Attachment 2 - Addendum to 52.212-2.pdf

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2—EVALUATION—COMMERCIAL ITEMS

A. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

1. This competitive, best value source selection will be conducted using the lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) source selection process. Award will be made to the lowest priced technically acceptable Offeror whose proposal conforms to all of the solicitation’s requirements. The resulting contract will be a firm-fixed price (FFP) contract. The LPTA evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

2. Proposals shall be ranked lowest to highest by Total Evaluated Price (TEP) as defined in the Addendum to 52.212-1. The Government shall proceed to evaluate Factor 1 (Technical) and Factor 2 (Past Performance) of the three lowest priced proposals. In the event that the three lowest priced proposals are not rated acceptable for both Factor 1 (Technical) and Factor 2 (Past Performance), the Government will continue to evaluate the next lowest priced proposal until a minimum of three proposals have received acceptable ratings for both non-priced factors.

3. The past performance rating will be based upon the responses to the questionnaires (RFP Attachment 3) received and on the recent and relevant performance information identified within the Offeror’s proposal. Data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources may also be used.

B. SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

By submission of its proposal in accordance with instructions provided in the FAR Clause 52.212-1 Addendum, the Offeror agrees to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors. All proposals with acceptable non-priced factors shall be treated equally except for the respective prices. Proposals that fail to strictly comply with the Addendum to 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors, will be determined unresponsive and therefore ineligible for award.

C. DISCUSSIONS:

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.

If at any time during the evaluation process it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to open and enter into discussions, timely offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

D. EVALUATION FACTORS:

Proposals will be evaluated using three (3) evaluation factors: (1) Technical, (2) Past Performance, and (3) Price. All technical capability sub-factors within the technical factor will receive either an acceptable or unacceptable technical factor rating. An unacceptable technical sub-factor assessment will render the entire technical factor unacceptable.

E. TECHNICAL FACTOR RATINGS:

Offerors’ technical volume shall demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the nature and scope of work required. The focus of the technical factor rating is on the Offeror’s ability to meet the minimum requirements of the PWS. The Government will not search for data to cure problems or address inconsistencies in an Offeror’s technical volume. This factor will be evaluated technically acceptable/technically unacceptable at the sub-factor level. A finding of technically unacceptable in any sub-factor will render the technical volume technically unacceptable IAW the table below.

RATING DEFINITION

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

To be eligible for award, an acceptable rating for all technical sub-factors is required. Some technical sub-factors contain aspects. Each aspect will be assigned a rating of acceptable or unacceptable based on whether the proposal meets the basic PWS requirements and standards, and satisfactorily addresses the evaluation criteria identified within the aspect. Any aspect rating of unacceptable will result in a sub-factor rating of unacceptable. Proposals that exceed the evaluation criteria will not receive higher ratings.

VOLUME II – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY – FACTOR 1 (Maximum 25 pages for Sub-factors 1 thru 4)

Tab 1. Table of Contents

Tab 2: Sub-factor 1 – Management Approach

The management approach is acceptable when it demonstrates the capability to meet the performance requirements identified in the PWS. The proposal shall not merely offer to perform the work in accordance with the solicitation requirements, but shall outline the Offeror’s actual approach. A rating of unacceptable in one or more of the technical sub-factors will constitute an overall rating of unacceptable for the technical evaluation. The management approach shall include as a minimum a detailed description of the Offeror’s approach in providing services for:

a. Target systems retrieval IAW paragraph 1.2 of the PWS.

b. Launch corridor clearance IAW paragraph 1.3 of the PWS.

c. Watercraft vessel operating systems IAW paragraph 1.5 of the PWS.

Tab 3: Sub-factor 2 – Staffing Plan

The staffing plan is acceptable when it clearly demonstrates a sufficient quantity of qualified personnel with the required certifications to meet the requirements in the PWS. Logical and concise methodology must be presented to demonstrate that qualified personnel with the required certifications are available to meet the requirement in the PWS throughout the life of the contract. The plan shall include, at a minimum, proof of qualification and certification requirements in accordance with paragraphs 1.12.2 and 1.2.5 as follows:

a. Current copies of captain’s certification for 200-ton vessels.

b. Current copies of the chief engineer’s certification for 6,400 hp engines.

c. Current copies of marine credentials for Transportation Worker Identification (TWIC) and US Coast Guard documentation for ordinary seaman.

d. Current copies of documentation required for commercial divers as required by CFR Title 29, part 1910, subpart T, Commercial Diving Operations IAW PWS paragraph 1.2.5.

Tab 4. Sub-factor 3 – Quality Control

The quality control plan is acceptable when the Offeror has provided an effective and complete approach that adequately addresses the requirements of PWS paragraph 2.1 to ensure services provided meet the performance objectives and thresholds identified in the services summary (paragraph 2.0 of the PWS). The quality control plan will include as a minimum:

a. An effective and complete quality control plan IAW paragraph 2.1 of the PWS that addresses each of the requirements in 2.0, Services Summary.

b. Identify and address the role and authority of the primary quality control personnel.

c. Methods to be used for identifying and preventing defects before the performance becomes unacceptable.

d. Corrective actions or procedures that will be used to identify, prevent, or ensure non-recurrence of defective services.

