Attachment 23 FAR 52.212-2.pdf

52.212-2 Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services Evaluation Factors for Award

Solicitation Provision 52.212-2 Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services

As prescribed in 12.301(c), the Contracting Officer may insert a provision substantially as follows:

Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Nov 2021)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers in descending order of importance:

1) Technical/Risk SubFactor 1) – Program Management Approach (A/U) SubFactor 2) – Staffing Approach (Trade-off)

2) Past Performance

3) Price

Technical and past performance, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

(b) 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. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of provision)

Attachment 23, FAR 52.212-2

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2

1. INTRODUCTION

Multilateral Administrative Requirements Vehicle (MARVel) is a single award Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract.

This section defines the criteria the Government will consider in its evaluation of an offeror’s proposal submitted for the Multilateral Administrative Requirements Vehicle (MARVel) acquisition.

This is a competitive 8(a) small business set-aside, best value, subjective tradeoff in which competing offerors Technical, Past Performance and Price will be evaluated. The applicable NAICS is 561110, Size Standard $8M. The Government’s intent is to award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror with the best value in accordance with the factors of this solicitation. The Government intends to award one contract, or to not award any contracts, depending on the quality of proposals submitted and availability of funds. No partial awards will be made. The offeror’s proposal shall be composed of the completed Technical, Price, Past Performance, and Contract Documentation volumes. Responses to any additional information requests from the Government will also be evaluated.

1.1 Compliance with Terms and Conditions

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information in the format specified in the proposal preparation instructions located in FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors -- Commercial Items and addendum. See Attachment 22 to the RFP. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation’s terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale in appropriate volumes in addition to the Contract Documentation volume.

2. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

This is a tradeoff 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 Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Acquisition.gov website, https://www.acquisition.gov/.

A single IDIQ contract may be awarded to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required), and provides the best subjective trade-off value based upon the evaluation method described below. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

By submission of its offer in accordance with the instructions provided in provision FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors, the offeror accedes to the terms of this model contract. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

3. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon the evaluation factors. The Government will evaluate proposals based upon the following factors.

The relative importance is as follows:

1) Technical is more important than Past Performance or Price Within Technical Subfactors, Subfactor 1 will be evaluated using

Acceptable/Unacceptable (A/U) rating Within Technical Subfactors, Subfactor 2 will receive one of the color ratings described in Table 3

2) Past Performance is more important than Price

IAW FAR 15.304(e), Technical and Past Performance when combined are significantly more important than Price

3) Price is a factor in the best value trade-off

The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

1) Technical/Risk Evaluation: The purpose of the technical factor(s) is to assess the offeror’s proposed approach, as detailed in its proposal, to satisfy the Government’s requirements. Technical Risk assesses the degree to which the offeror’s proposed technical approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or increased likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. All evaluations that include a technical evaluation factor shall also consider risk, separately or in conjunction with technical factors, with the exception of LPTA where the technical proposal is evaluated only for acceptability based on stated criteria. Risk is being evaluated as one aspect of the technical evaluation, inherent in the technical evaluation factor or subfactor ratings (IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures, 3.1.2.2).

The technical rating reflects the quality of the offeror's technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Technical sub factor 1 will receive the ratings and descriptions outlined in Table C.1 - Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating while Technical sub factor 2 will receive one of the color ratings described in Table 3.

The Government will assign strengths for aspects of an offeror's proposal that have merit or exceed specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals against the following factor and subfactors:

1) Technical/Risk SubFactor 1) – Program Management Approach SubFactor 2) – Staffing Approach

SubFactor 1: Program (Quality) Management Approach The Government will evaluate whether the offeror's Program (Quality) Management Approach, to include the offeror's Quality Control Plan, Communication Plan, and Transition Plan, demonstrate the offeror's understanding of the applicable PWS requirements, and provides a realistic and effective approach to those PWS requirements.

SubFactor 1 the team shall evaluate the offeror’s proposal against these requirements to determine whether the subfactor is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in in DoD Source Selection Procedures. Table C-1. Table C-1 is provided below.

Table C-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

SubFactor 2: Staffing Approach The Government will evaluate the offeror's Staffing Approach to ensure it provides a plan for staffing the contract with properly skilled and trained personnel, to include the offeror's ability to timely hire sufficient personnel to perform the PWS, and to deliver seamless continuity of services without interruption or degradation of services. The Government will evaluate whether the offeror demonstrates a clear, comprehensive, realistic, and efficient approach to ensuring that sufficient qualified personnel are available to meet the PWS requirements.

The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in Table 3 and the risk descriptions as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 3, Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method. Table 3 is provided below.

Table 3. Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

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

Purple 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.

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

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red 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 unawardable.

2) Past Performance Evaluation: The past performance evaluation factor assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply services that meet users’ needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance. A past performance evaluation is required in accordance with FAR 15.304(c)(3).

