Attach 6 - Addendum to 52.212-2 Evaluation Commerical Items.pdf

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 – EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

1.1. This is a Subjective Tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Parts 12 and 15, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and Air Force FAR Supplement (AFFARS), as applicable. Award will be made based on the Best Value, meaning the Government seeks to award to an offeror who provides the greatest confidence that they will meet the Government’s requirements affordably. The Best Value technique chosen for this acquisition will be Subjective Tradeoff, where technical and past performance, when combined, are significantly more important than price. No contract award shall be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility in accordance with FAR 9.104.

1.2. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications. The Government intends to award a contract to the offeror deemed responsible in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), as supplemented, whose offer conforms to solicitation requirements including all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the solicitation and is judged, based on the evaluation criteria, to represent the best value to the Government.

1.3. The Government intends to evaluate offers and make an award without discussions. Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their written proposals (e.g., defining the relevance of the offeror’s technical information and adverse past performance information to which an offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor clerical errors. Any such exchange between the offeror and the Government will be for clarification only and will not constitute discussions within the meaning of FAR 15.306(a). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical, past performance and price standpoint.

1.4 Although discussions are not intended, if at any time during the evaluation process it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to open and hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the selection decision.

1.4.1 Any revision or non-concurrence to contract terms and conditions submitted in the FPR may not be subject to further discussion or negotiation, and may render the offer unacceptable to the Government. This provision is not intended to restrict the offeror’s opportunity to revise figures (e.g., prices, discounts, percentages, rates, etc.), rather it is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government, which could result if new or revised terms and conditions are submitted in the FPR that have not been fully disclosed, discussed, and understood during discussions or negotiations. Hence, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the FPR, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

Below is a synopsis of the evaluation steps; the evaluation process is defined in more detail immediately following the synopsis.

2. SYNOPSIS OF EVALUATION:

Step 1 - A compliance review of all submitted proposals will be conducted to ensure compliance with the solicitation, to include all appropriate representations and certifications and submission requirements.

Step 2 - Evaluate technical proposals for technical acceptability.

Step 3 - Evaluate total evaluated price for reasonableness and unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1. Proposals considered reasonable and balanced will ranked by price from lowest to highest.

Step 4 - Evaluate past performance confidence for beginning with the lowest priced, reasonable, balanced, and technically acceptable offeror. Evaluations will continue until the Government identifies an offeror with Substantial Confidence or until the Government has evaluated all reasonable, balanced, and technically acceptable offers.

Step 5 - Make a best value determination in which, when combined, technical and past performance are significantly more important than price.

The Government reserves the right to make a tradeoff between price and past performance, but is not obligated to make such a tradeoff. The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary.

3. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY:

Proposals will be evaluated using three evaluation factors, which are (I) Technical (II) Price, and (III) Past Performance. All offeror cover pages, submitted documents, and (if applicable) teaming arrangements will be reviewed for completeness in accordance with the requirements stated in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items to determine the offeror responsive or non- responsive. Only those offers determined complete and responsive will be considered for further evaluation.

3.1. FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL

3.1.1. All proposals determined to be compliant with the solicitation will be evaluated for technical acceptability.

3.1.2. The rating assigned to this technical evaluation factor will be based on the offeror’s proposed technical volume. The validity and thoroughness of the offeror’s technical volume will be evaluated as specific evidence of the offeror’s understanding and capability to perform this requirement. An overall rating will be assigned to the offeror’s technical proposal. In order to be assigned an overall acceptable rating, the offeror must be assigned an acceptable rating on both subfactors. Failure to be assigned an acceptable rating in any technical subfactor will render the entire technical volume of an offeror as unacceptable.

3.1.3 Evaluators will assign a rating as outlined below:

Acceptable: Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable: Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

3.1.4. Technical Subfactor 1: Quality Control Plan

The contractor shall provide a quality control plan as outlined in Section 2.3 of the Statement of Work. The offeror must provide a detailed quality control plan that addresses all elements outlined in paragraph 2.3 and its subparagraphs.

Measure of Merit: This standard is met when the Quality Control Plan demonstrates an effective performance/quality monitoring system that addresses all requirements of the Statement of Work and will enable the contractor to identify and correct their own errors/discrepancies.

3.1.5. Technical Subfactor 2: Transition Plan

The contractor shall provide a transition management plan as outlined in the Statement of Work, paragraph 4.8 as a part of their technical proposal. The offeror must provide a detailed transition management plan that addresses all elements outlined in paragraph 4.8 and its subparagraphs. NOTE: If the awardee is not the incumbent, they shall provide an updated copy within 10 calendar days of award with current milestones.

Measure of Merit: This standard is met when the transition management plan clearly addresses all the requirements of the Statement of Work.

3.2 FACTOR 2: PRICE

3.2.1. Offers which are assigned an overall technically acceptable rating will have their Total Evaluated Price (TEP) evaluated for price reasonableness and balanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1. An offeror’s TEP is established on

Attachment 10, FFP Coefficient Application TEP worksheet. TEP is the sum of the base and all option years established in Attachment 3, SPI List and Attachment 10, FFP Coefficient Application.

3.2.2. Price Reasonableness. The Government will analyze each offer for price reasonableness. Price reasonableness is established when adequate price competition is obtained.

3.2.3. Unbalanced Pricing. The Government will analyze each offer to determine whether item prices are unbalanced with respect to prices proposed for similar items. An offer may be rejected if the Source Selection Authority determines prices are significantly unbalanced or if the unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3.2.4. Offeror’s Attachment 10, FFP Coefficient Application will be evaluated to ensure the correct coefficient percentages proposed on Attachment 2, Pricing Discount Coefficient, are utilized. Discrepancies in Attachment 10 as a result of incorrect coefficient application may render an offer as unacceptable.

3.2.5. Attachment 10, FFP Coefficient Application is for price evaluation purposes only and will not be an attachment to any resulting contract. However, Attachment 2, Pricing Discount Coefficient will be placed on the awarded offeror’s contract and will be strictly enforced to determine not-to-exceed prices for corresponding items (see SOW para 1.4.2).

3.2.4. Offers determined to be reasonable and balanced will be ranked from lowest TEP to highest TEP and proceed to the next step.

3.3 FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

Starting with the lowest TEP, offers will be evaluated for past performance. The Government will evaluate the recency, relevancy, and quality of the offeror’s past performance by analyzing past performance questionnaires received and other past performance information data independently obtained from Government and/or commercial sources which may include, but not limited to: Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); or other databases.

3.3.1. Past Performance will first be evaluated for recency. Recent past performance information includes contracts performed and/or being performed for any customer within the last three (3) years prior to the issuance date of the solicitation. Recency will be evaluated as “meets” or “does not meet.”

3.3.2. Past Performance will then be evaluated for relevancy. Past performance information will be assigned one of the following relevancy ratings:

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 none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

3.3.3. Past Performance that is determined to be both recent and relevant will be evaluated for quality. A quality rating will not be assigned to each individual instance of past performance, but rather will be used to assign an overall past performance confidence rating. Past performance will be assigned one of the following Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings:

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

Neutral Confidence: No recent or relevant record is available or the offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment 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 and 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 and relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

**NOTE: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance.

3.3.4. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will not be considered as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror.

3.3.5 Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory confidence rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communications conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the Contracting Officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

3.3.6. Evaluations will continue from lowest priced to highest priced until the Government identifies an offeror with Substantial Confidence or until the Government has evaluated all reasonable, balanced, and technically acceptable offers. The Source Selection Authority will then make an integrated assessment to render the best value award decision, or may open discussions if determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

(End of provision)