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

FA2860-21-R-0013

Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-2 Evaluation—Commercial Items

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize 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 one contract as a result of this solicitation. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. For those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable. Tradeoffs will be made between past performance and price, with past performance considered significantly more important than price. 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. Contract terms and conditions consistent with customary commercial practices are specified in the solicitation/contract, with otherwise tailored terms and conditions specified in the Addendum to the solicitation/contract.

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, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer 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 Contracting Officer, 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. 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 source selection 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 result in that offeror’s proposal being determined unacceptable and thus ineligible for award.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. Cross Reference Matrix: The cross reference matrix will help offerors ensure they have responded to all the evaluation criteria and proposal submittal requirements identified in the solicitation. The Government is not providing the Cross Reference Matrix to be used. However, offerors are allowed to develop their own and submit as a part of Volume I, Completed RFP. If the matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction, or provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over this matrix.

C. Volume II, Technical Factor (Factor 1)

1. General: Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the PWS and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail.

Subfactor 1 – Technical Approach This subfactor is met when the offeror adequately describes its plan to provide the following services:

Flight Dispatch Services: Domestic and international flight dispatch services compliant with Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 121 or comparable level of service for the following PWS areas: mission planning, diplomatic clearances, mission review, calculating Takeoff & Landing Data (TOLD) and Weight & Balance (W&B), “papering the crew”, and flight plan filing with Air Traffic Control IAW PWS paragraph 1.5.1.

En-Route Flight Monitoring: En-route flight monitoring services compliant with FAR Part 121 or comparable level of service for the following PWS areas: weather assessment, replanning, and safety of flight IAW PWS paragraph 1.5.2.

Flight Operations Service Management: All Aircraft Communication Addressing and Reporting System ground host processing, technical support, and all data subscriptions required by the PWS IAW PWS paragraph 1.5.3.

Subfactor 2 – Staffing Approach This subfactor is met when the offeror’s staffing approach provides the following:

An effective narrative plan demonstrating the approach to overall staff the contract supported by a personnel matrix that identifies the personnel resources needed to perform all the requirements of the PWS.

Notional shift schedule demonstrating how the offeror will have adequate dispatcher coverage to meet all mission requirements.

Labor category position descriptions for all personnel that are sufficient to meet all mission requirements.

Hierarchy chart displaying proposed organizational structure and span of authority that are sufficient to meet all mission requirements.

Phase-in plan for transitioning services that includes specific details of the timelines needed to meet all Government requirements. The plan must provide an explanation for start-up, mobilization, and transition depicting the chronological sequence of events which will be accomplished starting at contract award in order to meet all requirements of the PWS.

Subfactor 3 – Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan This subfactor will be evaluated for the following:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Mission Essential Services Plan. This subfactor is “Acceptable” when the Mission Essential Plan addresses all the requirements in PWS paragraph 1.4.

Subfactor 4 – Small Business Subcontracting Plan This subfactor is met when the offeror submits the following:

An “Acceptable” Small Business Participation Plan with goals greater than 0% and utilizes small business to the maximum extent practicable IAW FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

IAW DFARS 215.304(c)(i), the extent of participation of small businesses will be evaluated on a best effort basis and rated as “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” as described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 6 – Small Business Rating Method. The contracting Officer will evaluate the extent to which Offerors identify and commit to small businesses in performance of the contract, whether joint venture, teaming arrangement, or subcontractor. The requirements of this factor are met when the Offeror adequately illustrates efforts taken to identify sources and opportunities, or provides adequate justification that sources or opportunities do not exist.

Failure to submit Small Business Contracting Plan will render the offeror ineligible for award and will not receive further consideration in this source selection. In other words, if an offeror’s small business subcontracting plan does not meet the aforementioned requirements, the offeror’s proposal will be disqualified from further consideration.

2. Technical Rating: The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “Acceptable” rating in every subfactor. If an Offeror receives an “Unacceptable” rating in any technical subfactors, the Government will not evaluate the Offerors Volume III, Past Performance and Volume IV, Price Proposal.

Technical “Acceptable”/“Unacceptable” Ratings:

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

“Unacceptable” Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

D. Volume III, Past Performance Factor (Factor 2)

1. General: The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s/joint venture members ability which includes, if applicable, the extent of its critical subcontractors’ involvement to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming contractor), other than the offeror itself, that will perform more than 10 percent of the prime contractor’s proposed price. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture and if applicable, the critical subcontractors’ 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 with at least one year of performance history. 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 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 critical subcontractor 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.

