Attachment 21 - MAFR OMS 52.212-2 Addendum.pdf

FA485525R0001

Attachment 21

19 Feb 25

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES

(NOV 2021) ADDENDUM

*** THIS SECTION IS FOR SOLICITATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS SECTION WILL BE

PHYSICALLY REMOVED FROM ANY RESULTANT AWARD BUT WILL BE DEEMED

INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE. ***

1. Basis for Contract Award

1.1. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff Source Selection Procedures in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subparts 15.101-1 and

15.3 as supplemented by the Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures referenced in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Subpart 215.300 and the Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS) Mandatory Procedures (MP) Subpart 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence it will best meet or exceed our requirements affordably in a way that will be most advantageous to the Government. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical, Technical Risk, Past Performance, Small Business Participation, and Price. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines the technical superiority and/or overall business approach and/or superior past and present performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the cost difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will review the written comparative analysis of offers and recommendation from the Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) based on the Source Selection Evaluation Board’s (SSEB) report of their evaluations of the factors and subfactors throughout this Addendum.

1.1.1. Methodology Relative to the Tradeoff Process: While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the Tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Offerors are reminded the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each Offeror. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP, and ultimately provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in section 2., below. Unless otherwise specified or defined in the Solicitation, Addenda to the Solicitation, Contract, Contract terms and conditions included in such documents shall be consistent with customary commercial practices.

1.2. Evaluation Process and Award: This is a competitive best value source selection which means an Offeror’s non-price factors, (Technical, Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Small Business Participation), when combined, are significantly more important than price. Non-Price Factors (Technical, Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Small Business Participation) are approximately equal in importance. The evaluation process will proceed as follows:

1.2.1. Evaluate all proposals for technical capability and assign ratings as identified in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, combined Technical and Technical Risk Ratings and as discussed in section 2.2. of this Addendum. The evaluation shall address the Source Selection Evaluation Board’s (SSEB) identification of any weakness as well as the Offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation (if applicable) and document why that is or is not manageable. Technical proposals rated as Red either initially or as a result of discussions, will not be eligible for award.

The Government intends to award without discussion, however, in the event the Contracting Officer determines it is in the Government’s best interest to enter into discussions, any Offeror which was originally rated as Red could become Yellow or greater;

1.2.2. Performance Assessments: Assess performance confidence for each Offeror using questionnaires on recent and relevant performance information based on past and present efforts provided by the Offeror’s proposal as well as data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources as discussed in paragraph 2.3. of this Addendum;

1.2.3. Small Business Participation: Evaluate Small Business Participation submission of the required small business participation commitment document identifying efforts taken to identify sources / opportunities and results or compelling justification on nonavailability as discussed in paragraph 2.4. of this Addendum, and;

1.2.4. Evaluate the price of all proposals: The Government will determine the Offeror‘s total evaluated price (TEP) using Attachment 7, Exhibit B Price Proposal Workbook (further referred to as Workbook). All proposals will be evaluated for price completeness, balance and reasonableness in accordance with paragraph 2.5. of this Addendum.

1.3. Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The resulting contract from this acquisition will be a Firm Fixed Price single award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. The Government will use a Tradeoff Source Selection to award a single contract. However, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all.

1.4. Intent to award without discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions.

Therefore, each initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a non-price factor and price standpoint. Based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation factors and subfactors, the Contracting Officer (CO) may establish a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals, unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR Subpart 15.306(c)(2). The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the CO determines discussions are necessary. 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) will be considered in making the Source Selection Decision. Clarifications and communication exchanges may be conducted after receipt of proposals for the reasons identified in FAR Subpart 15.306(a) and (b) and the CO reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revisions if awarding without discussions.

1.5. Correction Potential of Proposals: The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any proposal rated as Red. The judgement of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If any aspect of an Offeror's proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the Offeror will be eliminated from the competitive range. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information, and in the format specified in the FAR Provision 52.212-1 Addendum, Attachment 20. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (e.g., the relevance of past performance information), or respond to adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond.

