Atch 6 - Addendum to 52.212-1 and -2 Instructions, Eval..pdf

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS—COMMERCIAL ITEMS

This section is for solicitation purposes only. This section will be physically removed from any resultant award but will be deemed incorporated by reference.

GENERAL INFORMATION

A. This Solicitation is being issued in accordance with (IAW) FAR Parts 12 and 13 as a Request for Quote. IAW FAR 13.004, in all instances throughout this solicitation any use of the word "proposal" should be understood as "quote". All instances of the word "offeror" should be understood as "quoter". All instances of the word "award" should be understood as "order". Quotes supplied in response to this solicitation are not binding. Award of this requirement will be offered to the Quoter IAW 52.212-2, found herein.

B. Addendum to FAR 52.212-1(b), Submission of Quotes is amended as follows: “Submit signed and dated quote via email to the primary and alternate POC’s identified in the SAM.gov solicitation posting. Emails are limited to 10MB or less. Recommend including a note in the subject line on each email if it is necessary to send multiple emails due to attachment file size: “email 1 of 3”, etc. Any email over 10MB will not be delivered due to firewall restrictions.

Quoters are responsible for ensuring their email and attachments reach the contracting office POC’s by the date and time specified in block 8 on the SF 1449.”

C. Addendum to FAR 52.212-1(e), Multiple quotes is amended as follows: “Multiple quotes will not be accepted.”

D. Late submissions, see FAR 52.212-1(f).

E. Addendum to FAR 52.212-1(g) Contract award is amended as follows: “The Government intends to evaluate quotes and award a firm-fixed price requirements contract without interchanges with quoters. Therefore, the initial quote should contain the best terms and pricing. The Government reserves the right to conduct interchanges. The Government may conduct interchanges with one, some, none or all quoters at its discretion if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. The Government may reject any or all quotes if such action is in the public interest; accept other than the lowest quote; and waive informalities and minor irregularities in quotes received.”

F. Addendum to FAR 52.212-1(h), Multiple awards is amended as follows: “The Government intends to award a contract on an “all or none” basis, multiple awards shall not be contemplated.”

G. Formal communications. Requests for clarification and information concerning the solicitation must be provided in writing via email to the primary and alternate POC’s identified in the SAM.gov solicitation posting no later than 10 days prior to the date and time specified in block 8 on the SF 1449. All correspondence should reference the solicitation number. Answers will be compiled and posted electronically to the sam.gov website.

QUOTATION PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

A. General Instructions: To assure timely and equitable evaluation of the quotes, the quoter must follow the instructions in 52.212-1(b) and the additional instructions contained herein. The quote must be complete, self-sufficient, and respond directly to the requirement of this solicitation. The response shall consist of five (5) separate parts:

a. Part I - Price Quote

b. Part II – Past Performance

c. Part III - Contract Documentation

d. Part IV – Small Business Subcontracting Plan (if applicable)

e. Part V – First Article Testing Waiver (if applicable)

B. PART I - PRICE QUOTE – Submit the price quote in accordance with the contract line item (CLIN) structure as listed in this solicitation (see SF 1449 continuation sheet).

a. Complete blocks 12, 17a, 30a, 30b, and 30c of the SF 1449.

b. Insert proposed UNIT and EXTENDED prices in the SF 1449 Pricing Schedule “Supplies or Services & Prices or Costs” section. The extended amount must equal the unit price multiplied by the number of units.

The quote must be submitted for a base period plus two (2) option years.

C. PART II- PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION – Addendum to 52.212-1(b)(10).

a. Only references for recent and relevant contracts are desired (see addendum to 52.212-2).

b. Quality and Satisfaction Information and References: Provide a list of no more than three (3) of the most relevant contracts (similar in scope and magnitude to the effort and complexities this solicitation requires) performed for Federal, state, and local government agencies and/or commercial customers within the last three years from the closing date of this solicitation. In the past performance information, directly link the past performance information submitted to the contractor having performed the effort and tie the information to the work the contractor is proposed to perform in this effort.

c. Furnish the following information for each contract listed:

(1) Company/Division name

(2) Description of products provided

(3) Contracting Agency/Customer

(4) Contract Number

(5) Contract Dollar Value

(6) Period of Performance

(7) Verified up-to-date name, address, emails address, and telephone number (s) for each company point of contact.

