Attachment 2- Section M.pdf

Attachment 2 Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 – EVALUATION- COMMERICAL ITEMS (NOV 2021)

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0. Basis for Contract Award

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Department of the Air Force Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the FAR Site, https://www.acquisition.gov/. The Best Value technique chosen for this acquisition will be a Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT). The PPT technique permits tradeoffs between price/cost and past performance and includes evaluation for technical acceptability. Contract award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements, is considered technically acceptable, and provides the best value to the Government, considering price and past performance. The contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR and applicable supplements. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Department of the Air Fore the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an award higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Services Acquisition Decision Authority (SADA) reasonably determines that the past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SADA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SADA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

Technical and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Price when being evaluated.

The Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions with offerors.

Therefore, the offerors initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. In accordance with FAR 15.306, Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, relevance of past performance information). Communications (Clarifications) 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 revisions. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. Discussions or negotiations may be conducted with one, some or all offerors. Offerors shall ensure that proposals are submitted in accordance with the instructions provided in FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors. Through submitting, the offeror agrees to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offeror’s proposal being disqualified and no further evaluation.

Offerors shall offer prices for all items. Any offer that fails to cite a price for each item or does not make an entry will be determined nonresponsive. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide justifiable rationale. Failure to comply with these requirements will be https://www.acquisition.gov/ at risk for rejection. Only firm-fixed price offers will be evaluated, any pricing outside of that will not be further evaluated.

1.1. Evaluation Factors

• Factor 1: Price

• Factor 2: Technical o Subfactor: Store Management Plan (Attachment 11, 12 & 13 -

CDRL A0002, A0003 & A0004)

o Subfactor: Transition Plan (Attachment 17 - CDRL A0008)

• Factor 3: Past Performance

1.2. Evaluation Process

a) Proposals will be ranked from lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP) to highest TEP. The Government will evaluate the lowest price proposal under Factor 1, Price.

b) If the lowest price proposal is found to be incomplete or unreasonable under Factor 1, then the Government will review the next lowest TEP until one proposal is found to be complete, fair and reasonable under Factor 1 or all offers have been evaluated.

c) The lowest price proposal with complete, fair and reasonable pricing for Factor 1 will be evaluated for Factor II, Technical. If the lowest price proposal is found to be unacceptable then the Government will review the next lowest TEP until one is found to be technically acceptable.

d) If the lowest TEP proposal is complete, reasonable and technically acceptable it will be evaluated for Factor III, Past Performance. If the lowest TEP proposal has a substantial confidence performance assessment under Factor III, the proposal will be determined to be the best value for the Government. At this point the evaluation process will stop, and an award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offerors.

e) If the lowest TEP proposal is complete, reasonable and technically acceptable but does not receive substantial confidence performance assessment, the evaluation process will continue until an offeror is found to have a substantial confidence performance ratings or all offerors have been evaluated. If no offerors receive substantial confidence rating the Government will award to the lowest TEP offeror with satisfactory confidence rating. If no offerors are found to have a complete, reasonable, and technically acceptable proposal with a satisfactory confidence rating, then the Government will award to the lowest TEP offeror with a Neutral Confidence rating. No awards will be made to proposals with Limited Confidence or No Confidence past ratings.

1.3. Factor 1: Price

1.3.1. Price Evaluation. The TEP for each offer will be established as follows: Price will be reviewed and evaluated based on the amounts shown within Attachment 9 - Pricing Discount Coefficient, Attachment 8 - Common COCESS Items Price List and Attachment 19 - CDRL A0010 Supplemental Priced Items (SPI) List. The TEP will be the sum of Attachment 8 - Common COCESS Items Price List and Attachment 19 - CDRL A0010 Supplemental Priced Items (SPI) List. The price evaluation will document reasonableness and balanced pricing of the proposed TEP.

1.3.2. The offeror’s price volume of the proposal will be evaluated, using one or more techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404 to determine reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The Government will review the Cost/Price proposal for completeness and compliance with the solicitation.

