Addendums to 52.212-1 & 52.212-2 (Instruc. & Eval)Rev1.DOC

Addendum to 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items (NOV 2021) FAR provision 52.212-1, is hereby tailored as follows:

(b) Submission of offers. In addition to this paragraph's (1) through (11), the following are added:

(12) Purpose: The purpose of these instructions is to prescribe the format of proposals and describe the approach for the development and presentation of proposal data. They are designed to ensure the submission of information essential to the understanding and comprehensive validation of proposals. Offerors are cautioned to follow the detailed instructions fully and carefully, as the Government can make an award based on the initial offers received, without discussion of such offers.

(13) Proposal Format: Each proposal shall be submitted in three (3) parts; each separate documents as shown below. Any commitments made in the proposal shall become a part of the resultant contract.

· Part I - Technical Proposal

· Part II - Past Performance Information; including Attachment 4, Past Performance Information Sheet (PPIS)

· Part III -Solicitation/Price Proposal

(i) Page. The proposal page size will be 8 1/2" x 11", except for fold-outs used for charts, tables or diagrams, which may not exceed 11" x 17". Each page will be counted except cover pages and table of contents/glossary. If exceeded, the excess pages may not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal.

(ii) Font/Formatting. Pages will be typed with a minimum of font pitch size 11, Times New Roman type, with minimum one-inch margins. Each Part shall contain:

· a Cover Sheet with

· the solicitation number

· the solicitation title

· the Offeror's name and

· marked Source Selection Sensitive/CUI.

· a detailed Table of Contents to delineate the sections and subparagraphs contained within designated parts;

· a Compliance Matrix immediately after the Table of Contents. (for Part I only);

· page numbering IAW the Table of Contents.

Technical (Part I) and Past Performance (Part II) will not include price or pricing information. Elaborate formats or color presentations are not desired or required.

(14) Part I – Technical Proposal (Factor 1):

(i) The technical proposal shall not make reference to price data. It will be evaluated utilizing Subjective Tradeoff and will consist of three (3) subfactors. ALL subfactors must be deemed Acceptable or above in order to be technically acceptable.

(ii) Technical Proposal Requirements: The technical proposal will describe the capability of your organization to perform the requirements of the contract, it shall be specific and complete. The proposal shall not merely offer to perform work in accordance with the PWS, but shall outline the actual method proposed as specifically as possible. Non-conformance with the instructions provided may result in an unacceptable technical evaluation.

(iii) The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements but, rather, shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities or experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror's proposal.

(iv) Your technical proposal shall, at a minimum, contain the information specified below in accordance with the following general outline:

· Subfactor 1 – Management Plan/Management Infrastructure. Offerors must provide a reliable management plan which includes their infrastructure to manage personnel in the 16TRS main building and among various locations (per PWS para 1.1.1.1. and 1.1.1.2.). The plan shall include offeror's approach to communication among the Government, the Contractor supervisors, and the administrative personnel, as well as the proposed approach to supervision and oversight of staff working at multiple locations on different shifts (per PWS 4.5.1). The offeror must show their management plan/infrastructure has been effective prior to this contract. The plan needs to include the capacity to address work increase needs in accordance with the PWS para 1.2.2.10 and 1.2.10.5. If subcontractors are proposed, the Offeror shall submit a subcontractor management plan that describes in detail the approach to communication between the prime and the sub and the approach to managing subcontractor Quality Control.

· Subfactor 2 – Organizational Plan. IAW PWS 1.1.2. offerors must provide an organizational plan to include an adequate number of personnel to ensure mission success. At a minimum, the plan shall include an organizational chart with each position, outlined in the PWS, and state whether position will be full or part time and the hours of operations.

· Subfactor 3 – Staffing and Retention Plan. IAW PWS 1.1.3 offerors must provide a proposed plan to recruit and maintain a stable, experienced staff so that 16TRS will be provided with continuity of support services for the long-term need. The staffing and retention plan must demonstrate, in great detail, how sound business practices are used to ensure the offeror is able to identify, screen, place, monitor, train, and retain qualified candidates to fulfill service requirements under this contract. The plan shall also explain the methodology by which the contractor processes and screens potential candidates for positions that require security clearance so that no time is wasted with unqualified candidates or administrative processing delays. Offeror must show their staffing and retention plan has been used in the past which maintains at least a 95% fill rate.

(15) Part II – Past Performance (Factor 2):

(i) Past Performance section/pages shall be typed with a minimum of font size 11, Times New Roman type, with minimum 1-inch margins.

· Recent is defined as within the last three (3) years (contract is currently on-going or ended after 31 August 2020).

· Relevant is defined as contract work in the area of Flight Simulation Training Support as identified in the scope of work of the Performance Work Statement (Attachment 1 to this solicitation).

(ii) Contractor's Past Performance shall consist of the following:

(A) Pertinent Information: Use Attachment 4, Past Performance Information Sheets (PPIS) for your past performance submissions. Provide any information currently available (letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc.) which demonstrates customer satisfaction with the Offeror's overall job performance and quality of the Offeror's completed contract services for the same or similar type contract, RPATS services, referenced in this solicitation. The Offeror may provide the amount of time the Offeror has been doing this type of work and a description of the work performed. In addition, explain corrective actions taken in the past, if any, for substandard performance and any current performance problems affecting performance (such as numerous incidences of re-performance of work, discrepancies, etc.). It is the Offeror's responsibility to ensure all past performance data submitted is current and correct so that the Government can perform a proper evaluation.

(B) Past Performance section is limited to a maximum of the three (3) most recent/relevant contracts performed for federal agencies and commercial customers, with a page limit of three (3) pages per contract, therefore, an overall page limit of nine (9) pages, per instructions of Attachment 4, PPIS.

(C) Where a teaming arrangement (as defined at FAR Subpart 9.6) is proposed, an additional maximum of up to three (3) projects for partner(s)/subcontractor(s) may be submitted. Thus a maximum of no more than six (6) projects (3 for the prime and 3 for the subs or other partners) shall be submitted in total. The page size shall be 8½ x 11 inches.

(iii) Where a teaming arrangement is proposed, the actual Teaming Agreement shall be submitted as part of the proposal by the managing partner of the agreement. The Government is interested in the roles, responsibilities, and distribution of effort (by type and percentage) between the parties in performance of the Government's requirement and if the agreement does not go into this detail, then a narrative must also be included in order for the Government's understanding of your proposal. This narrative and/or Teaming Agreement will not count against the stated page size limitation. If this is not submitted with your proposal, your proposal will be considered non-responsive.

(16) Part III – Price Data (Factor 3):

(i)This section of the proposal shall include only the following:

(A) The completed signed copy of the RFP (SF1449), including blocks 12, 17 (code & facility code = cage code #) and block 30. In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP. Complete all blanks for unit and total prices for Base and Option Years in whole dollars and cents.

(B) Completed Attachment 1.1, Excel Bid Sheet, which coincides with the Schedule of the SF1449.

(C) Any, signed, solicitation amendments thereto.

(17) Submission Requirements.

(i) Submit electronic proposal documents in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office Word 1997- 2003 or 2007, 2010 or 2013, 2016, MS Office Excel 1997-2003, 2007, 2010 or 2013, 2016, and MS Office Power Point 1997-2003, 2007, 2010 or 2013, 2016 as applicable.

(ii) Submit proposal as follows:

(A) Contact both, the Contract Administrator (CA) and the Contracting Officer (CO) below and 'Request a Drop-off' via DoD SAFE. Please ensure to include who the request be sent to; multiple names/emails are allowable. The request created by the CA or CO will be valid for 14 days for the contractor to submit complete proposal.

· Mr. Jacob W. Freeman, CA – jacob.freeman.8@us.af.mil; and

· Ms. Sally D. Roberts, CO - sally.roberts@us.af.mil

(B) The CA and the CO are the only points of contact for this acquisition.

(C) Teaming Agreement/JV. Per Class Deviation – Verification of Eligibility of Small Business Joint Ventures (DARS Tracking Number: 2023-O0001):

"A small business joint venture offeror must submit, with its offer, the representation required in paragraph (c) of FAR solicitation provision 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications-Commercial Products and Commercial Services, and paragraph (c) of FAR solicitation provision 52.219-1, Small Business Program Representations, in accordance with 52.204-8(d) and 52.212-3(b) for the following categories:

(D) NOTE: IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILTY TO ENSURE THE GOVERNMENT HAS RECIEVED THEIR PROPOSAL

(c) Period for acceptance of offers. The Offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm through contract award. An award is estimated to be made by 1 June 2023, with a start date of 1 July 2023.

(d) Product samples. n/a

(e) Multiple offers. n/a

(h) Multiple awards. n/a

(m) Site Visit. (added) Instructions, with date and time, shall be posted to SAM.gov in the Description block.

(n) Questions. (added) Instructions, with date and time, shall be posted to SAM.gov in the Description block.

END Addendum to 52.212-1.

Solicitation # FA480122R0001

Attachment to Sol. Addendum 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors Page 2 of 2

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2, EVALUATION—COMMERCIAL ITEMS (NOV 2021)

In addition to paragraph's (a) through (c), the following are added:

(d) Basis for Contract Award: This is a competitive best value subjective tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-1 and FAR 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement Procedures, Guidance, and Information (DFARS PGI) Subpart 215.3 Source Selection (Source Selection Procedures 20 August 2022). These regulations are available electronically at the Acquisition.gov website, https://www.acquisition.gov/. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. The Government will select the best overall proposal, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical, Past Performance, and Price. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW 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 Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items, of the 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 Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines the technical and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

(e) Factors and Subfactors: A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror’s proposal will be performed. The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors and subfactors:

· FACTOR I – TECHNICAL

· Subfactor One: Management Plan/Management Infrastructure.

· Subfactor Two: Organizational Plan.

· Subfactor Three: Staffing and Retention Plan.

· FACTOR II – PAST PERFORMANCE

· FACTOR III – PRICE

(f) Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows:

Part I Factor I – Technical Proposal:

(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 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.

(2) Technical Area.

(i) Technical Rating. The offeror’s technical solution will be rated separately from the risk associated with its technical approach. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement and includes consideration of the significant strengths, uncertainties, and deficiencies found in the proposal. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach to meeting the requirement.

(ii) A technical review team composed of key Government personnel will use their technical skill, knowledge, and experience to thoroughly review the adequacy of proposals. Each proposal will be evaluated by application of the assessment criteria to each subfactor in the technical proposal. Only those proposals determined technically acceptable will be considered for award. Each subfactor will be rated using the Technical Rating Method (TRM) and the Technical Risk Rating Method (TRRM) as listed below.

Technical Rating Method (TRM)

Technical Risk Rating Method (TRRM).

(3) General. The technical proposal shall not make reference to price data. It will be evaluated in accordance with the TRM & TRRM definitions above and will consist of three (3) subfactors. Offerors must pass all Technical subfactors with a minimum of Acceptable for TRM and no worse than Moderate for TRRM.

· Subfactor 1 – Management Plan/Management Infrastructure. This subfactor is met if the offeror provided a reliable management plan which includes their infrastructure to manage personnel in the 16th TRS’s main building and other various locations per the PWS. The plan will include the offeror's approach to communication with the Government, the Contractor’s Supervisors, and the administrative personnel within the contract. The offeror will need to demonstrate their proposed approach to supervision and oversight of staff working on multiple locations on different shifts. The offeror must show that their management plan/infrastructure has been effective and used in the past. The plan included the capacity to address work increase needs in accordance with the PWS. The offeror will present the detailed planned with any supporting documentation (e.g., Work Schedules, Contact Rosters, and Evaluation Criteria for employees) to effectively show their Management Plan and Infrastructure.

· Subfactor 2 – Organizational Plan. This subfactor is met if the offeror provided an organizational plan to include an adequate number of personnel to ensure mission success. At a minimum, the plan included an organizational chart with each position, outlined IAW PWS. This organizational chart must prove that there will be no lapses in coverage based on personnel shortages.

· Subfactor 3 – Staffing and Retention Plan. This subfactor is met if the offeror demonstrated the ability to recruit and maintain a stable, experienced staff to provide 16TRS with continuity of support services for the long-term need. The staffing and retention plan, IAW PWS 1.1.3, demonstrated, in detail, how sound business practices are used to ensure the offeror is able to identify, screen, place, monitor, train, and retain qualified candidates to fulfill service requirements under this contract. The plan explained the methodology by which the contractor processes and screens potential candidates for positions that require security clearance so that no time is wasted with unqualified candidates or administrative processing delays. Offeror showed their staffing and retention plan has been used for the past two years maintaining a 95% fill rate.

Part II Factor 2 – Past Performance:

(1) General. The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability, if applicable. The recency & relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered.

(2) Recency and Relevancy. The first two aspects are to evaluate recency and determine how relevant the recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection.

· Recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation (contract is currently on-going or ended after 31 August 2020).

· Relevancy is defined as contract work in the area of Flight Stimulation Training and Support as identified in the scope of work of the Performance Work Statement (Attachment 1 to this solicitation).

(3) The team will look at the PPIS' first three (3) pages of each of the Offeror's past performance for three (3) contracts performed for federal agencies and/or commercial customers. The past performance should include any information currently available (letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc.) which demonstrates customer satisfaction with the Offeror's overall job performance and quality of the Offeror's completed contract services for the same or similar type contract. Each past performance will be rated using the Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method (PPRRM) as listed below.

Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method (PPRRM)

(4) Quality of Performance. The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance (see FAR 15.304(c)(2) and 15.304(c)(3)(i)). The Government may gather information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment.

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method (PCARM)

(5) In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably. If this is the case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and the evaluation team will assign a performance confidence rating of 'Neutral'. The Source Section Authority (SSA) may recommend and may determine that a 'Substantial Confidence' or 'Satisfactory Confidence' past performance rating is worth more than a 'Neutral Confidence' past performance rating in this best value tradeoff.

(6) In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

(i) 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 section. Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the 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.

(ii) Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member 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.

(iii) Teaming Agreement/JV The Team will review the JV/Teaming Agreement and is interested in the roles, responsibilities, and distribution of effort (by type and percentage) between the parties in performance of the Government's requirement and if the agreement does not go into this detail, then a narrative must also be included in order for the Government's understanding of your proposal. If this is not submitted with your proposal, your proposal will be considered non-responsive.

Part III Factor 3 – Solicitation/Price Proposal:

If the Price Data portion of the proposal is NOT in accordance with all of the following, per the solicitation, it could render the entire proposal as unresponsive.

(1) Standard Form (SF) 1449, Solicitation. Blocks 12, 17 (code & facility code = cage code#) and 30 inclusive are completed.

(2) All blanks for unit and total prices for the Base and Option Years' contract line item numbers (CLINs) are listed in whole dollars and cents (2 decimals only).

(3) 'Any' provision/clause fill-in that are NOT listed in SAM are appropriately marked.

(4) Proposal did not have any Unbalanced Pricing per FAR 52.212-2(b) (not addendum).

(5) The 'entire' completed signed copy of the SF1449 was returned no later than the RFP due date/time. In doing so, the offeror agrees to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP.

(6) The contractor signed and returned all SF30(s) solicitation amendments thereto, no later than the RFP due date/time.

END Addendum to 52.212-2.

Attachment to Sol. 52.212-2, Evaluation Page 2 of 2