Attachment 04 OPS FAR 52.212-2 Addendum.pdf

OPS: FAR 52.212-2 Addendum

FAR 52.212-2 Addendum

Evaluation – Commercial Products and Commercial Services

OVERHEAD AND PRODUCTION SUPPORT

1 April 2022

Table of Contents

1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD THROUGH SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 Source Selection Methodology

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

1.3 Correction Potential of Proposals

1.4 Discussions

2 FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS USED FOR EVALUATION

2.1 Price Evaluation

2.2 Technical Assessment – Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating

2.3 Documentation Evaluation

2.4 Evaluation Methodology

3 VOLUME I, FACTOR ONE: PRICE

3.1 Completeness

3.2 Reasonableness

3.3 Balance

3.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Matrix, Section J Attachment 2

3.4.1 Direct Labor Rates and Fringe Rates

3.4.2 Unacceptable Technical Subfactors

4 VOLUME II, FACTOR TWO: TECHNICAL

4.1 Subfactor 1: Hiring & Retention Plan and Experience

4.2 Subfactor 2: Facility Security Officer

4.3 Subfactor 3: Transition Plan

5 VOLUME III: CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

5.1 Limitations on Subcontracting

6 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

6.1 Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements

APPENDIX A: TECHNICAL FACTOR 2 SUBFACTOR 1

FAR 52.212-2 ADDDENDUM

EVALUATION - COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES

1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD THROUGH SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 Source Selection Methodology

This acquisition will utilize the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Guide – Appendix C, referenced in Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 215.300, DFARS 215, Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) 5315, and AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value decision. These regulations are available electronically at www.acquisition.gov. The Government will select the proposal(s) with the lowest total evaluated price from among those meeting the acceptability standards for the non-price factors. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each Offeror. Contract(s) may be awarded to the Offeror(s) who are deemed responsible IAW FAR 9.1, whose proposal is technically acceptable, conforms to the solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on all evaluating factors and subfactors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal.

Subject to this LPTA evaluation, trade-offs are not permitted, and therefore, the statements required IAW FAR 15.304(e) are NOT prescribed, nor apply to this acquisition. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is somewhat subjective;

therefore, professional judgement is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to select four offerors for this effort; however, the Government reserves the right to award less than four contracts, more than four contracts or no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals, prices submitted and the availability of funds.

1.3 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government may consider, throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any proposal.

The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal not meeting the Government’s requirements is not considered easily correctable within the Government’s time constraints, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competition in accordance with (IAW) FAR 15.306(c).

Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets or exceeds all requirements set forth in the RFP, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in Section 2 below.

1.4 Discussions

The offeror is reminded that IAW FAR 52.212-1, the Government intends to award contracts without discussions with offerors, based on the initial proposal, as received. However, the Government reserves the right, if it is determined to be in its best interest, to hold discussions. Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Request for Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the Offeror’s proposal remains in the competitive range at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award or may affect the Offeror’s ratings.

2 FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS USED FOR EVALUATION

Award will be made to the offeror(s) with the lowest price technically acceptable proposal(s) based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below:

Factor 1: Price Factor 2: Technical

Subfactor 1: Hiring & Retention Plan and Experience Subfactor 2: Facility Security Officer Subfactor 3: Transition Plan

Factor 3: Past Performance Factor 4: Documentation

2.1 Price Evaluation

An initial price evaluation will be performed for all offerors IAW this section and Section 3.0 below.

Proposals will be ranked from lowest to highest price based on a Total Evaluated Price (TEP). In the event that a TEP cannot be calculated, the Government may elect to set the offeror aside and continue evaluating other offerors with TEPS that can be calculated as detailed below, or to continue on with evaluations as described below without a TEP being calculated for the offeror.

2.2 Technical Assessment – Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating

The Government’s technical evaluation team will evaluate the Technical Subfactors on an acceptable or unacceptable basis as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, as excerpted below. An “Unacceptable” rating in any of the subfactors will be considered a deficiency and render the entire Technical Factor unacceptable. An acceptable rating must be received in order for the Government to make award.

Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2.3 Documentation Evaluation

The Government will review the completeness and correctness of the offeror’s proposal documentation, including subcontracting documentation as outlined in paragraph 5 below.

2.4 Evaluation Methodology

An initial price evaluation will be performed for all offerors in which proposals will be sorted from lowest to highest price based on the proposed Total Evaluated Price (see paragraph 3.4 below). The pricing of the four lowest priced proposals will be further evaluated for completeness, reasonableness and balance. The documentation of these four lowest priced offerors will then be evaluated for completeness and correctness. If an offeror’s price is determined to be complete, reasonable and balanced, and the offeror’s documentation is determined to be complete and correct, a technical evaluation will be performed. If all four offeror’s (or a sufficient number of offeror[s], as determined by the Government) are determined to have (1) complete, reasonable and balanced pricing; (2) complete and correct documentation; and (3) are determined to be technically acceptable, then award may be made to those offeror(s) without discussions. If a sufficient number of offerors, as determined by the Government, are not found to have (1) complete, reasonable and balanced pricing; or (2) complete and correct documentation; or (3) to be technically acceptable, then evaluations may continue with the next lowest price proposal(s) until a sufficient number of proposal are identified. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) may then direct award to those offeror(s) without discussions.

Alternatively, if a sufficient number of proposals are not identified, the SSA may establish a competitive range and enter into discussions. If a competitive range is to be established, the number of proposals within the competitive range may be limited for purposes of efficiency. Under these scenarios, it is possible that higher priced offerors will not be evaluated for (1) completeness, reasonableness and balance of price; (2) for completeness and correctness of documentation; or (3) for technical acceptability.

3 VOLUME I, FACTOR ONE: PRICE

The pricing criteria used for evaluation are:

1) Completeness

2) Reasonableness

3) Balance

4) Total Evaluate Price (TEP)

3.2 Completeness

The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for compliance with FAR 52.212-1 Addendum and all other portions of the Request for Proposal (RFP). The offeror shall ensure that they have provided all requested pricing information. Incomplete pricing may result in proposal elimination.

3.3 Reasonableness

The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR

15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

3.4 Balance

The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to labor rates, indirect rates, fully burdened rates, fully burdened overtime rates, and TEP. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more rates is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR Part 15.404-1. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3.5 Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Matrix, Section J Attachment 2 The TEP will consist of the cumulative value for all CLINs excluding XX49 (CDRLs - NSP). The price for CLIN 0050 (Safety Plan and Post Award Conference) will be calculated using the minimum guarantee of $500. The TEP for CLINs: XX01 through XX48 will be calculated by applying notional hours to a predetermined mix of labor categories across all years. The sum of these notional hours applied to the offeror’s minimum and maximum proposed fully burdened rates for each labor category to determine the TEP. Notional hours will be for Government evaluation purposes only and will NOT be disclosed to offerors. The TEP will be computed and provided to the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for award purposes only and does not become part of the contract at award; how; however, all proposed Direct Labor rates, Fringe rates, Fully Burdened Rates, and Fully Burdened Overtime Rates are contractually binding. A no bid or an omitted rate may result in an incomplete Price Volume submission. An omitted rate may result in proposal elimination.

3.5.1 Direct Labor Rates, Fringe Rates, Fully Burdened Rates, and Fully Burdened Overtime Rates

Minimum Direct Labor rates and Health & Welfare (Fringe) rates are subject to Executive Order 13706 and 14026. The offeror is responsible for classifying each skill category/reference in the TEP matrix with the appropriate job classification listed in the Wage Determinations, or for designating an exemption (if applicable). Proposed minimum Direct Labor and Health & Welfare rates will be checked to ensure they are not below the minimums found on applicable Wage Determinations and/or that they are not below the minimums designated in Executive Order 13706 and 14026 ($15.00 per hour for Direct Labor rates and $4.23 per hour for Health and Welfare). Proposed rates found below the greater of the minimums specified in the applicable Wage Determination for each respective ear, or minimums specified in the applicable Wage Determination for each respective area, or for the minimums specified in Executive Order 13706 and 14026 may result in proposal elimination. Minimum and maximum Direct Labor Rates, Fringe Rates, Fully Burdened Rates, and Fully Burdened Overtime Rates will be established from the Offeror’s proposal for all future contractual modifications/Task Orders.