Tab 5. Sub-factor 4 – Experience

The experience sub-factor is acceptable when the Offeror provides an acceptable description of recent watercraft experience in maritime operations, search and recovery, boundary clearance operations, and vessel maintenance. Experience must include operations performed in a marine environment facing challenging open ocean dynamics. Experience can be demonstrated either as a prime contractor or team effort, and either through a single prior or current contract or by a combination of prior and/or current contracts. Experience information consists of activities performed within the previous 3 years from the issue date of this solicitation. The experience will include as a minimum:

a. Documentation of previous work that demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of tasks required to perform target systems retrieval IAW PWS para 1.2.

b. Documentation of previous work that demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of tasks required to perform launch corridor clearance IAW PWS para 1.3.

c. Documentation of pervious work that demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of tasks required to perform maintenance for all watercraft vessel operating systems IAW PWS para 1.5.

Tab 6. Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

VOLUME III – PRICE – FACTOR 2

Tab 1: SF 1449 and All Amendments

F. PRICING EVALUATION PROCESS:

1. The Government will evaluate the price/cost information submitted in each Offeror’s price proposal, as required by the FAR Clause 52.212-1 Addendum, to determine if proposed prices are fair and reasonable using one or more of the proposal analysis techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1. In addition to the price analysis as described in FAR 15.404-1(b), price proposals will be analyzed to identify any potential unbalanced pricing (See FAR 15.404-1(g)). Unbalanced pricing may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an Offeror’s proposal. Comparison of proposed prices in response to the solicitation is the preferred and intended price analysis technique. Other techniques and procedures, if deemed necessary, may be used to ensure a fair and reasonable price.

2. There is a reasonable expectation for adequate competition for this requirement, as such Offerors are advised to present their best price proposal up-front. In instances where an Offeror receives acceptable technical and past performance ratings, yet proposed prices appear exceptionally low, Offerors may be requested to address this disparity, providing evidence of their capability and/or experience providing similar service(s) at similar price(s). An exceptionally low offer may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an Offeror’s proposal.

3. Complete blocks 12, 17a, and 30a, b, and c of the SF 1449. In doing so, the Offeror agrees to the contract terms and conditions as written in the solicitation, with attachments. The solicitation constitutes the model contract.

4. Offerors shall enter a unit price, rounded up to 2 decimals only, for each firm-fixed price (FFP) CLIN, to include all option periods. Price proposals will be assessed based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). TEP will be calculated as the sum of all FFP extended prices for CLINs 0002 (Watercraft Operations and Maintenance) and Option Year CLINs X0001 (Watercraft Operations and Maintenance). Not to Exceed CLINs 0001 (Transition Period), 0003 (Parts), 0004 (Shipyard Overhaul), 0005 (Vessel Dockside), 0006 (SFS Boat Maintenance), 0007 (SFS Parts), X002 (Parts), X003 (Shipyard Overhaul), X004 (Vessel Dockside), X005 (SFS Boat Maintenance), and X006 (SFS Parts) will not be included in the TEP calculation. TEP calculation will not include the 6 month extension period authorized by FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, which will be priced at 50% of Option Year 4. Offerors shall not provide pricing in their proposal for the 6 month extension period.

VOLUME IV – PAST PERFORMANCE – FACTOR 3

Tab 1: Table of Contents

Tabs 2-6: Past Performance References

G. PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS:

1. The Government will evaluate this factor to assess the Offerors’ recent and relevant past performance to determine whether there is a reasonable expectation that the Offeror can successfully perform as proposed. For purposes of this evaluation, the “Offeror” includes any joint ventures, subcontractors and/or teaming partners proposed as part of the prime contractor’s team under this effort. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet user’s needs, including quality, cost, and schedule. The government will evaluate all aspects of the Past Performance Information (PPI) as part of its assessment. Past performance will be assessed a final rating of "acceptable" or "unacceptable" at the factor level IAW the table below.

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.

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.”

2. Recency. A Recency determination will be made for each PPI reference provided. Recency is defined as active contract performance (minimum of 6 months) during the three (3) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation. Contracts that were started prior to this time, but still in effect with active performance (minimum of 6 months) as of three (3) years from the date of this solicitation, will be considered recent. If a PPI reference is determined recent, the Government may evaluate the Offerors’ performance record during the entire contract period.

3. Relevancy. Relevancy includes performance of efforts involving requirements that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity than the effort described in the solicitation. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts most closely resemble the scope, magnitude, and complexity of this solicitation. The Government will validate the relevancy information contained in the contractor-provided PPI reference. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. In order to be considered Relevant, each PPI reference must meet the criteria as shown below in the table.

RATING DEFINITION

Relevant

Past performance effort involving control of watercraft in maritime operations, search and recovery, boundary clearance operations, and vessel maintenance. Past performance must include operations performed in a marine environment facing challenging open ocean dynamics

Not Relevant No experience with any of the above.

4. Performance Quality Assessment. For each recent and relevant past performance reference reviewed, the Government will consider the performance quality of the work performed. In addition to evaluating the extent to which the Offeror’s past performance met basic contract PWS and technical requirements, the assessment will consider things such as reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction. The performance quality 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. The Offeror will be afforded the opportunity to respond to any adverse information which has not been previously addressed. For adverse information identified, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

5. Past Performance References. Provide the past performance questionnaire, Attachment 3 to the RFP, to your references and ensure they complete the assessment and forward no later than 10 calendars days prior to the date set for the receipt of proposals to: allyson.cooper@us.af.mil and deborah.williams.3@us.af.mil.

(End of Addendum) mailto:allyson.cooper@us.af.mil mailto:deborah.williams.3@us.af.mil