1.6. Solicitation Requirements: By submission of its proposal, the Offeror thereby acknowledges and accepts all solicitation requirements, including the terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, as well as those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in a proposal being determined unawardable.

Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions in Volume VI, Contract Documentation, and provide complete accompanying rationale.

1.7. Factors, Subfactors and Relative Importance

1.7.1. Factors and Subfactors: A detailed and complete analysis of each Offeror’s proposal will be performed. The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors and subfactors:

1.7.1.1. Factor I and II: (Volume II): Technical and Technical Risk

1.7.1.1.1. Subfactor 1: Management Approach

1.7.1.1.2. Subfactor 2: Staffing Approach

1.7.1.1.3. Subfactor 3: Technical Approach

1.7.1.2. Factor III: (Volume III): Past Performance

1.7.1.3. Factor IV: (Volume IV): Small Business Participation

1.7.1.4. Factor V: (Volume V): Price

1.7.2. Relative Importance: For this solicitation, all non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price. Within Factor I Technical, Factor II Technical Risk and all subfactors are of equal importance.

2. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (organized by volume):

2.1. General

2.1.1. Award without Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined to be in the Governments best interest. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.306. If the CO determines the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the CO, with the concurrence of the SSA, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

2.2. Factor I and II (Volume II): Technical Factor and Technical Risk Factor (further referred to as Risks):

2.2.1. General: Each Offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the Offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the PWS, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail. For each subfactor, the Offeror identifies risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the Offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the Offeror’s proposal, it shall indicate the Offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach.

2.2.1.1. Subfactor 1: Management Approach: The proposal shall be evaluated and rated to determine if the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements below:

2.2.1.1.1. Program Management: The Offeror’s Program Management method will be evaluated to determine the Offerors ability to execute the requirements of the PWS, section 2.2.4.1.

2.2.1.1.1.2. The Offeror shall demonstrate a Program Management approach as described in Attachment 5, Exhibit A-001 CDRL Management Plan (further referred to as MGMT Plan), section 3.1.

2.2.1.1.1.3. The Offeror shall present an Organizational Structure as described in the MGMT Plan, section 3.2.

2.2.1.1.1.4. The Offeror shall present a Management Structure as described in the MGMT Plan, section 3.3.

2.2.1.1.2. Transition Plan: The Offeror’s Transition Plan will be evaluated to determine the Offeror’s ability to execute the requirements set forth in section 4.2 of the PWS.

2.2.1.1.2.1. The Offeror shall provide an explanation for start-up, mobilization, and transition, depicting the chronological sequence of events which will be accomplished starting at contract award as described in the MGMT Plan, section 3.4.1.

2.2.1.1.2.2. The Offeror shall provide information regarding organizing, training, coordinating, security clearances, and all actions necessary to begin performance at contract start as described in the MGMT Plan, section 3.4.2.

2.2.1.1.3. Mission-Essential Contractor Services Plan: The Offeror’s Mission-Essential Contractor Services Plan will be evaluated to determine the Offeror’s ability to meet the requirements of DFARS Clause 252.237-7023 and DFARS Provision 252.237-7024 and section 4.33 of the PWS.

2.2.1.1.3.1. The Offeror shall demonstrate their ability to continue to perform the essential contractor services listed in the PWS during periods of crisis.

2.2.1.1.3.2. The Offeror shall provide a reasonable Mission-Essential Contractor Services Plan as described in the MGMT Plan, section 3.5., to include the following:

2.2.1.1.3.3. Challenges associated with maintaining essential contractor services during an extended event, such as a pandemic that occurs in repeated waves;

2.2.1.1.3.4. The time lapse associated with the initiation of the acquisition of essential personnel and resources and their actual availability on site;

2.2.1.1.3.5. The components, processes, and requirements for the identification, training, and preparedness of personnel who are capable of relocating to alternate facilities or performing work from home;

2.2.1.1.3.6. Any established alert and notification procedures for mobilizing identified “essential contractor service” personnel; and

2.2.1.1.3.7. The approach for communicating expectations to contractor employees regarding their roles and responsibilities during a crisis.

2.2.1.2. Subfactor 2: Staffing Approach: The proposal shall be evaluated and rated to determine if the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the staffing requirements below:

2.2.1.2.1. Staffing Matrix: The Offeror’s Staffing Matrix, Attachment 15, will be evaluated to determine the Offeror’s staffing methodology, to include:

2.2.1.2.1.1. The total number of personnel with applicable skill breakouts for each labor category;

2.2.1.2.1.2. Correlation of the proposed functional labor categories for the prime contractor and subcontractors to the PWS tasks and subtasks; and

2.2.1.2.1.3. The mix of labor categories and key personnel to meet the requirements of the PWS at the prime and subcontractor level.

2.2.1.2.2. Staffing Plan: The Offeror’s Staffing Approach will be evaluated to determine the Offeror’s ability to communicate a plan that demonstrates the following:

2.2.1.2.2.1. A list of the personnel staffing the contractor’s management office as described in the MGMT Plan, section 4.1.;

2.2.1.2.2.2. A description of the staffing required as described in the MGMT Plan, section 4.2.;

2.2.1.2.2.3. A detailed position description for each position as described in the MGMT Plan, section 4.2.2.,

2.2.1.2.2.4. How many such personnel are currently available and how many new hires are required to be fully staffed as described in the MGMT Plan, section 4.2.3.; and

2.2.1.2.2.5. A proposed plan for retaining key personnel as described in the MGMT Plan, section 4.2.4.

2.2.1.3. Subfactor 3: Technical Approach: The proposal shall be evaluated and rated to determine if the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the technical requirements below:

2.2.1.3.1. Melrose Air Force Range (MAFR) Facility Maintenance Program: The Offeror’s proposal shall communicate a facility maintenance program plan as described in MGMT Plan, section 5.2.;

2.2.1.3.2. Air and Ground Operations: The Offeror’s proposal shall communicate an Air and Ground Operations Plan as described in MGMT Plan, section 5.3.;

2.2.1.3.3. Wildland Fire Management: The Offeror’s proposal shall communicate a Wildland fire Management approach as described in the MGMT Plan, section 5.4.;

2.2.1.3.4. Electronic Warfare/Electronic Systems (EWR): The Offeror’s proposal shall communicate an Electronic Warfare /Electronic Systems approach as described in MGMT Plan, section 5.5.;

2.2.1.3.5. Paramedic Services: The Offeror’s proposal shall communicate a Paramedic Services approach as described in MGMT Plan, section 5.6.;

2.2.1.3.6. Range Scheduling: The Offeror’s proposal shall communicate a Range Scheduling approach as described in MGMT Plan, section 5.7.; and

2.2.1.3.7. Vehicle and Heavy/Agricultural Equipment Plan: The Offeror’s proposal shall communicate a Vehicle and Heavy/ Agricultural Equipment plan as described in MGMT Plan, section 5.8.

2.2.2. Technical and Technical Risk Rating:

2.2.2.1. Technical Rating: The offeror’s technical solution will be rated separately from the risk associated with its technical approach. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement and includes consideration of the significant strengths, uncertainties, and deficiencies found in the proposal. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach to meeting the requirement. Each Technical subfactor identified above will receive one of the color ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 1 – Technical Rating Method, excerpted below. The color rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements.

2.2.2.2. Technical Ratings Method:

Table 1: Technical Rating Method

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements, contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength.

Purple Good Proposal demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal demonstrates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is un-awardable.

2.2.2.3. Technical Risk Rating: The assessment of the technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness/weaknesses, considers potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The technical risk evaluation shall address the Source Selection Team’s identification of any weakness as well as the Offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation (if applicable) and document why that is or is not manageable. The Technical Risk Rating descriptions are further defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2 – Technical Risk Rating Method, excerpted below. The adjectival ratings depict how well the Offeror’s technical risk considers the risk associated with the technical approach to meeting the requirement.

Table 2 - Technical Risk Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance.

Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

2.2.3. Incorporation of Tradeoffs: The Government intends, if it is in its best interest, to incorporate into the resulting contract, all beneficial aspects of the awardee’s proposal and all above threshold (minimum) attributes, performance levels, or capabilities for which evaluation credit was given. If discussions are conducted, incorporation will take place before or after request for final proposal revision (FPR). The Government will use the RFP Attachment 17, Incorporated Strengths or Capability Exceedances, for this purpose.

2.3. Factor III (Volume III), Past Performance Factor:

2.3.1. General: The past performance assessment will assess the Offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability (which includes, if applicable, the extent of its critical subcontractors’ involvement) to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the Offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming partner), other than the Offeror itself who are performing a significant portion of the total effort. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s/joint venture members’ and if applicable, the critical subcontractors’ ability of successfully performing as proposed. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. A past performance reference in Volume III must be relevant and recent to be evaluated. The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the Offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the Offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

2.3.1.1. Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

2.3.1.2. Evaluation Process: The Past Performance evaluation considers the Offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability (which includes, if applicable, the extent of its critical subcontractors’ involvement) past and present work record that is recent and relevant to this acquisition to assess the Government‘s confidence in the Offeror‘s ability of successfully performing as proposed. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror‘s present and recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to Technical and Price. A past performance reference in Volume III must be recent and relevant to be evaluated.

2.3.1.3. Recency Assessment: The Government will perform an independent assessment of the past performance information to determine if it is recent. To be recent, a current effort must be ongoing for at least six (6) months prior to the proposal submission due date. A completed effort must have been performed during the past ten (10) years from the proposal submission due date.

The past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.3.1.4. Relevancy Assessment: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent (at least three (3) but no more than eight (8)) submitted contracts. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy.

2.3.1.4.1. Consideration will be given to the business relationship between the Offeror and any teaming partners and critical subcontractors. Teams that have demonstrated successful performance together in the past will be considered more relevant than a contract performed by the Offeror alone, subcontractor alone or either with different teaming partners and subcontractors. The past performance information and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance.

2.3.1.4.2. A more relevant past performance record will be weighted more heavily than a less relevant performance record. The Government will use the degrees of relevancy in Table 3, Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method, when assessing relevant ratings to references.

2.3.1.4.3. The following relevancy criteria ratings, as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 3, will apply and be assigned to each effort identified in the Offeror’s Volume III, Past Performance, of its proposal:

Table 3 - Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

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

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

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

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2.3.1.4.4. Ordering Type Contracts Submission: In an ordering type contractual vehicle, performance is demonstrated at the order level (i.e. a delivery/task order). The Contractor shall determine the mix of contracts to best represent depth and breadth of past performance through relevant contracts.

References on indefinite delivery contracts submitted as individual task/delivery orders will be counted as one past performance reference. Likewise, references for the same contract but different option periods will be evaluated as a single past performance reference.

2.3.1.5. Past Performance References: The evaluation for the Past Performance section will ensure the Offeror provided a record of relevant and recent past performance on at least three (3), but no more than eight (8) previous/current contracts the Offeror considers most relevant in demonstrating the ability to perform the proposed effort. The evaluation will ensure at least one (1) past performance information sheet is provided for each teaming partner/critical subcontractor identified by the Offeror.

The Government will use data provided by each Offeror in this section and data obtained from other sources in the evaluation. If more than eight (8) past performance references are submitted, the Government will only consider information provided for the first eight (8) references of the past performance volume received. The past performance for the prime Contractor, joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor will be weighed equally. Past performance regarding predecessor companies or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will not be weighted as heavily as past performance information for the prime Contractor. Pursuant to FAR Subpart 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the Offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume. Present/Past Performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), and Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

2.3.1.6. Key Personnel: For Offerors/Joint Venture members or critical subcontractors that are newly formed entities (in existence less than six (6) years from the proposal submission due date) who either have no prior contracts or do not possess relevant corporate past performance, but have key personnel with relevant past performance while employed by another company, the relevancy of such key personnel’s performance as verified by the Past Performance Team will be considered if the submitted contract involves the key personnel performing the same role currently being proposed on the instant acquisition. To be recent, a current effort must be ongoing for at least ten (10) months prior to the proposal submission due date. A completed effort must have been performed during the past ten (10) years from the proposal submission due date. Any such key personnel must already be employed by the Offeror/Joint Venture member, or in the case of a critical subcontractor, must already be employed by the critical subcontractor. Offerors are reminded that a letter of intent to hire does not constitute employment.

2.3.1.7. Aggregate Past Performance Assessment: The Government reserves the right to evaluate the overall past performance of the Offerors/Joint Venture members or critical subcontractors on an aggregate and individual basis.

2.3.1.8. Performance Quality Assessment: The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance (see FAR Subpart 15.304(c)(2)). The past performance evaluation conducted in support of the current source selection will not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts.

Rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment (see paragraph 2.3.1.10. of this Addendum). A separate quality assessment rating is not required. Rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent past performance reference reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed in the past performance questionnaire, FAPIIS information, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), interviews with Government customers and commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government.

2.3.1.9. Adverse Past Performance: 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. Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the Offeror, joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

2.3.1.10. Past Performance Confidence Assessment: As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating in accordance with Table 4, Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Method. The resulting Performance Confidence Assessment is made at the Past Performance factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance.

Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is similar to the technical capability subfactors and price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. The performance confidence assessment ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4 – Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method, excerpted below.

Table 4 - Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

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.

2.3.1.11. 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 is 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 Subpart 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral”. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

2.4. Factor IV (Volume IV), Small Business Participation:

2.4.1. General: This required information will be used to evaluate the extent of the Offeror’s proposed participation/ commitment to use 8(a) Small Business (SB) firms in the performance of this acquisition (as 8(a) prime Offerors or 8(a) subcontractors) relative to paragraph 2.5. of the FAR Provision 52.212-1 Addendum. Binding small business participation commitments shall become an enforceable, contractual requirement.

2.4.2. Small Business Participation Evaluation:

2.4.2.1. The requirements of this factor are met when the Offeror provides a Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) that demonstrates an enforceable agreement to reserve the following tasks for 8(a) subcontractors.

2.4.2.1.1. Wildland Fire Management Services (see PWS section 3.7);

2.4.2.1.2. Paramedic Services (see PWS section 3.9); and

2.4.2.1.3. Situational Force (SITFOR) Support (see PWS section 3.10).

2.4.3. The Offeror must illustrate efforts taken to identify sources and opportunities or provide adequate justification that sources or opportunities do not exist.

2.4.4. Small business participation will be evaluated as Acceptable or Unacceptable as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Small Business Rating Method, excerpted below.

Table 5 - Small Business Rating Method

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

2.5. Factor V (Volume V), Price Factor:

2.5.1. General: The Government will evaluate Price for completeness, balance, and reasonableness.

An Offeror‘s price proposal will be evaluated based on the total evaluated price (TEP), which is determined by evaluating Attachment 7, Exhibit B Price Proposal Workbook (further referred to as Workbook).

2.5.1.1. Completeness: The Government will evaluate the price proposals for compliance with FAR Provision 52.212-1 Addendum. The Offeror shall ensure they have provided all pricing information required by the solicitation. The Government will evaluate the completeness of the Offeror’s proposed Labor Rate Pricing. A $0.00 proposal in a labor category, an omitted rate, or other missing price information may result in the Government determining the price proposal to be incomplete. If the Government determines a price proposal to be incomplete, the Government may not be able to further evaluate the proposal for reasonableness and balance and may not be able to make award to that Offeror.