3.5.2 Unacceptable Technical Subfactors

If at any time during the evaluation the Government finds a technical subfactor to be unacceptable, the evaluation of pricing will reflect, "Not Determined" for Reasonableness and Balance due to the offeror's price not reflecting an acceptable technical approach. The Government may also decline to consider the offeror's TEP for purposes of competitive range or award if the offeror has any unacceptable rating.

4 VOLUME II, FACTOR TWO: TECHNICAL

The technical volume will be evaluated to determine if the proposal addresses each element of the subfactors, and shows evidence of meeting the minimum requirements of each Technical subfactor needed to receive an acceptable rating. As part of Volume I, the Government will evaluate the following Three Technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Hiring & Retention Plan and Experience Subfactor 2: Facility Security Officer Subfactor 3: Transition Plan

4.1 Subfactor 1: Hiring & Retention Plan and Experience

This subfactor is acceptable when the offeror provides clear examples that are relevant to the scope of work outlined in the PWS, in which the offeror has satisfactorily hired, retained, and provided support services similar to the requirements of this effort within the last seven years

(from date of solicitation release), including managing logistical services, human resources, and staffing requirements for a minimum of three years as a prime contractor or a minimum of five years as a subcontractor in accordance with paragraph 1 of the PWS. Additionally, for this subfactor to be acceptable the offeror must provide a hiring and retention plan that reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements (see Appendix A for a full list of items for which this subfactor will be evaluated; an unacceptable rating for any item on this list will render Subfactor 1 unacceptable):

A. Hiring and Retention Plan

i. The offeror’s hiring and retention plan must clearly demonstrate how the Offeror will provide qualified employees (including backfilling as needed) in accordance with Performance Work Statement (PWS) paragraphs 9.12.1 and 9.12.2 that meet the minimum experience, knowledge and training requirements as outline in paragraph under sections 4.3, 4.4, and Appendix D of the PWS.

ii. Demonstrate how the offeror will obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives based on the proposed direct labor rates and fringe rates.

a) Proposed direct labor and fringe rates will be evaluated and compared against current standards; lowered compensation for essentially the same work may impair the offeror’s ability to attract and retain competent service employees and may be determined to be unacceptable and result in elimination of the proposal.

B. Experience

i. Provide examples of hiring, retaining and backfilling employees within the last seven years with at least one example from within the last two years (from the solicitation date) as required by PWS paragraphs under sections 4.3 and 4.4, that are similar in scope, magnitude of effort, and complexity of the requirements of this solicitation.

ii. To be relevant, the examples must be similar in scope, magnitude of effort, and complexity as required under this solicitation, including showing similar skillsets provided, experience obtaining and maintaining security clearances, and providing support services for varying periods of time and at geographically separated locations.

iii. At the Government’s discretion, the contract point of contact may be used to verify the information provided in the examples.

4.2 Subfactor 2: Facility Security Officer

This subfactor will be evaluated to ensure the offeror has a plan to provide a Facility Security Officer (FSO). The plan is acceptable when it sufficiently and clearly demonstrates how the offeror will provide an FSO with a minimum of two years of experience that will help ensure employees receive proper security clearances and Common Access Card (CAC) access prior to the commencement of the period of performance on applicable task orders in accordance with PWS paragraph 9.1.1.20.

4.3 Subfactor 3: Transition Plan

This subfactor will be evaluated to ensure the offeror has an adequate Transition Plan. The Transition Plan is acceptable when it clearly demonstrates how the offeror will meet all staffing needs necessary to meet all requirements of an orderly transfer or stand-up of new workload and continuous operation without negative impact on Government operations in the time frame required. The methodology shall be comprehensive and include an overall transition strategy to include timeframes, training and security considerations in accordance with PWS paragraphs under section 9.14.

5 VOLUME III – FACTOR THREE: PAST PERFORMANCE

The Past Performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing the services delineated in the OPS PWS. A quality assessment will be conducted at the overall Past Performance Factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the OPS requirements. The Government will not evaluate personal references.

5.1 Past Performance Evaluation Basis

The past performance evaluation will be based on the data gathered by summary, information sheets, interviews, and assessments available through the Past Performance Retrieval System; Subcontractor Consent Letter/Client Authorization Letter are required to be submitted with the past performance volume. If the required letters are not submitted, the past performance evaluation will not take place and the offeror proposal will be ineligible for award. The Government is not limited to these resources.

