Attach 3-FAR 52.212-2 Addendum Eval Factors FINAL.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. More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or less relevant efforts. A strong record of relevant past performance will be considered more advantageous to the Government. Offerors with limited or no confidence are not awardable and will not be evaluated under Factor 3, Price. Award will be made to the offeror who is Technically Acceptable, has a Past Performance Confidence rating of ‘Substantial Confidence ‘or ‘Satisfactory Confidence’ 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.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATING METHODOLOGY

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor I: Technical Approach Subfactor 1: Staffing Plan Subfactor 2: Personnel Management Plan Subfactor 3: Transition-in Plan

Factor II: Past Performance

Factor III: Price

2.1 EVALUATION FACTOR OVERVIEW

The Contracting Officer will ensure the offeror is compliant for a Facility Clearance and System Award Management (SAM). To be considered complaint for Facility Clearance, the Contracting Officer will validate each prime Offerors Facility clearance through the Defense Information Security System (DISS). The Contracting Officer will validate the Offeror is registered in SAM.

Offerors will be notified through email if its Facility Clearance and SAM are validated. If the Offeror does not meet the aforementioned criteria, the Offeror will be deemed “noncompliant” and eliminated from consideration for award and will not be evaluated further. The Offeror will receive written notice IAW 15.503. The Government will evaluate proposals of the compliant offerors as follows:

Step 1: Factor I, Technical Approach will receive an overall Acceptable or Unacceptable rating. Each individual subfactor must receive a rating of acceptable in order to receive an overall Technical Approach rating of Acceptable. Only acceptable proposals move forward.

Step 2: Factor II, Past Performance will receive an overall Performance Confidence Rating. Past Performance will be assessed based on the recency, relevancy, and quality of previous performance that is relevant to the requirements outlined in the Performance Work Statement and to the functional areas of the requirement.

Only proposals in receipt of a satisfactory confidence or higher rating move forward.

Step 3: Factor III, Price will be evaluated for reasonableness and fairness, completeness, balance, and realism.

Step 4: Factor II, Past Performance, is considered more important than Factor III, Price. This may result in an award to a higher rated past performance with a higher price, where the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonable determines the Past Performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the difference. Only offerors with “Acceptable” ratings in Factor I, Technical Approach will be included in the tradeoff. Offerors with “Unacceptable” in any Factor or Subfactor will be eliminated from competition.

2.2 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.2.1 Factor I: Technical Approach

The Government will evaluate the Factor I, Technical Approach on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable as defined below.

The Technical Volume 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 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

• Discussion of key personnel qualifications to ensure technical capabilities regarding the scope of the tasks specified in the PWS.

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

The Technical Volume 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 Technical Volume must provide a Phase-In Transition Plan that demonstrates the offerors’ ability to transition in and 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.

• A schedule for the transfer of duties

• Minimization of disruption to ongoing projects and mitigating any potential disruptions

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

• 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 ratings will proceed to Factor II.

2.2.2 Factor II: Past Performance

Past Performance will be assessed using a Past Performance Confidence Rating. . 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 – Is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. 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

Not Recent 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 consideration is given to an offeror’s history or contract/subcontract performance that would provide the most context and give the greatest ability to measure the offeror. Offeror’s 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. A quality assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine the quality of the performance for each of the references. 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.

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 less 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” Past Performance Confidence Assessment 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, balanced pricing, and realistic PECP.

1. Complete. An offeror’s price proposal is complete when it conforms to the requirements of the solicitation as required in Attachment 4, 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 ion all Base year CLINs and Optional CLINs. 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.

3. The Government may compare Offeror TEPs, compare TEPs to the Independent Government Estimate (IGE), or may use other price analysis techniques per FAR 15.404-1. In the event only one offer is received, the Government shall not perform a best value evaluation of the proposal, but rather shall evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for technical acceptability. In accordance with DFARS 216.505-70, the Government may transition from a competitive process to a sole source acquisition if the requirements of DFARS 215.371-1 and 215.371-2 have been met. If the Government transitions from a competitive process to a sole source process, the proposal price/costs shall be evaluated to determine a fair and reasonable price only. The Government may or may not enter into negotiations with the sole Offeror. Evaluation of option price(s) shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

The Government may compare Offeror TEPs, compare TEPs to the Independent Government Estimate (IGE), or may use other price analysis techniques per FAR 15.404-1. In the event only one offer is received, the Government shall not perform a best value evaluation of the proposal, but rather shall evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for technical acceptability. In accordance with DFARS 216.505-70, the Government may transition from a competitive process to a sole source acquisition if the requirements of DFARS 215.371-1 and 215.371-2 have been met. If the Government transitions from a competitive process to a sole source process, the proposal price/costs shall be evaluated to determine a fair and reasonable price only. The Government may or may not enter into negotiations with the sole Offeror. Evaluation of option price(s) shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

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).

4. Realism, Professional Employee Compensation Plan (PECP): The PECP will be evaluated for realism by assessing the compatibility of proposed price with proposal scope and effort IAW FAR 52.222-46. For the PECP to be realistic, it must reflect what it would cost the Offeror to perform the effort, if performed with reasonable economy and efficiency in the relevant geographic area, based on recognized national and regional compensation surveys. It must also demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to successfully recruit and retain qualified professional employees in the geographical area where the work is being performed. The compensation plan(s) will be evaluated to determine if the compensation level proposed is unrealistically low IAW the scope and effort of the PWS. The analysis will be based on labor rates within the areas of performance required in the PWS. The Government may utilize rates from BLS.gov, government civilian rates, similar contract labor rates, salary.com, other similar or relevant websites, or anything else it deems appropriate or beneficial in its evaluation of realism. Failure to comply with the requirements in FAR Provision 52.222-46 may constitute sufficient cause to justify rejection of the proposal.

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