For the option CLINs, the evaluated price will be the yearly unit price proposed multiplied by the anticipated quantity for that year on the Option CLIN. Offeror’s are advised that the evaluation of options shall not obligate the government to exercise such options.

(c) The sum of all CLINs (Basic Year and Options) will represent the total evaluated price.

52.212-2 EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS