Attch 3- Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-2_Amendment 2.pdf

RFP Attachment 3 Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-2

Evaluation of Commercial Items

1.0 SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This is a competitive best value subjective tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, 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 the Acquisition.gov website, https://www.acquisition.gov/. The Government select the best overall proposal, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk, 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 that 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.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one RMRC contract from solicitation FA445220R0009.

However, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all.

1.3 Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. 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 Revisions (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 FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

1.3.1. If the Government determines that, after the initial evaluation of proposals, discussions are necessary, the Government will make a competitive range determination in order to establish a list of offerors with which it will conduct discussions.

1.3.2. Discussions will be initiated by the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) upon issuance of https://www.acquisition.gov/

ENs to the offerors within the competitive range. Exchange Notices may be orally briefed to offerors prior to written release to ensure complete understanding by the respective offeror of any discrepancies.

1.3.3 The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any aspect of a proposal. The judgement 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, or if the amount and complexity of the corrections needed to meet the Government requirement is impractical, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1.3.4 Any offeror excluded at any time during the source selection process will be afforded the opportunity to request either a pre-award or post-award debriefing.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

This is a best value source selection utilizing the subjective trade-off process to determine the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements as stated in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 in para 2.1. Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon the integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors, given their relative order of importance, described below. The Government will conduct a price analysis to determine whether the proposed prices are fair and reasonable.

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate the RMRC Contract:

Factor 1: Technical/Technical Risk

Subfactor 1 – Technical Approach

Subfactor 2 – Staffing Approach

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

2.1 RMRC Contract Evaluation Factors

Regarding order of importance, the relative importance of each factor is as follows:

Technical/Technical Risk and Past Performance are of equal importance. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Price.

2.1.1. Factor 1 – Technical/Technical Risk

2.1.1.1 Subfactors 1 & 2:

The Technical evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating. These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of each technical subfactor.

Technical Rating. A color and an adjectival rating will be assigned to each subfactor IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures paragraph 3.1.2.1.1, Table 2A (shown below) to reflect the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. The ratings focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror’s proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical Factor.

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Definition

Blue

Outstanding

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Purple

Good

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

Green

Acceptable

Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow

Marginal

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and is unawardable.

2.1.1.1.1 Subfactor 1: Technical Approach – Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed technical approach based on the following measures of merit:

2.1.1.1.1.1 Provide approach to assist Global Air Transportation Execution Systems (GATES) users, GATES sites, and combat command and service operated fixed and remote manifesting locations (estimated total of 169 locations) for general air manifesting, record keeping and report guidance related to manual passenger and cargo manifesting when automated airlift information systems (electronic) means are not available. (PWS Task 3.1.8 and sub paragraphs)

2.1.1.1.1.2 Provide approach to monitor, maintain, assisting and training personnel (24/7

/365 when necessary) supporting aerial port enterprise level data collection, input, analysis, presentation, and record keeping processes at Air Terminal Records and Reports functions world-wide. (PWS Task 3.1.6 and 3.1.7).

2.1.1.1.1.3 Provide approach to create reports and specialized queries supporting ad hoc data requests from air transportation staff to include senior leadership to support executive level decisions (PWS Task 3.1.12 and subparagraph 3.1.14.2).

2.1.1.1.1.4 Provide an approach to maintain and execute the vetting of passengers through the Transportation Security Agency eSecure Flight (eSF) system and the Customs Border Protection Advance Passenger Information System when there are problems or delays with GATES functionality or the Department of Homeland Security interface with GATES (PWS Task 3.1.19 and subparagraphs).

2.1.1.1.1.5 Provide an approach that demonstrates the management/tracking and reporting of mishandled passenger baggage (PWS Task 3.1.20 and subparagraphs).

2.1.1.1.1.6 Provide approach to maintaining information management sites and Web resources (PWS Task 3.1.5).

2.1.1.1.2 Subfactor 2: Staffing Approach – Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed staffing approach based on the following measures of merit:

2.1.1.1.2.1 Provide detailed and effective staffing plan at the prime and subcontractor level. Identify optimum mix of labor categories, labor category descriptions, and labor hours in accordance with the PWS. Labor category descriptions shall include education, experience, requisite security clearances, certifications in accordance with PWS Paragraph 7.1 and 7.2 and any other qualifications showing the individual’s ability to comply with the minimum requirements of the PWS. The plan shall include a completed staffing matrix (Attachment 8) identifying the personnel resources to perform the PWS tasks.

The plan shall provide a logical approach that ensures the contractors understanding of the requirement.

2.1.1.1.2.2 Provide a detailed Program Management plan to manage the RMRC data collection, input, analysis, presentation, and record keeping of manifesting activities at all AMC designated Aerial Port sites as required by HQ AMC (PWS Task 3.3 and subparagraphs).

2.1.1.1.2.3 Provide a phase-in plan for transitioning services including details of timelines needed to meet all Government requirements. The plan shall provide an explanation for start-up, mobilization, and transition depicting the chronological sequence of events to be accomplished, starting at contract award, in order to meet requirements of the PWS (PWS Task 5.16.1 and subparagraphs).

2.1.1.1.2.4 Provide a Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan in accordance with

DFARS 252.237-7023 and DFARS 252.237-7024. The Mission Essential tasks are listed in Attachment 4. Limited to no more than 15 pages.

Technical Risk Rating. Assessment of technical risk considers the risk associated with the technical approach to meeting the requirement, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses. It considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The subfactors will each receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures paragraph 3.1.2.1.2 Table 2B – Technical Risk Rating Method, excerpted below. For any weakness or significant weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror’s proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

Adjectival Rating Definition

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable

Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

Strengths / Exceedances

The Government intends, if it is in its best interest, to incorporate into the resulting contract, all beneficial aspects of the awardee’s proposal and all above threshold (minimum) attributes, performance levels, or capabilities for which evaluation credit was given. The Government will use PWS Attachment 1 to Incorporate Performance or Capability Exceedances, as stated in RFP Attachment 1, Performance Work Statement.

2.1.2 Factor 2 – Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The Government shall consider the entire RMRC contract size and magnitude when considering each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance, as well as the quality of that performance. Therefore, the offeror shall consider the entire RMRC contract size and magnitude when submitting past performance products and services that meet the contract’s requirements.

Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method, excerpted below.

Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

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 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 the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

2.1.2.1. Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance, as well as the quality of that performance, in supplying products and services similar to 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 subfactors and Price factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered) taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2. 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; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and commercial sources. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

2.1.2.1.1 – Recency. An evaluation of the Past Performance Information (PPI) will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, all or some performance must have been performed within the past three-years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated further.

2.1.2.1.2 – Relevance. 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 subfactors and Price factor, including their relative order of importance (Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, paragraph 2.2). Consideration will be given to things such as similar service, similar complexity of the effort, breadth and depth of skills, similar contract scope and type, contract magnitude and schedule. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance (including teaming/joint venture partner(s) and major/critical subcontractor(s), as defined in paragraph 2.3.3 of Addendum to FAR 52.212-1) will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government will consider the portion of the effort accomplished on previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort. The past performance information submitted by offerors (PPIS) along with information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. Past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts (DoD Source Selection Procedures, Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method, and Table 4):

Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

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.

2.1.2.1.3 – Quality of Products or Services. The Government will review all past performance information collected, determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information, and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment (Addendum to FAR 52.212-2.

Evaluation- Commercial Items, paragraph 2.1.2.2). This evaluation includes (if applicable), but is not limited to, the extent to which the offeror attained applicable goals for small business participation under contracts that required subcontracting plans pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2). A separate quality assessment rating will not be assigned; rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

2.1.2.2 Assigning Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevance and quality of products or services assessments. Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating at the factor level (see Table 4 above). Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of offeror’s 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 a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent or relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment rating than less recent effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral 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.

2.1.3. Factor 3 – Price

Each offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated (but not rated). The Initial Total Evaluated Price (I-TEP) will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed prices for the one-month phase-in period, one six and half month base period, four one-year option periods, one four and a half month option period, and the six-month Extension of Services (EOS) (calculated using the monthly price of Option 5 multiplied by six).

Evaluation of options and extensions shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The six-month EOS is in accordance with FAR 52.217-8, “Option to Extend Services” and will be utilized if necessary. The six-month EOS is not to be considered part of Option Period 5 and will be a separate option exercised if it is utilized. After any discussions or proposal revisions, if needed, the Government will evaluate the Final Total Evaluated Price (F-TEP) for completeness, reasonableness, and balance, as defined below. If awarded without discussions, the I-TEP will become the F-TEP. The F-TEP will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine price 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’ F-TEP will be evaluated to determine completeness, reasonableness, and balanced pricing, as provided in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation—Commercial Items.

2.1.3.1 Completeness. The proposals will be reviewed to determine the extent to which all the price elements of the proposal 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.

2.1.3.2 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. Normally, price reasonableness is established through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. In the event that price analysis techniques at FAR 15.404 are insufficient to establish a fair and reasonable price determination, other proposal analysis techniques may be used.

2.1.3.3 Unbalanced pricing. Contractors 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. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items or sub-line items. An offer that is determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3.0 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 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.

(End of Provision Addendum)

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS