Attachment 2 - Addendum to Evaluation.docx

Evaluation - Commercial Product and Commercial Services The Government intends to award a contract resulting from this request for proposals (RFP) to the Offeror whose task order proposal provides the overall "Best Value" to the offeror whose proposal complies with the requirements of the performance work statement and otherwise provides, in the Government's judgment, the most advantageous and realistic proposal considering both non-price and price factors as described within this section. The award shall be made on a best value basis, with trade-off factors listed below.

Evaluation of Proposals Process: The determination of which proposal represents the best value to the Government will be based on the following criteria in descending weight:

a. Past Performance

b. Corporate Experience

c. Price Past Performance is more important than Corporate Experience. Corporate Experience is more important than Price. When combined, Past Performance and Corporate Experience are significantly more important than Price. While Price is not the most important factor, the closer the Offerors' evaluations are in the non-Price factors (Other than Price), The Non-Price factors become approximately equal to Price. Notwithstanding the relative order of importance of the three evaluation factors as stated herein, Price may be controlling when:

a. Proposals are otherwise considered approximately equal in Past Performance and Corporate Experience; or

b. An otherwise superior proposal is unaffordable

c. The advantages of a higher rated, higher priced proposal are not considered to be worth the price premium.

The Government reserves the right to negotiate with one or more, but not necessarily all offerors, for any reason if so desired by the Government. Any proposal revisions shall be limited to the items negotiated. The Government may accept other than the lowest price and waive informalities and minor irregularities in the submitted proposals. Any changes to items not specifically identified by the Government as a negotiated item or will result in rejection of the item/service and/or the entire proposal.

The Government intends to evaluate responses and award a contract without discussions/communications with Offerors. Therefore, the Offeror's initial proposal shall contain its best terms from a cost/price and non-price factor(s) standpoint. The Government does not assume the duty to search for data to cure problems found in proposals. The burden of providing thorough and complete information remains solely with the offeror. The Government may assess a "higher risk" rating up to a deficiency to the offeror's proposal reject the offeror's proposal if the Government does not receive the information requested.

Proposals submitted in response to this RFP will be evaluated by Government Subject Matter Experts. Careful and impartial consideration will be given to all proposals not otherwise rejected.

FACTOR I: Past Performance. The Government will evaluate the offeror's record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS.

The Past Performance Factor will evaluate the risk and likelihood that based on the extent and recent/relevant performance, the offeror, will timely and successfully perform to the standards in the PWS. In assessing the relevance of previous performance to the RFP PWS requirements, the Government will consider the degree to which the offeror's historical performance under other projects proposed or identified though sources available to the Government are similar to the performance approaches to be employed in the scope contained in this RFP and the quality of that performance. The Government will consider the role of the contractor in the project in addition to the similarity of scope in determining the relevance of the performance as a factor in assessing performance confidence.

The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror's (and major subcontractor's) record of performance as it relates to all RFP requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors.

Major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror's overall team who are expected to perform ten (10) percent or more of the proposed effort.

The past performance of major subcontractors will be considered based on the proposed role of that subcontractor in performance of the requirements as well as the specifics of their role in the effort considered for evaluation of past performance. Offerors are cautioned that major subcontractor performance may not be given the same level of consideration as the past performance of the offeror in developing an overall performance confidence assessment. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process.

Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned a "Neutral Confidence" rating, and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal to include Attachment 6 – Past Performance Questionnaire, and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services.

The final ratings for each vendor's corporate experience will be as follows:

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant corporate experience, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant corporate experience, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence 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. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant corporate experience, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant corporate experience, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

FACTOR 2: Corporate Experience. The evaluation will be based on a complete assessment of the offeror's proposal. The proposal shall address each element as it applies to the criteria in the RFP and as it applies to the Performance Work Statement. The Corporate Experience must include all key areas as detailed in Section 5.0 of the PWS. Corporate Experience will be evaluated pursuant to the offeror demonstrating technical competency to ensure great likelihood of successfully performing the requirements in the PWS and the Solicitation. Corporate Experience will also be evaluated on the requirement that the offeror provides a current DTMO Certification. The Evaluation with the DTMO Certification will still be subject to the Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy Memo "Improving Competition in Defense Procurements" (NOV 24 2010) if only one Offeror provides an eligible proposal after the Solicitation was left open for more than 30 days.

Corporate Experience will be evaluated on the following criteria:

The offeror's Corporate Experience to deliver the required services and implementation plan to include Attachment 5 – Staffing Table, will be evaluated for the likelihood that it will lead to the successful accomplishment of the tasks and deliverables contained in the PWS.

The offeror's Corporate Experience will be evaluated on its ability to administer the transportation services effectively.

Demonstrates a proactive methodology for mitigating risks associated with hiring/assignment of personnel, retention, maintaining a fully trained workforce and compliance with all applicable regulatory limitations. An approach, which is determined to minimize the potential impact to performance and ensure continuity, will be evaluated more favorably.

Adjectival Rating Description Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is Not awardable.

FACTOR 3: COST/PRICE. The Cost/Price Factor evaluation will be conducted based on a fixed price. The proposed fixed price will be evaluated for reasonableness.

Price Reasonableness: The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of the offeror's proposed price, in accordance with the definition in FAR 31.201-3 and proposal analysis techniques in FAR 15.404-1. A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. If only one offer is received, the contracting officer may follow the procedures at DFARS 215.371-3 and 252.215-7008 in order to establish a fair and reasonable price.4.2 Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement in accordance with FAR provision 52.217-5. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

The Government reserves the right to evaluate proposal pricing for price realism under FAR 15.404-1(d).

This volume will only be evaluated for compliance of submitted information required to be considered eligible for Award. The Government will not trade off this as noted in the award criteria. Non-compliant proposals will not be further evaluated and will not be further considered for award. Only Offerors whose proposals are determined to be compliant will move into the evaluation process.

Definitions. The definition of each finding available are provided below.

Evaluation Findings are the written observations/judgments regarding the individual merits of the proposal against the solicitation requirements.

Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Rating is the adjective/color descriptor assigned by the evaluators to the non-Cost/Price Factors and corresponding elements. It represents their conclusions as to the quality of the proposal, supported by narrative write-ups identifying the associated strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and uncertainties. The strengths, weaknesses, etc., are the findings that support the rating adjective/color.

Strength is an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in away that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

POST AWARD-NOTICES AND DEBRIEFINGS:

Post-award notices and debriefings will be conducted in accordance with (IAW) FAR 16.505(b)(4). The Contracting Officer will notify unsuccessful awardees IAW FAR 15.503(b)(1), as directed by FAR 16.505(b)(4)(i). Upon such notification, unsuccessful awardees may request and receive a debriefing IAW FAR 15.506 (b)(1), as directed by FAR 16.505(b)(4)(ii). Unsuccessful awardees desiring debriefing shall make their request IAW the requirements of FAR 15.506, as applicable.

In the event that only one offer is received, the Government will evaluate offer IAW Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy Memo "Improving Competition in Defense Procurements" (NOV 24 2010).