Attachment 2 - Addenda to 52.212-2.pdf

Attachment 2 ADDENDA to FAR 52.212-2

Addenda to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation -Commercial Items (Nov 2021)

1. EVALUATION-COMMERCIAL ITEMS

A. SOURCE SELECTION

a. Basis for Award: The Government intends to make an award to each and all qualifying Offerors (see definition at FAR 2.101). All evaluation factors and subfactors will be measured on an acceptable/unacceptable basis based on the criteria established in this addenda. Any Offeror with a rating of “acceptable” in all three factors, and who has been determined responsible, will be considered a qualifying Offeror IAW FAR 2.101 and will be awarded an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity contract on the Multiple Award Contract. A rating of “Unacceptable” in any of the three factors will render an Offeror ineligible for award.

b. The Government reserves the right to award one or more contracts without discussions. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request will be considered in making the source selection decision. Offerors may be required to respond with their FPR within 24 hours. If the Offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to re-evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal will be determined unacceptable and therefore ineligible for award. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective;

therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

c. Evaluation Methodology In the absence of discussions, a rating of “Acceptable” for Volume I Solicitation Compliance is a prerequisite to have Volume II Technical evaluated. A rating of “Acceptable” for Volume II Technical is a prerequisite to have Volume III Past Performance evaluated.

The specific steps for evaluations are as follows:

Step 1: Solicitation Compliance – The Government will review Volumes I, II and III for Solicitation Compliance. It is the offeror’s responsibility to verify the executed contract documentation and supporting documentation meet the requirements of Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-1– Instructions to Offerors and Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 – Evaluation Commercial Items of this solicitation. The Government will assign a Solicitation Compliance rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable.” In the absence of discussions, if a proposal is assigned a rating of “Unacceptable” for Solicitation Compliance, it will be eliminated and neither Technical nor Past Performance will be evaluated; thus the proposal will be ineligible for award.

Step 2: Evaluate Technical Acceptability – For proposals assigned a rating of “Acceptable” in Step 1, the respective Technical proposal will be evaluated and assigned a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable.” In the absence of discussions, if a proposal is assigned a rating of “Unacceptable” for Technical, it will be eliminated and Past Performance will not be evaluated; thus the proposal will be ineligible for award.

Step 3: Evaluate Past Performance – For proposals assigned a rating of “Acceptable” in Step 2, the respective Past Performance proposal will be evaluated and assigned a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable.” In the absence of discussions, if a proposal is assigned a rating of “Unacceptable” for Past Performance, the proposal will be eliminated; thus the proposal will be ineligible for award.

B. EVALUATION FACTORS

a. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability.

FACTOR 1- SOLICITATION COMPLIANCE

FACTOR 2- TECHNICAL

Sub-factor 1: Obtain aircraft and simulators Sub-factor 2: Specialized Undergraduate Pilot (SUPT) Sub-factor 3: Maintenance Training

FACTOR 3- PAST PERFORMANCE

b. Factor 1- Solicitation Compliance The Solicitation Compliance, Volume I, evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Solicitation Compliance will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis based on the evaluation criteria below. Offerors must receive a Solicitation Compliance rating of “Acceptable” to be eligible for award. See applicable rating definitions in Table 1 below.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Factor 1: Solicitation Compliance

Instructions to Offerors Addenda to FAR 52.212-1

Evaluation Criteria Addenda to FAR 52.212-2

Volume I – Solicitation Compliance

Volume I – Solicitation Compliance

The Offeror shall provide a response to a RFP. The response shall include:

1. Include signed Standard Form 1449

(SF1449)

2. Include signed copies of all Standard Form 30(SF30) with Blocks 15A-15C completed, for any/all amendments

3. Include completed provision at 52,212-3, Representation and Certifications- Commercial Items and shall be registered in System for Award Management (SAM) Registration

The Offeror’s provide a detailed response which meets all of the solicitation compliance minimum requirements.

(c) Factor 2- Technical The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals in Volume II on an acceptable/unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings in Table 2 below for each subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal “Unacceptable” and, therefore, ineligible for award.

Proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Obtain aircraft and simulators. This subfactor assess the Offeror’s ability to provide aircraft in airframe categories A, B, C, and D and both simulator & aircraft for airframe categories E and G. The evaluation will address the Offerors response as outlined in the right-hand column (the “instructions to Offerors” column on the left is verbatim from Addenda to FAR 52.212-1 and is provided here for reference only):

4. Include index for the proposal for all Volumes

5. Does not exceed allotted page counts limitations stated in Volumes II and III

6. Signed letter vice-president level or equivalent or higher, that identifies the individual(s) with the authority to obligate, negotiate or otherwise bind your company to the resulting contract and, if necessary, future contract modifications.

7. Response to 52.209-5, Certification Regarding Responsibility Matters

8. Identify exceptions taken to the terms and conditions or any other requirements of this

RFP

TABLE 2 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Subfactor 1: Obtain Aircraft and Simulators

Instructions to Offerors Addenda to FAR 52.212-1

Evaluation Criteria Addenda to FAR 52.212-2

Volume II – Technical – Obtain Aircraft and Simulators

Volume II – Technical – Obtain Aircraft and Simulators

Subfactor 2: Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT): This subfactor assess the Offeror’s ability to provide SUPT training. The evaluation will address the Offerors response as outlined in the right-hand column (the “instructions to Offerors” column on the left is verbatim from Addenda to FAR 52.212-1 and is provided here for reference only):

The Offeror shall provide technical volume with detailed information which demonstrates the capability to gain access to aircraft from PWS Appendix A, Aircraft Categories A, B, C and D, as well as both simulator & aircraft for categories E and G.

The technical volume shall include for each category, at a minimum:

1. Aircraft model(s) obtained for each category above

2. Identify how access will be obtained (in-house, lease-back, etc) for each category of aircraft and simulator required above. If by subcontract, include vendor’s name.

This technical subfactor response may use a matrix for illustration and brevity but must be no more than two (2) pages in length.

The Offeror’s proposal demonstrates the contractor’s ability to gain access to aircraft from categories A, B, C and D, as well as both simulator & aircraft for categories E and G, IAW PWS Appendix A, Aircraft Categories.

Subfactor 2: Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT)

Instructions to Offerors Addenda to FAR 52.212-1

Evaluation Criteria Addenda to FAR 52.212-2

Volume II – Technical – SUPT Volume II – Technical – SUPT

The Offeror shall provide a proposal to a Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR) on a sample task order Statement of Work (SOW) for SUPT IAW PWS Section 2.1 and student support services IAW PWS Section

3.1.11. The sample FOPR is Attachment 05

to this RFP. The response shall include a detailed proposal to meet minimum requirements as outlined in the SOW. The proposal shall cover, at a minimum, the following:

1. Technical approach and descriptive narrative of the contractor’s understanding of the requested Scope of Work to include Final Service and Criteria for Completion

2. Training Timeline/Schedule, to include breakout of flight, simulator, and academics

The Offeror’s sample task order proposal meets all of the sample task order minimum requirements IAW PWS Sections 2.1 and 3.1.11 and Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Paragraph A.i.2.b.

Subfactor 3: Maintenance Training: This subfactor assesses the Offeror’s ability to provide maintenance training. The evaluation will address the Offerors response as outlined in the right-hand column (the “instructions to Offerors” column on the left is verbatim from Addenda to FAR 52.212-1 and is provided here for reference only):

for aircrew training along with aircraft availability timeline

3. Key personnel assigned

4. Period of Performance

5. Place of Performance

6. Student Support Service for IMS to include lodging, meals, transportation, medical, etc.

7. Teaming Arrangement (including subcontracting)

8. Deliverables IAW with the PWS and SOW to include Training Mitigation plan and COVID protocols

9. All assumptions and exceptions shall be identified in a separate section with a numbered list

10. Pricing Sheet completed (example attached to sample task order SOW)

This technical subfactor response must be no more than twenty (20) pages in length.