(8) Comments regarding compliance with contract terms and conditions

(9) Comments regarding any known performance deemed unacceptable to the customer, or not in accordance with the contract terms and conditions.

(10) Accurate description of the contract scope in sufficient detail to show how similar the scope and magnitude is to the effort and complexities this solicitation requires (# of personnel outfitted per year, complexity of the garments, etc).

(11) Was the contract subject to The Buy American Act or the Berry Amendment?

(12) If subcontractor, describe portion of the work performed.

(13) Note: Do not leave any of the above information blank. If not applicable to the specific contact request please state, “Not applicable”.

d. In addition to the above information, the quoter shall provide Attachment 5 of this solicitation, Past Performance Survey, to the list of most relevant contract references. Instruct these references to complete the past performance survey and return to the primary and alternate POC’s identified in the SAM.gov solicitation posting via email (danielle.hyde@us.af.mil and jonathan.tringali.1@us.af.mil) with the solicitation number referenced in the subject line.

e. Any past performance survey sent directly from a proposing quoter will not be accepted or evaluated. For the purpose of expediency of evaluation, please instruct references to respond to the past performance survey as soon as possible. No more than three (3) past performance surveys may be submitted per quoter.

Completed past performance surveys shall not be reviewed by the quoter. ONCE THE SURVEY IS COMPLETED, IT IS CONSIDERED FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY, and is only viewed by Government personnel directly involved in the evaluation process for this acquisition. It is the sole responsibility of the quoters to ensure surveys are submitted by the solicitation closing date. Quoters are encouraged to follow-up with respondents to ensure surveys are completed and submitted.

f. Subcontractor Consent: Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the primary quoter without the subcontractor’s consent. Provide with the quote a letter from all subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor.

D. PART III- Contract Documentation - Representation and Certification

a. Contractors must be registered in the System for Award Management to conduct business with the

Department of Defense. See FAR Provision 52.204-7 System for Award Management.

b. It is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure any representations required by provisions and clauses in this solicitation have been completed/updated electronically in the System for Award Management (SAM) or completed and returned as part of the quote.

c. Instructions for 52.212-3 Offeror Representations and Certifications. The Offeror shall complete only paragraph (b) of the provision at FAR 52.212-3 if the Offeror has completed the annual representations and certification electronically in the System for Award Management (SAM) accessed through https://www.sam.gov. If the Offeror has not completed the annual representations and certifications electronically, the Offeror shall complete only paragraphs (c) through (v)) of this provision.

d. Complete the Certificate of compliance to the Berry Amendment (Attachment 4). THIS REQUIRES

CONTRACTORS TO FILL-IN WHERE ALL THE COMPONENTS ARE COMING FROM AND

WHERE THE ITEMS WILL BE MANUFACTURED. Quoters shall be in compliance with the Berry Amendment at DFARS 252.225-7012. Noncompliance may disqualify the quotation from further consideration of an award.

e. Sign all amendments to the solicitation (if applicable). Reference FAR 52.212-1(b)(9)

f. Documents submitted in response to this solicitation must be fully responsive to and consistent with the following: Requirements of the solicitation and Quotation Preparation Instructions (Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items).

E. PART IV – Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Quoters that exceed the small business size standard of 750 employees for NAICS 315220 must submit a small business subcontracting plan that complies with all requirements in FAR Clause 52.219-9 “Small Business Subcontracting Plan.”

F. Part V – First Article Testing Waiver. Quoters that have obtained certifications through the Air Force Uniform

Office may submit copies of the certifications and request a waiver from first article testing requirements in accordance with paragraph (i) of FAR Clause 52.209-4 “First Article Approval-Government Testing.”

