Attach 3-FAR 52.212-2 Addendum Eval Factors.docx

ADDENDUM TO FAR PROVISION 52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES

1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

The basis for award will be a best value past performance/price trade-off that will allow the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal to achieve a best- value contract award. The Technical Approach, when combined with past performance is more important than price. More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant efforts. A strong record of relevant past performance will be considered more advantageous to the Government. Only Offerors with a past performance confidence rating of “Substantial” or “Satisfactory” will move on to be evaluated under Factor 3, Price. Award will be made to the offeror who is Technically Acceptable, has a Past Performance rating of ‘Substantial ‘or ‘Satisfactory’ and has a reasonable, fair, balanced, complete and realistic price.

This contract is a competitive 8a set aside procurement. The Government intends to award one (1) contract for the Business Process Reengineering and Policy Development for Materiel Management and Ground Transportation requirement; however, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all. This acquisition will result in a Firm Fixed Price contract.

Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an assessment of the evaluation factors described in this document.

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an assessment of the evaluation factors described in section 2.0.

Factor I: Technical Approach (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

Factor II: Past Performance

Factor III: Price

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATING METHODOLOGY

2.1 EVALUATION FACTOR OVERVIEW

Evaluation Process and Relative Importance of Factors. The Government will review the proposals for responsiveness; if a proposal is non-responsive then it will not be evaluated. The Government will evaluate proposals of the responsive offerors for Factor I, Technical Approach on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis. Only proposals that receive an Acceptable rating for Factor I (Technical Approach) will proceed to Factor II, Past Performance. Factor II, Past Performance, will be assessed at the overall factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent (within 5 years) past performance focusing on performance that is relevant to the requirements outlined in the Performance Work Statement and to the actual functional areas of the requirement. Only those proposals that receive a Past Performance rating of ‘Substantial’ or ‘Satisfactory’ will move on to Factor III, Price. Price will be evaluated for reasonableness and fairness. Award will be made to the offeror who is Technically Acceptable, has at least a past performance rating of “Satisfactory” or “Substantial” and has a reasonable, fair, balanced, complete and realistic price.

The Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract without interchanges with offerors. Therefore, the offeror's initial offer should contain the offeror's best terms from a price, technical and past performance standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct interchanges with the offeror if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be in the best interests of the Government.

2.2 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.2.1 Factor I: Technical

The Government will evaluate the total technical proposals on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable as defined below. Proposals must be submitted in accordance with the Instructions to Offerors

TECHNICAL MISSION CAPABILITY

(Factor/Subfactor)

DEFINITION

ACCEPTABLE (PASS)

Offeror meets specified minimum performance or capability requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance.

UNACCEPTABLE (FAIL)

Fails to meet specified minimum technical requirements. Proposals with an unacceptable rating are not awardable.

Proposals must include a Staffing Plan. The Staffing Plan describes the capability to staff, recruit, retain, and replace personnel with the experience and expertise required to perform the entire range of tasks and FTEs (Base and Full Requirement) in the PWS.

Measure of Merit: The following elements will be considered in the overall acceptability determination.

• Details their approach and ability to staff, including their recruitment approaches/capabilities

• Details method(s) in which the company replaces personnel

• Details methods in which the company retains current employees

• Details their capability to provide a sufficient number of trained, qualified, cleared personnel with appropriate security clearances to accomplish the requirements of the PWS at start date of the base period of performance.

The Proposal must include a Personnel Management Plan detailing how they will manage their personnel and subcontractors/teaming partners’ (if applicable), their approach to efficiently and proactively manage the PWS requirements, and how they will provide the Government visibility into the PWS tasks.

Measure of Merit: The following elements will be considered in the overall acceptability determination.

• Detailed plans for each of the teaming and subcontractor arrangements (if applicable)

• Detailed rationale in how management and control policies will be implemented

• Detailed rationale in how work will be controlled, reported, and reviewed

The proposal must provide a Phase-In Transition Plan that demonstrate the offerors’ ability to transition in for assuming responsibility for the PWS requirements no longer than thirty (30) calendar days after contract award date. The Government will evaluate the offerors approach and plan for a smooth transition in the turnover of work.

Measure of Merit: The following elements will be considered in the overall acceptability determination.

• On-boarding Key transition personnel as soon as possible within 30 days

• On-boarding all FTEs by the end of the transition period (30 days)

• A reasonable schedule for the transfer of duties

• Understanding of current workload and milestones

• Minimizing disruption to ongoing projects and mitigating any potential disruptions

• Communication with key stakeholders (e.g., incumbent/successor Offeror management and staff, COR and PCO)

• Shall demonstrate the management of any program risk to include loss of continuity for the task areas. The Offeror shall provide a robust/well defined mitigation plan that will address any type of risk or unknown risk for the mission.

Only Technically Acceptable Proposals will proceed to Factor II.

2.2.2 Factor II: Past Performance

Past Performance will be assessed at the overall factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent (within 5 yrs.) past performance focusing on performance that is relevant. The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments based on the recency, relevancy, and quality assessment ratings per the stated criteria in this document.

Each individual PPQ submission shall be from separate work efforts and will be reviewed and rated on three aspects: recency, relevancy, and quality (see sections a, b, and c below). The Government will consider the offeror’s past performance as an entire team (in the case of joint ventures or where primes propose with substantial subcontractors) or on an individual basis for offerors proposing on their own. However, if a signed commitment is not fully executed by both parties and provided with the Past Performance Proposal, only the Offeror’s PPQ will be evaluated. Once all an offeror’s individual submissions are reviewed, a factor-level rating called an Overall Performance Rating will be assigned according to section d below.

The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) will be used to evaluate the recency, relevancy, and quality in performance of the contract submission as described below:

a. Recency – For past performance to be considered recent it must consist of an effort that had a period of performance taking place within the last five (5) years with a minimum of 6-months continued performance. Past performance on the PPQ submissions is considered acceptable or unacceptable in regard to recency in accordance with the below table:

Past Performance Recency Ratings

Unacceptable Period of performance for work not within last five years and/or did not have a minimum of 6-months continued performance.

b. Relevancy – For past performance to be considered relevant the offeror should consider the similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and key personnel use. Relevancy in regard to scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities will be based on, but not limited to, similarities between the given past performance and this solicitation:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

c. Quality – The Government will consider the performance of quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). The quality assessment consists of an evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source. Each submission will receive a quality assessment rating based on the table below. A quality assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine the quality of the performance for each of the references. Each submission will receiving an individual rating. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse findings are defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

The Government reserves the right to obtain information relative to present and past performance on its own, in addition to information provided by the Offeror. The quality of an Offeror’s past performance may be reviewed and evaluated through the use of systems such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition or other sources or databases known to the Government. Interviews may be conducted with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials, Defense Contract Management Agency or other sources known to the Government.

The Quality Assessment Rating for each evaluated contract will be based on the following definitions.

Past Performance Quality Ratings

d. Performance Confidence Assessment Rating – As a result of the recency, relevancy, and quality ratings for all the submissions and evaluated past performance data, offerors will receive one integrated overall performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical and cost/price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor 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 receive an “Unknown Confidence” rating for the Performance Confidence Assessment Rating.

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

The performance confidence assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following performance confidence ratings when assessing recent, relevant efforts.

The overall performance confidence assessment rating will receive an adjectival rating from the below table:

Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

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.

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.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) 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.

Offerors receiving a “Substantial” or “Satisfactory” Performance Assessment Confidence rating will move to Factor III.

2.2.3 Factor III: Price

The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes, based on the total price proposed for the requirements listed in the Performance Work Statement. The proposal will be evaluated for completeness, fair and reasonable pricing, and balanced pricing.

1. Complete. An offeror’s price proposal is complete when it conforms to the requirements of the solicitation as required in Attachment X, section 5.4.3, Factor III, Price. The Offeror’s proposed price and other information will be evaluated to ensure continuity and traceability of prices to the technical volume and between the initial proposal and any revisions thereto. The review will determine the adequacy of the Offeror’s proposal in addressing and fulfilling the RFP requirements.

2. Reasonableness of Total Evaluated Price. The price that will be considered for Best Value determination is the Offeror’s total evaluated price, as determined by the government. For the purpose of source selection, the total evaluated price will be developed from prices proposed in the SF 1449. The TEP will include evaluation of FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. This option to extend the contract term shall 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 (6) month extension of services period because the government will use the price of the final option year to calculate the price of the six (6) month extension.

Comparison of proposed prices received in response to this solicitation is the preferred and intended price analysis technique. Other techniques and procedures found in FAR 15.404-1, if deemed necessary and reasonable, may be used to ensure a fair and reasonable price.

3. Unbalanced Pricing. Proposals will be analyzed to determine if the prices are materially unbalanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to reject an offer if it is determined that the lack of balanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the government in accordance with FAR Part 15.404-1(g).

3.0 DISCUSSIONS

The government reserves the right to award without discussions. However, the government reserves the right to hold discussions using Evaluation Notices (ENs) if, during evaluation it is determined to be in the best interest of the government. Therefore, the offeror's initial offer should contain the offeror's best terms from a price, technical capability, and past performance standpoint. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If a competitive range is established, the government may limit the number of proposals to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

4.0 AWARD

The government shall select the source whose proposal offers the best value in accordance with the established criteria of this RFP.

END OF SECTION