Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation –Commercial Items.pdf

SSP Attachment 4 Excerpts from Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 -- Evaluation -- Commercial Items

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 -- Evaluation -- Commercial Items

1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This is a competitive Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) source selection under FAR Subpart 15.101-1. Tradeoffs will be made only between Past Performance and Price among those Offerors who have been determined to be Technically Acceptable. 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 past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference.

While the Government source selection evaluation team will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. To be considered for award, the offeror must be determined to be compliant and responsible (as described in FAR 9.104), meet all solicitation requirements (including terms and conditions), be technically acceptable, be assessed a past performance confidence rating of "Satisfactory Confidence" or "Substantial Confidence", and have a price that is fair, reasonable and balanced with a realistic Professional Employee compensation Plan (PECP).

1.2 The evaluation will be based on three (3) Factors: Volume I: FACTOR I Technical; Volume II: FACTOR II - Past Performance; and Volume III: FACTOR III - Price. The Government will not search for data to cure problems or address inconsistencies in an Offeror's proposal. Proposals will be evaluated using the following evaluation process steps:

1.2.1 Step 1 - Proposal Adequacy: The Government will review proposals for completeness (adhering to all information/instructions in the Solicitation instructions). If an offeror fails to comply with instructions in the Solicitation, the Offeror's proposal may be deemed incomplete and will receive no further consideration and be eliminated from the competition. The Government will only evaluate proposals deemed complete.

1.2.2 Step 2 -- Security: Prior to proposal evaluation of offerors' Technical, Past Performance and Price volumes -- all offerors must demonstrate their company and employees possess a Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information clearance to include Special Intelligence (SI), Talent Keyhole (TK), GAMMA (G), HUMNIT Control System (HCS) and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is required for access. If a company does not have an active Top-Secret Facility/Personnel Clearance (as verified by the CAGE Code) at time of proposal submission, the proposal will not be evaluated or receive any further consideration

1.2.3 Step 3 - Factor I: Technical: The Government will evaluate all complete proposals for technical acceptability. A rating of "Acceptable" or "Unacceptable" will be assigned for each subfactor. All subfactors must be deemed "Acceptable" for Factor 1 to be deemed "Acceptable".

To be eligible for award, an offeror must receive an "Acceptable" rating for Factor I. Only proposals determined "Acceptable" on Factor 1 will proceed to be evaluated for Factor 2. Proposals determined "Unacceptable" for Factor 1 will receive no further consideration.

1.2.4 Step 4 - Factor II: Past Performance: The Government will evaluate all technically acceptable offeror's past performance submissions for recency, relevancy, and quality. Each past performance submission will be determined as recent or not recent. Then, each recent past performance submission will receive a relevancy rating. Next, each recent and relevant past performance submission will be assessed for quality. As a result of recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the individual contracts evaluated an overall past performance rating will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. Only offeror's with a past performance rating of "Satisfactory" or "Substantial" will move on to Step 4 to be evaluated under Factor III, Price. Any proposals receiving a rating below "Satisfactory" for Factor II will receive no further consideration.

1.2.5 Step 4 - Factor III: Price. The proposed Price Volume will be evaluated for completeness, balance, fairness and reasonableness. The PECP will be evaluated for realism.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Factor I - Technical: The Government will evaluate each offeror's technical proposal, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound approach that meets the requirements of the PWS, and demonstrates a thorough and comprehensive understanding of those requirements. Factor 1: Technical, is comprised of 3 subfactors:

(a) Subfactor 1: Technical Approach

(b) Subfactor 2: Staffing Plan

(c) Subfactor 3: Mission Essential Plan

The Government will evaluate Subfactors 1 through 3 on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis, assigning ratings as defined below.

Acceptable - Proposal must both 1) clearly meet the minimum requirements and 2) indicate an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Unacceptable - Proposal does not 1) clearly meet the minimum requirements, 2) does not indicate an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and 3) is not awardable.

2.1.1 Subfactor 1: Technical Approach: This subfactor is met when the offeror adequately demonstrates an acceptable approach to operating and maintaining equipment and systems detailed in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) Tasks (see PWS Section 3).

2.1.2 Subfactor 2: Staffing Plan: This subfactor is met when the offeror adequately demonstrates an acceptable approach to staff, recruit, retain, and replace personnel with the experience required to perform the full range of tasks defined in the PWS.

2.1.3 Subfactor 3: Mission Essential Plan: This subfactor is met when offeror adequately demonstrates their ability to mobilize mission essential personnel during an emergency response (see PWS Para 3.14) .

2.2 Factor II - Past Performance: The Government will evaluate each offeror's past performance submissions for recency, relevancy, and quality. Past performance will be evaluated as a measure of the Government's assessment of the offeror's ability to successfully perform based on the offeror's record of recent and relevant performance in supplying the services that meet the PWS requirements. Past performance will be rated as defined in the "Performance Confidence Assessment Rating" table below. To be considered for award, an offeror's performance rating must be "Satisfactory" or "Substantial."

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATING TABLE

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 rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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.

(a) The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance ratings as described in the "Performance Confidence Assessment Rating" table above.

(b) Past Performance 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 requirements defined in the PWS. 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, such as Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems and commercial sources.

Interviews may be conducted with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials and the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) or other sources known to the Government.