(End of Addendum)

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

In accordance with FAR Part 12 and 13, the Government is conducting a best value award decision based on price and past performance of responsive quotes. This approach allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced quote or other than the quote with the highest past performance rating to achieve a best-value contract award. The Government intends to evaluate quotes and award a firm-fixed price requirements contract without interchanges with offerors. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct interchanges. The Government may conduct interchanges with one, some, none or all offerors at its discretion if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary.

The evaluation process shall consist of the following:

1. Responsiveness. First, the government will evaluate all quotes to determine if all elements of the RFQ were met.

Failure to meet the RFQ requirements may result in the quote being determined ineligible for award and eliminated at this point from the competition and further consideration. Responsive quotes will proceed to price evaluation.

2. Price Evaluation. Second, quote pricing will be evaluated for completeness and balance. A Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated for each responsive quote (see subparagraph a below). The Contracting Officer will conduct price reasonableness evaluation after making a best value decision to ensure the final, agreed-to price is fair and reasonable (see paragraph 4c below). The lowest price quote may not necessarily be selected. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, unbalanced, or unreasonable may be considered ineligible for award.

a. Completeness: Award will be made based on the contract line-item prices quoted by the offeror. The extended amounts for all CLINs in the Supplies or Services & Prices or Costs section will be added together to determine the total evaluated price. The unit price of the offeror’s quote shall control any conflict between the unit price and the extended amount submitted in response to this solicitation. Failure to quote for any item in the SF 1449 Price Schedule may cause the vendor’s quote to be considered incomplete and ineligible for award.

b. Balance: The Offeror’s quote will be evaluated for balance. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line-item numbers (CLINs) is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. Evaluated offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be deemed ineligible for award.

3. Past Performance Assessment. Third, beginning with the quote with the lowest TEP the Government will evaluate the quality and extent of the quoter’s performance deemed recent and relevant to the requirements of this Request for Quote (RFQ). The quote receiving the highest past performance evaluation rating may not necessarily be selected.

a. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the quoter’s ability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each quoter’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products that meet the contract’s requirements. The currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the contractor’s performance shall be considered. The government will use the supplier risk score within the Supplier Performance Risk Management System (SPRS) as a past performance metric for evaluation. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each quoter. The government may also use sources other than those provided in response to this solicitation, such as information obtained from the Federal Awardee Performance & Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), and the System of Award Management (SAM). There are four (4) aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, quality, and SPRS Supplier Risk Scores.

(1) Recency is defined as past performance on contracts within the last three (3) years from the closing date of this solicitation. Past performance not considered recent will not be evaluated.

(2) Relevancy will be rated as either Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, or Not Relevant, as indicated in the table below. Scope, magnitude, and complexity is as described in the specifications for each uniform article (jackets and bibbers) for a customer base similar to the Air Force Academy’s population (1,000 cadets per year).

Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method Adjectival Rating Description

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.

(3) Quality is defined as the excellence of the product, quality control and inspection procedures, delivery timeliness, and business relations with the customer. Quality ratings will be assigned by the Government based on how well the information provided in each past performance survey meets the definitions in the table below. If completed Past Performance Surveys contain ratings other than ‘Satisfactory’ but do not include narratives supporting those ratings, the Government may treat those unsupported Past Performance Survey ratings as “satisfactory.”

E VG S M U N/A

Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory Not Applicable The contractor The contractor The contractor The contractor The contractor Unable to met and met and met the did not always did not meet the provide a rating.

exceeded many exceeded some requirements of meet some of requirements of Contract did not of the of the the contract and the requirements the contract and include requirements of requirements of consistently of the contract performance performance for the contract and the contract and performed at an and intervention was at an this aspect, or consistently consistently acceptable level. was required to unacceptable information is performed at a performed very Performance continue level. There not available.

superior level. well. was performance. were a number Do not know.

Performance Performance accomplished There were of serious was was with some instances where problems that accomplished accomplished problems, and performance required with very few with some the contractor was at a less extensive minor problems, minor problems, took effective than acceptable oversight and and the and the corrective action level; involvement, contractor took contractor took for those performance and corrective immediate and timely and problems that was actions were effective effective did occur accomplished either corrective corrective action with some ineffective or actions for those for those problems and non-existent.

problems that problems that some corrective did occur. did occur actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented

(4) A computer algorithm called the SPRS Supplier Engine uses 10 factors of past performance information (PPI) to calculate Supplier Risk Scores. These factors are weighted (based on age and relative importance) and summed to produce a numerical and color score for every company which has either a contract or factor data within the last three years. Older data is excluded by the Supplier Engine. The Supplier Risk Score is an overall assessment contractor performance, regardless of federal stock class or business sector. Vendors’ scores are stored and retrieved according to commercial and government entity (CAGE) code; PPI is gathered by CAGE and by data universal numbering system (DUNS) numbers, as appropriate. The Supplier Engine ranks the numerical scores by magnitude then assigns a color score to each vendor according to the SPRS 5-color scoring standard. Quoters with no SPRS supplier risk rating will be assigned a supplier risk score equal to the median score for all suppliers in the category.

b. Recency, relevancy, and quality ratings for the evaluated past performance citations along with SPRS supplier risk scores will be integrated to determine an overall confidence assessment rating. This process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Neutral Confidence, as shown in the table below.

Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history shall receive the rating “Neutral Confidence”, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably (neutral).

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 offer’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the vendor will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the vendor’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the vendor will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the vendor’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the vendor will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the vendor’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

c. Quoters are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in the quote preparation instructions to permit a meaningful assessment of past performance. Quoters may be provided an opportunity to respond to adverse past performance information to which the quoter has not previously had an opportunity to respond through Interchange Notices. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources with a formal rating system.

4. Best Value Decision.

a. The Government intends to evaluate offers and award a firm-fixed price requirements contract without interchanges with offerors. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct interchanges. The Government may conduct Interchanges with one, some, none or all offerors at its discretion if determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. The Government reserves the right to award one or no contract at all, depending on the quality of quotes submitted.

b. The Government will make a best value award decision.

(1) If the lowest TEP quote receives a “Substantial Confidence” Performance Confidence Assessment

Rating (Factor 3), it represents the best value to the Government. Evaluations will then stop and an award will be made to that quoter, subject to a Contractor Responsibility determination and the quoter’s small business subcontracting plan (if applicable) being “acceptable.”

(2) If the lowest TEP quote is not assigned a “Substantial Confidence” Performance Confidence

Assessment Rating, the evaluation will continue until all offerors are evaluated. At that point the Government will make an integrated best value award decision based on price and past performance.

c. The Contracting Officer will conduct price reasonableness evaluation after making a best value decision to ensure the final, agreed-to price is fair and reasonable. A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. Price reasonableness is normally established through adequate price competition but may also be determined through price analysis techniques. The Contracting Officer may require quoter to provide other than certified cost or pricing data to support a determination of a fair and reasonable price.

5. Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

a. If the apparent awardee selected through the best value decision process exceeds the small business size standard of 750 employees for NAICS 315220, the small business subcontracting plan will be evaluated on an acceptable or unacceptable basis. To be considered acceptable the small business subcontracting plan must meet all requirements in FAR Clause 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan, and DFARS Clause 252.219-7003 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DoD Contracts). The government intends to use the process identified in DFARS PGI 219.705-4 for reviewing the subcontracting plan.

The government only intends on evaluating subcontracting plans for apparent awardees.

b. After evaluating the small business subcontracting plan, the Contracting Officer may initiate interchanges with the apparent awardee to agree upon an acceptable subcontracting plan. If interchanges do not result in a subcontracting plan acceptable to the contracting officer within the time limit prescribed by the contracting officer, the quoter may be ineligible for award.

(End of Addendum)