Past Performance Factor. Past Performance will be rated as “Substantial”, “Satisfactory”, “Neutral”, “Limited”, or “No” Confidence. The Government may trade up from a lower rated past performance rating as part of the best value trade-off decision. The Government will not award a contract to an

Offeror that is rated as having “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence.”

Evaluation Process. Past performance will be evaluated as an indicator of an Offeror's ability to perform the contract successfully, and as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to perform successfully. This will be accomplished through a confidence assessment rating based on the Government assessing Offeror’s past performance history that is relevant to the requirements of this solicitation. The partners to the joint venture in the aggregate must demonstrate the past performance, experience, business systems and certification necessary to perform the contract. The Past Performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance of services that are like the solicitation requirements and the quality of the Offeror’s performance record. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume, and information obtained from other sources available to the Government to include, but not limited to: the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS);

Electronic Document Access (EDA), or other databases; and interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, COs, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

Recency is defined as at least 12 months of the effort’s period of performance must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. The entire contract will be evaluated if there are 12-months of performance within the three (3) year recency window. Performance efforts that do not meet these criteria will not be evaluated for relevancy or performance quality.

Recency for Protégé s is defined as at least six (6) months of the effort’s period of performance must have been performed during the past six (6) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. The entire contract will be evaluated if there are 6-months of performance within the six (6) year recency window. Performance efforts that do not meet these criteria will not be evaluated for relevancy or performance quality.

Relevant performance measures the extent of similarity in scope, magnitude, and complexity of the Offeror’s past performance and the solicitation requirements. For each Past Performance effort, relevancy will be determined by the similarity to the scope, magnitude of effort and complexity of the Offerors’ performance. Magnitude similarity will be calculated as an estimated annual value (EAV) as part of the relevancy determination. Relevancy will be assigned a rating outlined in Table M.4, IAW the DoD Source Selection Procedures. Performance efforts that are determined to be Not Relevant will not be further evaluated.

The Government will use the past performance relevancy ratings and descriptions as outlined in Table 4 below:

Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Table 4 – Relevancy Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

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.

Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality (how well the contractor performed on the contracts) of recent, relevant efforts. The quality assessment may include adverse information. Adverse is defined as past performance that supports an unsatisfactory or marginal rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment. For adverse information identified, the evaluation 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. IAW FAR 15.306, Offerors may be given the opportunity to address adverse past performance information to which they have not had a prior opportunity to respond.

Note: Self-identifying adverse information and corrective actions on PPI Worksheets constitutes an opportunity to respond.

Past Performance Evaluation Confidence Ratings: The Government will evaluate past performance and assign an overall confidence rating outlined in Table 5 IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures, based on an Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance.

Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method Table 5 - Past Performance Confidence Ratings

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.

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 and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral”. A “Substantial” or “Satisfactory” confidence rating may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

3) Price Evaluation: Lastly the offers shall be ranked according to price. The Government will rank all offers by total evaluated price (TEP). The total evaluated price will be determined by multiplying all unit prices by the quantities in the Schedule and adding all extended prices, including options.

Options include the Government's Option to Extend Services. One-half (six months) of the offeror's proposed price for the final option period will be added to the offeror's total price to determine the total evaluated price.

Generally, adequate price competition is sufficient to satisfy the requirement for ensuring reasonableness. For a price to be considered reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market and its affordability. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if reasonableness cannot be determined, additional information will be required to support the proposed price.

The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to labor rates and TEP. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more labor rate is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR Part 15.404-1. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(b) 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. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP), Attachment 19, Commercial Services Non-Exempt Labor Rate

Schedule The TEP will consist of the cumulative value for CLINs including XX01 (Standard Administration, FFP), XX02 (Executive Administration, FFP), each Task Order (to include all option periods), CLINs XX03 (Travel) is considered immaterial and will be evaluated on a one-on-one basis at the time of occurrence. CLIN XX04 (CDRL) is not separately priced (NSP). All costs associated with the production of these items shall be included in the fully burdened labor rates in conjunction with CLIN XX01 or CLIN XX02. The TEP for CLINs XX01 and XX02 will be calculated by applying notional hours to a predetermined mix of labor categories across all fiscal years. The sum of these notional hours applied to the offeror’s proposed labor rates for each labor category will determine TEP. Note that the PWS lists two labor categories. All personnel will fit into one of the two labor categories.

Notional hours will be for Government evaluation purposes only and will NOT be disclosed to offerors. The TEP is for evaluation purposes only; however, all proposed rates are contractually binding as Not-to-Exceed rates. A no bid or an omitted rate may result in an incomplete Price Volume submission. An omitted rate may result in proposal elimination.

The TEP will include the following CLINs:

XX01 FFP Standard Administration XX02 FFP Executive Administration XX03 FFP Travel XX04 NSP CDRLs

(End of Provision)