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and will be assigned a past performance rating of "Neutral". Additionally, more recent and relevant performance will have a greater impact on the past performance rating than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

2.2.1 Recency: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have at least six (6) months of contract performance within the last three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.2.2 Relevancy: For each recent citation, a relevancy determination of the offeror's present and past performance information, including subcontractors and teaming partners, will be made. More relevant performance may have a greater impact on the past performance rating than less recent or less relevant efforts. Relevancy consists of present or past performance of a similar magnitude of effort and complexity of effort as it relates to the requirements of this acquisition. The Government is not bound by the offeror's opinion of relevancy. The performance matrix and data obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevance of present and past information. The Government will conduct a review and evaluation of all performance data obtained to determine how closely the work performed relates to the proposed effort. The Government will, as deemed necessary, confirm present and past performance information identified by offerors in their proposals. The Government may consider relevant information performed for other agencies of the federal, state or local Governments and commercial customers. 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 citations, 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 and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance.

The Government will use the degrees of relevancy identified in the "Past Performance Relevancy Ratings" table below.

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATING TABLE

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.

2.2.3 Quality: The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent and relevant past performance and will determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to the past performance evaluation rating. The Government will consider information from Past Performance Questionnaires and other Government resources on how well the Offeror performed on past contract citations and other contracts that are available from other Government sources. For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the quality of products or services and the work performed will be assessed. The quality performance 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 Government will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall adverse trends. More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the past performance rating than a less relevant effort.

2.2.4 Individual contract past performance regarding predecessor companies or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be rated the same as past performance information for the principal offeror; however, offerors with relevant past performance as a Prime Contractor may be assessed a higher overall rating than offerors without any relevant past performance as a Prime Contractor.

2.3 Factor III - Price: The Government will evaluate price proposals for completeness, balance, fairness and reasonableness. The PECP will be evaluated for realism. Only proposals determined to be complete, balanced, fair and reasonable, with a PECP determined to be realistic will be eligible for award.

Proposals shall support the proposed technical approach and will be evaluated based upon Total Evaluated Price (TEP), PECP realism, Completeness, Reasonableness and, Unbalanced pricing.

Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete or unreasonable will not be considered for award.

2.3.1 Total Evaluated Price: The proposal will be evaluated based on the TEP, which includes the base period and all options, to include the sum of all Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs. The price proposed for each labor CLIN shall include the applicable unburdened labor, indirect rates and profit. The Offeror shall also provide fully burdened rates and profit for each labor category. The six-month extension under FAR 52.217-8 will be evaluated, however it will not be included in the TEP. Evaluation of option prices shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

2.3.2 PECP realism: The Government will evaluate the Offeror's PECP for realism. For the PECP to be realistic, it must reflect what it would cost the Offeror to perform the effort, if performed with reasonable economy and efficiency in the National Capital Region (U.S. Postal Codes 20762 / 20330). Since the contract amount is expected to exceed $700,000 and services are to be provided which will require meaningful numbers of professional employees, the Offeror's pricing will be evaluated in accordance with: 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees (Feb 1993).

2.3.3 Completeness: The proposal will be reviewed to determine the extent to which all the priced elements have been addressed, to include the PECP requirement. The Offeror's proposed price and other information will be evaluated to ensure continuity and traceability of prices to the technical volume and between the initial proposal and any revisions thereto.

2.3.4 Reasonableness: The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of proposed price IAW FAR 8.404(d) DEVIATION. For the price to be reasonable in its nature and amount, it should not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of a competitive business.

An offer that is determined to be unreasonably high will not be considered for award. Please note the pricing sheet (Attachment 2) will be incorporated into the resultant contract.

2.3.5 Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether proposed prices are unbalanced. 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 TEP, the price of one (1) or more contract line items is significantly over or understated. The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to price, variable quantity matrix factors, and separately priced line items, and option prices. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3.0 DISCUSSIONS

3.1 The Government intends to evaluate and make award without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to seek clarification or hold discussions with none, some, or all offerors.

3.2 Clarification: If award will be made without discussions, offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of the proposal or resolve minor or clerical errors (see FAR 15.306(a)(1) and (2)). Clarifications shall be documented on, and conducted via transmittal of, Evaluation Notices (EN) to the applicable offeror. Each EN shall clearly indicate that the type of exchange being conducted is "Clarification."

3.3 Communication: Offeror Communications. After the decision to conduct discussions has been made and prior to the establishment of the competitive range, the PCO may enter into limited "communications" with offerors only as described in FAR 15.306(b). Communications shall be documented on, and conducted via transmittal of, ENs to the applicable offeror. Each EN shall clearly indicate that the type of exchange being conducted is "Communications."

3.4 Discussions: If discussions are to be conducted, the Government will establish the competitive range comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals, unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency. The competitive range will be based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria.

3.4.1 Discussions are tailored to each offeror's proposal and must be conducted by the PCO with every offeror within the competitive range. The scope and extent of discussions are a matter of PCO judgment. While the Government is not required to expound on every item that must be addressed by the offeror to improve its submission, the PCO must conduct and document meaningful discussions. At a minimum, during discussions, the SSEB through the PCO shall indicate to, or discuss with, each offeror in the competitive range the following: (a) any adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond and

(b) any deficiencies or significant weaknesses that have been identified during the evaluation.

Discussions shall be documented on, and conducted via transmittal of, ENs to the applicable offeror. Each EN shall clearly indicate that the type of exchange being conducted is "Discussions."

3.4.2 If, after discussions have begun, an offeror originally in the competitive range is no longer considered to be among the most highly rated offerors being considered for award, that offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range whether or not all material aspects of the proposal have been discussed, or whether or not the offeror has been afforded an opportunity to submit a proposal revision.