5.2 Past Performance Evaluation Results

The past performance evaluation results is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the required outlined in the solicitation requirements. The Government will evaluate the past performance of the efforts that meet the recency and relevancy requirements in Section L, para L4.5 and Table L.4, in order to determine the Government’s overall expectation in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the required effort using the ratings as described in Section M Table M5.2.

Table M.5.2 Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable 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 or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, 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 past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

5.3 Relevancy Criteria

In order for an offeror to obtain an overall assessment rating of “Relevant” on each PPI sheet, the offeror must obtain a minimum of 4 of the 7 relevancy criteria listed in Attachment 6 – OPS Past Performance Relevancy Baseline.

5.4 Past Performance Rating

In order for an offeror to obtain an overall assessment rating of “Acceptable” for Volume III – Factor 3: Past Performance, the offeror must obtain a minimum of 2 PPI sheets with an overall assessment rating of “Relevant”.

5.5 Unsatisfactory or Marginal Performance Records

Any past performance records (CPARS/FAPIIS) with an overall rating of Unsatisfactory or Marginal will result in a rating of unacceptable for the Past Performance Factor and disqualification for award.

6 VOLUME IV, FACTOR 4: CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

The Government will review the completeness and correctness of the offeror’s contract documentation submission as part of Volume IV. The offeror’s proposal shall include a signed copy of the Solicitation, Sections A through K, signed amendments to the solicitation (if any), and all other information required in FAR 52.212-1 Addendum, Instruction to Offerors. An incomplete package may exclude the offeror from competition.

6.1 Limitations on Subcontracting

The Government will review subcontracting documentation to ensure it demonstrates how the prime contractor will meet the requirements IAW FAR 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting.

7 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award.

7.1 Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements

Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.

APPENDIX A: TECHNICAL FACTOR 2 SUBFACTOR 1

52.212-2 Addendum paragraph 4.1.1

MAGNITUDE AND CONTRACT TYPE

Acceptable Unacceptable Awarded Contract Value $10 million (M) or more Less than $10M Total Amount of Task Orders Awarded

$2.5M or more Less than $2.5M

Contract Type Multiple Award/Single Award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ)

Non-IDIQ

COMPLEXITY

Acceptable Unacceptable Performance Locations and Geographic Requirements

Performance required in multiple states, including at least one state listed in the PWS (Utah, Arizona, Texas); additionally, offeror has demonstrated the ability (through established partnering agreements or other agreements) to provide required services in Utah, Arizona and Texas

Offeror does not have performance experience in multiple states or does not have performance experience in at least one of the states listed in the PWS (Utah, Arizona, Texas), or offeror has not demonstrated the ability (through partnering or other agreements) to provide the required services in Utah, Arizona and Texas

Variety of Skill Sets/Labor Categories

Provided 10 or more skill sets/labor categories

Provided less than 10 skill sets/ labor categories

Issues on prior contracts Offeror does not frequently (as identified by prior contract issuers) have issues with filling positions in an unacceptable amount of time, with turnover, or with filling positions with personnel that have adequate experience, knowledge and training

Offeror frequently (as identified by prior contract issuers) had issues with filling positions in an unacceptable amount of time, with turnover, or with filling positions with personnel that have inadequate experience, knowledge or training

SIMILARITY IN SCOPE

Acceptable Unacceptable Department of Defense (DoD) Support

One or more contracts with DoD within the last seven years

No contracts with DoD within the last seven years

Managed logistical services, human resources, and staffing requirements for a minimum of three years as a prime contractor or five years as a subcontractor

Clearly demonstrated in one or more examples

Not clearly demonstrated in any examples

Hiring and Retention Plan Reflects a sound management approach, is clear and outlines how the offeror will fill all labor categories

Does not reflect a sound management approach, is unclear or does not outline how the offeror will fill all labor categories

How the offeror will provide qualified employees within the required timeframes (including backfilling when needed)

Successful application of methodology clearly demonstrated in one or more examples

Successful application of methodology not clearly demonstrated in any examples

Security Clearances Experience obtaining and maintaining security clearances

No experience obtaining and maintaining security clearances

APPENDIX A: TECHNICAL FACTOR 2 SUBFACTOR 1