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 Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-1, 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, total quantity produced/repaired, and type and complexity of data deliverables for each order in the series.

-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/Repaired for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

-The Government shall look at the type and complexity of data deliverables across the series of orders, to arrive at an Overall Type and Complexity of Data Deliverables for the series of orders.

The Total Dollar Value, Total Period of Performance, Total Quantity Produced/Repaired, and Overall Type and Complexity of Data Deliverables, for the series of orders, will be used to evaluate the submitted effort’s programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, as described in Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-2, paragraph II.D.4 Note. As explained in Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-2, Paragraph II.D.4 Note, the technical complexities along with 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 technical 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 Points of Contact provided, in order to verify that the series of orders is for the same continuous technical scope.

4. Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent five (5) submitted contracts.

The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. Relevancy in regard to complexity will be assessed based on the similarities between a given past performance effort and this solicitation in the following task areas from the PWS:

(1) Diplomatic Clearances

(2) Calculate TOLD and W&B

(3) Flight Plan Filing

(4) En-route Replanning

(5) Flight Operations Service Management

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.

• 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.

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.

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. 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.

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 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 (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 (and critical subcontractor’s, if applicable) compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, when these clauses were contained in the submitted contracts. That is, no more than five (5) respective contracts submitted for evaluation by the offeror and critical subcontractor, when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the offeror (and critical subcontractor, if applicable) award subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. (Please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL offerors, whereas FAR 52.219-9 only applies to large businesses.) If none of the contracts submitted by the offeror and critical subcontractor included these clauses, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror and critical subcontractor’s policy to utilize small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

E. Volume IV, Price Proposal (Factor 3)

The total price will be calculated as the sum of the offeror’s proposed prices for the basic requirements (4-month phase-in/8 month base period), all option periods (four 1-year options) and 6-month Extension IAW FAR 52.217-8.

Evaluation of FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. The solicitation and subsequent award for this acquisition contains the clause at FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. This option to extend the contract term will be evaluated as part of the initial evaluation, whereby any resultant exercise of this option is within scope of the pending contract. The option provision may be exercised more than once, but the total extension of performance hereunder shall not exceed six (6) months. Offerors are required only to price the base and option CLINs. Offerors shall not submit a price for the potential six-month extension of services period. The Government will evaluate the possible prices for FAR 52.217-8 through its evaluation of the base and option prices. If conditions warrant the exercise of this FAR 52.217-8, the price(s) for continued performance under this clause shall be at the same price(s) as awarded for the base period or the option period (whichever is being extended). As such, if the base and option prices are considered fair and reasonable then the cost of the possible extension of services under FAR 52.217-8 shall be considered fair and reasonable and in the best interest of the Government. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

For the purpose of evaluation for award, the TEP for each proposal will be calculated as the sum of the offeror’s proposed prices for the phase-in period (4 month), base period (8 months), and all option year periods (four years) including 6 month extension (52.217-8). In the event of an inconsistency between the Pricing Matrix (Addendum Attachment 7) and the model contract, the Government TEP will be calculated using the values from the Pricing Matrix. Total price will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is fair and reasonable. Normally, price reasonableness is established through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. In the event these techniques are insufficient to establish a fair and reasonable price determination, other proposal analysis techniques may be used.

The offerors’ proposals will be evaluated to determine completeness, reasonableness and balanced pricing, as defined below. The Government reserves the right to conduct a price realism analysis to determine whether an offeror’s proposed prices are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements and are consistent with the various elements of the technical proposal. If price realism analysis is performed, the offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated using one or more techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is realistic.

(1) Completeness. The proposals will be reviewed to determine the extent to which all the price elements of the offer have been addressed. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to ensure continuity and traceability of prices to the technical proposal and between the initial proposal and any revisions thereto.

The review will determine the adequacy of the contractor’s proposal in addressing and fulfilling the solicitation requirements.

(2) Reasonableness. 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. As stated above, price reasonableness is usually established through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. An unreasonable proposal is non-awardable.

(3) Unbalanced Pricing. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed costs for Unbalanced Pricing as addressed in FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced Pricing exists when, despite an “Acceptable” Total Evaluated Price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. A proposal will be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an “Unacceptable” risk to the Government.