Atch-03 52.212-2 Addendum.pdf

HT001126RE011- Attachment 3 Addendum to 52.212-2

ADDENDUM

52.212-2, EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL

SERVICES (NOV 2021)

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: The basis for award for this acquisition will be the Best Value Continuum, considering a tradeoff between technical approach, past performance and price to determine the most advantageous offer to the Government. The Government may award to other than the lowest-priced Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror if the decision is determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

A technical evaluation will be conducted on each Offeror’s technical proposal. Offerors receiving a rating of Unacceptable in the technical evaluation will be eliminated from further consideration.

By submitting an offer, the Offeror agrees to comply with all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical specifications.

Failure to meet any material requirement may result in the proposal being deemed unacceptable.

Government evaluators will evaluate proposals based solely on the information provided in the Offeror’s submission. Assumptions about capabilities or experience not explicitly stated in the proposal will not be made.

Offers will receive a preliminary price analysis to determine if proposals are within fair market range. Grossly understated or overstated proposals “may be” removed from consideration if it has been determined the Offeror price proposal does not have a clear understanding of the requirement.

The Government intends to award one (1) Firm-Fixed Price contract without discussions, but may enter discussions, if it is in the Government’s interest to do so. If the Government enters into discussions, such discussions will be limited to the number of proposals that permit efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

In accordance with FAR 52.215-1, the Government intends to evaluate and award this contract without discussions with Offerors (except minor clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)).

Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price or cost and technical standpoint. Based on the initial number of proposals, the Contracting Officer may establish a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals, based on the evaluation factors set forth in this solicitation. Only those offerors within the competitive range will be provided an opportunity to participate in discussions and submit final proposal revisions.

The Government may further reduce the competitive range if, after discussions, it is determined that a reduced number of the most highly rated proposals will permit efficient competition and best serve the Government’s interests.

Proposals determined to be technically unacceptable or not among the most highly rated will be excluded from the competitive range and eliminated from further consideration for award.

The Evaluation Process shall proceed as follows:

A. Evaluation Process:

1. Responsibility Determination: Prior to technical and price proposal evaluation, a responsibility determination will be made as described in FAR Part 9. In addition, the Offeror's proposal shall be reviewed to determine compliance with the solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications. Failure to meet any solicitation requirement may result in the proposal being deemed ineligible for award to include but not limited to, compliance with DFARS 252.204-7020 - NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Requirements.

2. Proposal Compliance: Prior to a full evaluation of proposals, the Agency will conduct a compliance check of all proposals. This compliance review will include, but is not limited to, a review that proposals have complied with the Instructions to Offerors – Addendum to 52.212-1. Any proposal found to be non-compliant in one or more areas may be removed from further consideration and may not have their proposal forwarded for further evaluation. Offerors are advised to fully and carefully read the Instructions to Offerors to ensure proposal compliance

3. Technical: Offers shall be evaluated IAW provision cited in FAR 52.212-2 -

Evaluation of Commercial Products and Commercial Services. After the technical capability subfactors are evaluated individually, an overall rating will be assigned collectively to these subfactors and will become the technical capability rating.

4. Price: Price proposals shall be analyzed for completeness and price reasonableness.

B. Evaluation Criteria:

1. Factor 1: Technical Capability. All Subfactors will be evaluated individually.

a. Subfactor 1: Technical Approach - this subfactor on the extent to which:

The proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the Data Governance:

Advancing a VAULTIS-Guided Framework for Healthcare and Readiness requirements and objectives, and demonstrates, in sufficient detail, a convincing methodology, work plan, and rationale to accomplish the below criteria. Simply restating or rephrasing the SOO requirements may result in an UNACCEPTABLE Rating. Below are the five evaluation criteria:

Evaluation Criteria #1: Comprehensive Baseline Data Inventory The offeror shall detail how a comprehensive data inventory will be completed, including the systematic documentation and categorization of metadata for up to 80 data systems. The example should demonstrate the use of in-person and virtual sessions with data domain owners, data stewards, and SMEs to ensure accuracy and completeness. Additionally, the offeror shall show alignment of metadata and information collected with DoD requirements and NIST standards, and how inventory results will be securely stored in a centralized repository.

Evaluation Criteria #2: Interim Centralized Repository Setup The offeror shall provide detailed information on how a secure and accessible repository will be implemented to support metadata management, governance needs, and document storage. The example should demonstrate how the repository will be designed to host baseline data inventory and ensure suitability for ingestion into a future enterprise data catalog. The offeror shall also highlight the use of DHA-approved platforms and tools.

Evaluation Criteria #3: AoA Report for DHA-EDC The offeror shall provide a detailed explanation of how an AoA evaluation will be conducted to test multiple COTS solutions for an enterprise data catalog. The explanation should include a clear methodology for assessing functionality, scalability, cost-effectiveness, and integration potential, along with a recommendation based on predefined criteria.

Evaluation Criteria #4: Automated Metadata Harvesting and Documentation The offeror shall provide detailed information about how prototype metadata harvesting tools will be implemented to extract metadata from source systems, validate accuracy, and populate an enterprise data catalog. This explanation should include the use of AI tools to generate documentation, data dictionaries, and metadata, leveraging information collected during a comprehensive data inventory process. Additionally, the offeror shall provide details of a comprehensive metadata management framework, including defined standards, schemas, and governance processes to achieve consistency, discoverability, and usability across data assets, as well as formal documentation of metadata stewardship and lifecycle management processes. The plan should also cover how business process automation supports metadata management workflows and effectiveness/compliance reporting. Finally, the offeror shall provide a plan detailing how metadata collected will be shared with repositories and external data catalogs, including processes for integration with federated data catalogs, such as the Advana Federated Data Catalog, demonstrating effective synchronization and governance.