Although adequate price competition is expected, if only one offer is received in response to this solicitation, the offeror may be required to provide data other than certified cost or pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.403-3.

1.3.3. Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze each proposal to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices proposed within Volume I for the same or similar services in the same or similar quantities. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the prices are significantly unbalanced or if the unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

1.4. Factor 2: Technical

Technical evaluations will start with the lowest priced and completed proposals. If the lowest TEP proposal is determined technically unacceptable, the technical evaluation will continue in order of lowest to highest TEP until an offeror is found technically acceptable or until all offers are evaluated.

Only offerors determined to be technically acceptable will be considered for further evaluation.

1.4.1. The rating assigned to this technical evaluation factor will be based on the offeror’s proposed technical volume II. 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; failure to be assigned an acceptable rating in any subfactor will render the entire technical volume as unacceptable.

1.4.2. Rating descriptions for technical evaluations

Rating Description

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

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

1.4.3. Technical Subfactor 1: Store Management Plan

Offerors shall submit a Store Management Plan (Attachment 11, 12 & 13 - CDRL A0002, A0003 & A0004 ) that clearly demonstrates the offerors understanding of the management and staffing requirements of the PWS. The Store Management Plan will be rated as acceptable if it meets the following minimum requirements:

• Identifies workforce composition (to include seasonal hiring if proposed) showing labor category experience, contractor manning equivalents (CMEs) and the associated number of hours for each functional area to meet all COCESS PWS requirements for the 5-year ordering period.

• Include an organizational chart that identifies key personnel such as the on-site contract manager, alternate contract mangers(s), and all other personnel offerors propose to manage and staff the requirement.

• Offeror submits a staffing plan that shows in detail how the offeror will recruit, retain and replace personnel who have the knowledge, experience, and skills to perform as required in the COCESS

PWS.

• Identify how the offeror intends to continue uninterrupted services during personnel absences, such as sickness, vacations, etc. without a degradation in the services provided.

1.4.4. Technical Subfactor 2: Transition Plan

Offerors shall submit a Attachment 17 - CDRL A0008 Transition Plan that clearly demonstrates a reasonable approach to how the offeror intends to manage, staff, schedule, and complete all required task within thirty (30) days of contract award so that the contractor will be able to perform IAW the PWS on the first day of the performance period without degradation in service from the previous contract. The Transition Plan shall consist of the following information:

• Identifies a plan for obtaining base access and a Common Access Card (CAC) for personnel.

• Identifies a plan to stock the COCESS store with recommended store stock items.

1.5. Factor 3: Past Performance

1.5.1. The information in Volume III, Past Performance Information and completed Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment 5) and other available performance information, the Contracting Officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information on all offerors based on: past and present efforts provided by the offeror and data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources.

1.5.2. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s past performance.

The Government assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of the following:

• Substantial Confidence

• Satisfactory Confidence

• Neutral Confidence

• Limited Confidence

• No Confidence

1.5.3. The Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on contracts deemed most relevant. Offerors are cautioned to submit only pertinent and sufficient information and in the specified format in Section L. Offeror’s may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal or respond to adverse past performance information. Clarification 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.

1.5.4. Recent past performance is defined as ongoing contracts with a performance history, and contracts completed or near completion within three (3) years from the issue date of this solicitation. Past

Performance Information submitted that does not meet the definition of recent will not be evaluated.

1.5.5. In determining relevancy for individual past performance submissions, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, joint venture partner, or major subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information forms and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will determine relevancy when assessing recent contracts, see table below.

Rating Description Scope Magnitude Complexities Very Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Provide ALL necessary labor, supervision, equipment, supplies, transportation and materials to support a Contractor Operated Civil Engineer Supply Store or equivalent as described in the attached associated requirement documents.

Greater than $5,000,000 annually

Included a combination of experience and expertise in the areas of: Inventory Processing, Supply Sourcing, Procurement of Materials, Delivery Processes, Store Processes, Hazardous Material, Reports, Record Keeping, and Contract Responsibilities.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires

Provide MOST necessary labor, supervision, equipment, supplies, transportation and materials to support a Contractor Operated Civil Engineer Supply Store or equivalent as described in the attached associated requirement documents.