2.5.1.2. Balance: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an unbalanced price proposal. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to Price. The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. The Government may also consider an offer unbalanced if there is a significant difference between proposed prices from year to year, including the Incentive Option Periods (IOPs), such that they are above or below what would be considered a reasonable adjustment for inflation. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.5.1.3. Reasonableness: The Government will evaluate the proposed Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for reasonableness using the techniques described in FAR Subpart 15.404-1. Generally, the Government may rely upon adequate price competition to establish a fair and reasonable price and may use adequate price competition as the basis for the fair and reasonable price determination, provided adequate price competition exists. For the Government to determine a TEP to be reasonable, the TEP must represent a price to the Government that does not exceed the price a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business.

2.5.1.3.1. The TEP is automatically calculated in the Workbook as the sum of the Offeror proposed prices for all CLINs including the base period(s), all incentive option periods (IOP), and the 6-month Option to Extend Services IAW FAR Clause 52.217-8.

2.5.1.3.2. Unless the Government conducts discussions IAW Paragraph 1.4. of this Addendum, the rates proposed by the Offeror will become contractually binding FFP fully burdened labor rates, should the Offeror be awarded a contract. If discussions are required, any updated rates proposed will become contractually binding FFP fully burdened labor rates should the Offeror be awarded a contract.

2.5.1.4. Offeror Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The TEP is automatically calculated in the Workbook as the sum of the Offeror proposed prices for all CLINs including the base period(s), and all incentive option periods (IOP), and the 6-month Option to Extend Services IAW FAR Clause 52.217-8.

Although the TEP is shown in the TEP tab of the Workbook, it is the Offeror‘s responsibility to ensure the fully burdened hourly rates and contractor manpower equivalents (CME) numbers are complete and accurate throughout the different sheets in the workbook. The Government will evaluate the base labor rate against the current CBA labor rates in accordance with FAR Clause 52.222-41(f) -- Service Contract Labor Standards. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes and also represents known requirements, which the Government will use to award the requirements using the fully burdened hourly rates as firm fixed prices. Therefore, the Offeror is cautioned to provide reasonable and balanced pricing since it will form the firm fixed price of fully burdened hourly rates on those labor categories listed in the Workbook. After contract award, the rates in the Workbook, will also be used as the basis of price for additional operating hours (AOH), Labor Hours (LH) and Time and Materials (T&M) requirements using the procedures outlined in the PWS.

2.5.1.5. Price Analysis: A price analysis will be conducted in lieu of a cost analysis. This source selection is conducted with the expectation of adequate price competition and will rely on market forces and price analysis to ensure awarded prices are reasonable. Comparison of proposed prices received 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, to include but not limited to the following: a comparison of all Offerors’ proposed fully burdened hourly rates; comparison of previously proposed prices and previous Government and commercial contract prices with current proposed prices for the same or similar service/items; comparison with competitive market prices of similar services; or comparison of proposed prices with independent Government cost estimates.

2.5.1.6. Evaluation of FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services: The Government will evaluate all options under the task order. However, evaluation of options does not obligate the Government to exercise such options. This task order contains the six-month extension of services IAW FAR Clause 52.217-8, "Option to Extend Services". It will only be utilized if necessary. The six-month extension of services is in addition to the FAR Clause 52.217-9 option periods. Offerors shall not submit additional rates for the potential six-month extension of services period. Instead, the Labor Rates Table spreadsheet will automatically pull the amounts from the last one-year incentive option period into the columns for the FAR Clause 52.217-8 option. This means, the price of the FAR Clause 52.217-8 option will be half the price of the final one-year incentive option period and included in the

TEP.

(End of Addendum)