Evaluation Criteria #5: Self-Service Portal Usability Evaluation The offeror shall provide details about how to perform a self-service portal usability evaluation, including the development of role-based user documentation such as user manuals, training materials, and best practices for data dictionary maintenance. The explanation should include approaches for conducting user acceptance testing, providing recommendations to improve usability and adoption, and monitoring/reporting system usage analytics, data quality, and performance metrics. Additionally, the offeror shall describe how transition and sustainment documentation.

b. Subfactor 2: Statement of Work:

The Contractor will prepare a ten (10) page Statement of Work demonstrating a well-thought-out approach and methodology on how all of the Objectives will be accomplished. The Statement of Work will identify timelines for completion of the work, no longer than one (1) year.

Request that Objectives 8 and 9 be addressed separately, as they correspond to Optional CLINs which may or may not be awarded due to funding limitations. If funding becomes available, all objectives must be completed within the same year as Objectives 1-7.

C. Tradeoff:

1. Factor 1: Technical Capability (Subfactor 1, Technical Approach, and Subfactor 2, Statement of Work): will be evaluated in accordance with the Evaluation Standard Definitions below and assigned a rating based on the rating standards of Technical Capability:

Table 1. Best Value Continuum Tradeoff Evaluation

Best-Value Continuum Tradeoff Evaluation

Strength An aspect of an offer’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Meets The offeror’s proposal demonstrates their understanding of the requirement.

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Factor 1: Technical Capability (Subfactor 1, Technical Approach, and Subfactor 2, Statement of Work): will be assessed with an Adjectival Rating using the Criteria below. If any of the non-price, technical subfactors receives an evaluation score of Unacceptable, the collective overall technical capability rating will also be Unacceptable. Only proposals receiving an overall technical capability rating of Acceptable or higher will be considered for award.

Table 2. Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding

Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

2. Factor 2: Past Performance will be evaluated independently from the other non-Price evaluation factor using different standards. The Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of Recency, Relevancy, and Quality of Performance. Each Past Performance record evaluated and found to meet the Recency criteria, will be evaluated for Relevancy and Quality. The Relevancy Rating table will be used to provide an Adjectival Relevancy rating of Past Performance references, and the Confidence Rating table will be used to provide an Adjectival Confidence Assessment rating.

Recent is defined as contracts/orders where the Offeror performed as a prime contractor within the last three (3) years from release of this solicitation, including efforts currently being performed. Relevant is defined as work similar in size, scope, and complexity of the work described in the SOO and which demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to perform the effort proposed. Quality of Performance refers to how well the Offeror performed on past contracts.

Table 3. Relevancy Rating for Past Performance Relevancy Rating for Past Performance

Adjectival Rating Description

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

Table 4. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method:

Adjectival Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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.

Use of Affiliates, Teaming Partners, and Joint Ventures. Past performance information from affiliate companies, sister companies, teaming partners, joint ventures, or similar arrangements may be considered in the Government’s past performance evaluation only to the extent that the Offeror demonstrates in its proposal that such entities will perform significant and critical aspects of the requirement if awarded. The Offeror must provide sufficient documentation of the relationship (e.g., documented affiliation, copy of the teaming agreement, joint venture agreement, or similar), as described in the ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1, for such past performance to be credited. If the Offeror does not provide adequate documentation or does not demonstrate that the referenced entity will perform significant and critical aspects of the work, the Government may determine that past performance record to be of limited or no relevance for this evaluation.

3. Factor 3: Price will be analyzed separately from the non-price factors to determine complete, fair and reasonable pricing. The Government will determine price completeness by ensuring the Government pricing spreadsheet is filled out completely, includes a basis of estimate, and all requirements are met under the Addendum to 52.212-

1. The Government will determine price reasonableness by comparison of the proposed price to the market price derived from market research or from adequate price competition while considering the Offeror’s proposed basis of estimate. To establish a fair and reasonable price, the Government shall obtain any data as necessary.

Electronic File Format: All submissions from the offeror proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office Word 365, Excel 365, or Access 365, as applicable.

Save files in default format (e.g., Word Document – Set “save as type” to “Word Document [*.docx]” only and Excel spreadsheets – Set "save as type" to "Microsoft Excel Workbook [*.xlsx]". Submit portable document format (PDF) documents using Adobe Acrobat only. The proposal shall not include any information/data within a PDF formatted document that is copied as an image, except for signatures. When creating PDF files, the Offeror shall create the file to enable text search and copy functions

Proposal Compliance and Eligibility for Continued Consideration. Proposals receiving a minimum rating of Acceptable in the technical factor; Neutral Confidence in the Past Performance Factor; and, determined to be fair and reasonable in price, will be considered for award. The Government may award to other than the lowest priced proposal or other than the highest rated non-price proposal. The Government reserves the right to make no award, depending on the quality of proposals received and the availability of funds. All proposals will be evaluated for compliance with the Instructions to Offerors, including the material proposal requirements set forth in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. Proposals that fail to comply with these material requirements may be deemed unacceptable and, at the Contracting Officer’s discretion, may be excluded from the competitive range or from further evaluation and award consideration.

Please Refer to ADDENDUM TO FAR PROVISION 52.212-1, INSTRUCTIONS TO

OFFERORS-COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES (SEP

2023) above for the specific instructions and additional information.

(End of Addendum to 52.212-2)