Between $1,000,000 to $4,999,999 annually

Included a combination of experience and expertise in the areas of: Inventory Processing, Supply Sourcing, Procurement of Materials, Delivery Processes, Store Processes, Hazardous Material, Reports, Record Keeping, and Contract Responsibilities.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires

Provide SOME necessary labor, supervision, equipment, supplies, transportation and materials to support a Contractor Operated Civil Engineer Supply Store or equivalent as described in the attached associated requirement documents.

Between $500,000 to $999,999 annually

Included a combination of experience and expertise in the areas of: Inventory Processing, Supply Sourcing, Procurement of Materials, Delivery Processes, Store Processes, Hazardous Material, Reports, Record Keeping, and Contract Responsibilities.

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Provide NO necessary labor, supervision, equipment, supplies, transportation and materials to support a Contractor Operated Civil Engineer Supply Store or equivalent as described in the attached associated requirement documents

Less than $500,000 annually

No scope of experience

1.5.6. The Government reserves the right to seek information on higher priced offerors if none of the lower priced offerors receive a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment. The purpose of the Past Performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in this RFP, based on the offeror’s demonstrated Present and Past Performance. The Government will conduct a performance confidence assessment based upon Past Performance of the offerors as it relates to the probability of successfully performing the solicitation requirements. This evaluation will include the offeror’s record of (i) conforming to the Performance Work Statement, (ii) management of the project, (iii) reasonable and cooperative behavior and performance and commitment to customer satisfaction, and (iv) quality control. This assessment represents the Government evaluation team’s judgment of the probability of an offeror successfully accomplishing the proposed effort, based upon the offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance. The rating may be determined initially, without the need of discussions. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, or No Confidence as defined in the table below.

Most recent performance will have a greater impact on the Performance will have a greater impact on the Performance confidence Assessment than less recent effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an “Unknown Confidence” rating.

Likewise, a more relevant past performance records may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

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

PERFORMANCE CONFIEDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/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 recent/relevant performance record, 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 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/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

1.5.7. Past/Present Performance Questionnaires and Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) Submissions. Offerors shall provide information regarding past or current contracts (including Federal, State, local government, and private) for efforts similar to the Government’s requirement as stated in the solicitation through either questionnaires or evaluations from CPARS as identified in Section L, paragraph 3.4.1, 3.4.2 and 3.4.4.

1.5.8. The Government may evaluate information on problems identified and encountered on previous contracts and corrective actions taken by the offeror. The Government may use information previously obtained from past performance questionnaires or data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources in the evaluation process.

1.5.9. In the event an Offeror submits a Past Performance Questionnaire, and it is subsequently determined that the referenced project has been formally evaluated in CPARS, the ratings in CPARS shall take precedence.

1.5.10. In the case of the offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the offeror shall be rated as “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)”.

1.5.11. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Offerors may be asked to clarify or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond.

1.5.12. If a Teaming Agreement is submitted as part of the proposal as outlined in Section L para 3.4.3., each teaming offeror’s past performance will be evaluated separately using the same evaluation methods described above. The Prime Contractor’s past performance will be weighted slightly more than equal based on their overall responsibility for contract management. The separate ratings of each party in the Teaming Agreement will be combined to determine an aggregate PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT CONFIDENCE RATING as defined in the Table above within Section M.

1.6. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Subcontracting plans will not be rated but evaluated by the Small Business Advisor and the Contracting Officer.

The Government may reject any proposal that is assessed to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in price, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program. Proposals that are unrealistic in terms of price may be rejected at any time during the evaluation process.

Once the apparent successful offeror is selected the Government will evaluate the offeror’s financial capabilities and the specified criteria at FAR 9.104. Attachment 6, Financial Reference Worksheet will be forwarded to the financial institution, and a determination will be made regarding the apparent successful offerors’ financial capabilities and overall contractor responsibility using the specified criteria at FAR 9.104.