Subfactor 3: Maintenance Training

Instructions to Offerors Addenda to FAR 52.212-1

Evaluation Criteria Addenda to FAR 52.212-2

Volume II – Technical Proposal – Maintenance Training

Volume II – Technical Proposal – Maintenance Training

The Offeror shall provide a Contractor Statement of Work (CSOW) to a FOPR on a sample task order SOO C-208 aircraft maintenance training IAW PWS Paragraph

2.2.2. The sample task order SOO is

attachment 06 to the RFP. The response shall include CSOW to meet minimum requirements as outlined in the SOO. The CSOW shall cover, at a minimum, the following:

1. Scope of Work

2. Task Objectives

3. Training Requirements

4. Training Timeline/Schedule

5. Training Capacity

The Offeror provided a detailed CSOW, which meets all of the minimum requirements in the sample task order SOO c-208 aircraft maintenance training IAW PWS Sections 2.2.2 and Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Paragraph A.i.2.c..

(d) Factor 3- Past Performance The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of successfully meeting the solicitation requirements. Offerors must receive a past performance rating of “Acceptable” to be eligible for award.

Procedures in Evaluating Past Performance

Recency: As assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the five (5) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation, to include at least 90 days of documented performance during the five (5) year period.

Relevancy: The Government will evaluate the relevancy of Offeror’s recent past performance and assign an overall rating of relevant or not relevant based on the aggregate of all past performance evaluated IAW Tables 3, 3A. Portions of proposed efforts completed by the Offerer, subcontractor, teaming partner, and joint venture will be considered for relevancy. The relevancy of recent contracts will be assessed as defined in in the Tables (Table 3 and 3A-3C) below.

Table 3 - Relevancy Rating

RATING DESCRIPTION

Relevant Met the relevant rating in each of the below 3 tables (Tables 3A-3C)

Not Relevant Met the not relevant rating in 1 or more of the below three 3 tables (Tables 3A-3C)

Past Performance Relevancy Table 3A - Training

Relevant To be considered relevant, past performance is demonstrated in 3 or more of the 4 criteria below

Not Relevant To be considered not relevant, past performance is demonstrated in less than 3 out of the 4 criteria below

A. Past performance providing aircrew flight and/or simulator training that meets FAA Part 61, 141, or 142, or aircraft maintenance training that meets 14 CFR Part 147

B. Past performance providing OCONUS aircrew or OCONUS aircraft maintenance training

6. Place of Performance

7. Task Order Period of Performance

8. Pricing Sheet completed (example attached to sample task order SOW

This technical subfactor response to the RFP must be no more than twenty (20) pages in length

C. Past performance providing multiple classes with multiple students per class simultaneously

D. Past performance graduating students on time

Past Performance Relevancy Table 3B - Administration

Relevant To be considered relevant, past performance is demonstrated in 3 or more of the 4 criteria below

A. Past performance providing qualified management, support staff, and infrastructure to meet contract requirements

B. Past performance providing qualified aircrew instructors IAW FAA Part 61, 141, or 142, or aircraft maintenance instructors who meet 14 CFR Part 147

C. Past performance following International Traffic in Arms Regulation, foreign disclosure, or Third Party Transfer guidance as implemented in the Arms Export Control Act

D. Past performance managing multiple simultaneous subcontracts

Past Performance Relevancy Table 3C – Student Support

Relevant To be considered relevant, past performance is demonstrated in 3 or more of the 4 criteria below

A. Past performance providing international student medical support

B. Past performance providing international student meals C. Past performance providing student lodging D. Past performance providing student transportation

Quality: The Government will review all recent and relevant past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror performance on past contracts. Offeror’s with an overall rating of Relevant will all Acceptable, Satisfactory or above quality ratings and those with an “Unknown” past performance record will be assigned an “Acceptable” rating. Those with lower rating and/or negative comments will be assessed by the Government to make a subjective determination of whether the rating is “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” using descriptions in the Table 4. Individual contracts determined to not have any of the performance elements in Table 3A, 3B or 3C above will not be used to determine the overall rating in Table 4.

Table 4 – Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

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.*

Unacceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

* 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 (or "neutral") past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered "Acceptable."

Sources of Past Performance Information for Evaluation: In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources, including but not limited to, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

The assessment of the Offeror’s probability of successfully performing the requirements may reveal positive or adverse past performance information. Adverse past performance 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. Ratings of less than “Satisfactory” in CPARS, or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, the Defense Contract Management Agency, etc. may result in a rating of “Unacceptable.” Offerors may be given an opportunity to respond to adverse past performance information for which they have not previously had an opportunity to address IAW FAR 15.306.