Attachment_3_Addendum_to_52.212-2.pdf

Attachment 3 - FAR 52.212-2 – Evaluation – Commercial Products and Commercial Services Addendum

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2 Evaluation Criteria – Commercial Items

(a) The following is added to: 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:

1. The US Government (USG) intends to award one (1) firm-fixed-price (FFP), service-based contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforming to the Request for Proposals (RFP) is the most advantageous to the USG, price and other factors considered. To receive a contract award, the Offeror must be deemed responsible per FAR Part 9, conform to all required terms and conditions, and represent the best value subjective tradeoff to the USG, price, and other factors considered.

2. Evaluation Methodology: Best value subjective tradeoff will be determined per the parameters established within the Military Cargo Preference Act of 1904 and per FAR Part 12, FAR Part 13, and FAR Part 47 as supplemented. The USG intends to award one (1) contract to the Offeror in the highest Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement (VISA) participation priority of Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 4500.57, Transportation and Traffic Management, paragraph 6.4 that demonstrates the best value subjective tradeoff to the USG within these parameters, fully conforms to the solicitation requirements, is technically acceptable, represents a complete, reasonable, and not unbalanced price; and has been determined responsible.

3. The USG shall make an award using best value subjective tradeoff approach as follows:

1) FACTOR 1 – Flag Vessel Designation and VISA Participation Priority

2) FACTOR 2 - Pituffik Sealift Technical, with three (3) subfactors:

Subfactor 1 – Vessel Profile Subfactor 2 – Polar Code Compliance Subfactor 3 – Cargo Security and Protection

3) FACTOR 3 – Price

4. The USG seeks to award to the Offeror, who, in the USG’s estimation, provides the best value subjective tradeoff in response to the requirement. By submission of its offer, the Offeror agrees to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors. Failure to meet any requirement may make an offer technically Unacceptable.

5. Offerors must identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide a complete accompanying rationale. Offerors are reminded that the USG shall only evaluate one proposal from each Offeror.

6. The USG may conduct exchanges with Offerors after receipt of proposals if required.

7. The USG shall treat all pricing information as confidential and used only by evaluation team members for purposes required to award a contract. This information shall be used only for the intended purpose, and under no circumstances shall the information be given to any other contractor without the owner's written consent or as required by the Freedom of information Act.

8. The USG reserves the right to make an award based on the offeror’s initial proposal. Therefore, the Offeror's initial proposal should contain their best terms from a price, and technical standpoint.

9. 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 USG 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 the award.

EVALUATION FACTORS. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

1. Description. Proposals will be evaluated on three (3) factors: Factor 1 – Vessel Profile and VISA Participation Priority Eligibility, Factor 2 - Pituffik Sealift Technical, and Factor 3 - Price.

Factor 1, Vessel Profile and VISA Participation Priority Eligibility, shall be evaluated and must fulfill all the criteria in the Addendum to 52.212-1, Factor 1 – Flag Vessel Designation and VISA Participation Priority Eligibility. If an Offeror is deemed ineligible, then the

Technical and Price Volumes will not be evaluated, and the proposal will be considered unawardable. If an Offeror is deemed eligible, then further evaluation will be conducted for the Technical and Price Volumes.

Factor 2, Pituffik Sealift Technical, consists of three (3) Subfactors. Each Subfactor will be evaluated and assigned a rating of either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” as described in the Table below.

Factor 3, Price, will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness, and not unbalanced.

2. VOLUME 1: Factor 1 – Flag Vessel Designation and VISA Participation Priority Eligibility.

The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s documentation to determine how well it meets the Pituffik Sealift PWS requirements and ensure that the proposed documentation demonstrates the Offeror’s proposed vessel is a U.S.-flag vessel organized under the laws of a State of the United States or the District of Columbia; or documentation that demonstrates the Offeror’s proposed vessel is foreign-owned or foreign-operated flag vessel.

The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed documentation to determine how well it meets the Pituffik Sealift PWS requirements and ensure that the documentation indicates the current Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement (VISA) participation priority. United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) shall verify the VISA participant status of the Offerors by validating enrollment with the Maritime Administration (MARAD) as applicable. USTRANSCOM will evaluate the proposed VISA enrollment with MARAD and is current at the time of proposal submission if the Offeror is a VISA participant. For VISA affiliate and subsidiary companies, USTRANSCOM will similarly verify the VISA participant status of the parent company.

For those Offerors deemed eligible, they shall then be ranked in order of precedence by vessel capacity and VISA participation Commercial Priorities per DoDI 4500.57, paragraph 6.4:

a. U.S.-flag vessel capacity operated by a VISA participant and U.S.-flag Vessel Sharing Agreement (VSA) capacity of a VISA participant.

b. U.S.-flag vessel capacity operated by a VISA non-participant.

c. Combination of U.S.-flag and foreign-flag vessel capacity operated by a VISA participant and combination U.S.-flag and foreign-flag VSA capacity of a VISA participant.

d. Combination of U.S.-flag and foreign-flag vessel capacity operated by a VISA non-participant.

e. U.S.-owned or -operated foreign-flag vessel capacity and Vessel Sharing Agreement (VSA) capacity of a VISA participant.

f. U.S.-owned or -operated foreign-flag vessel capacity and VSA capacity of a VISA non-participant.

g. Foreign-owned or -operated foreign-flag vessel capacity of a VISA non-participant.

To be deemed eligible for Factor 1, the Offeror must meet the requirements of one (1) of the VISA participation Commercial Priorities.

Additionally, in each of these priorities listed in a-g above, all Offerors will be evaluated for compliance and listed in order of increasing price. The lowest price will receive the highest ranking in each priority. Price will be evaluated in Factor 3.

Preference within Commercial Priority category “g” “Foreign-owned or -operated foreign-flag vessel capacity of a VISA non-participant” will be given to Danish and Greenlandic owned or operated vessels. Preference is given in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark (Including the Home Rule Government of Greenland), dated 13 March 1991 and the subsequent modification of the MOU proposed under Diplomatic Note 053, date 16 July 2008, and acceptance by the Government of Denmark in a Diplomatic note, dated 27 January 2009.

The USG reserves the right to request waivers to the Military Cargo Preference Act of 1904 if they cannot determine the Offeror's prices to be complete, reasonable, and not unbalanced. If a waiver or waivers are approved, the government shall select Offerors from the next highest VISA category per the order of precedence.

3. VOLUME 2: Pituffik Sealift Technical (Factor 2).

Subfactor 1 – Vessel Profile.

1) The Offeror’s proposed approach demonstrates compliance with vessel profile, ownership and/or control, and certificate requirements for the vessels to be utilized executing of these requirements. Vessel profiles must include the name of the vessel, type of vessel, capacity of the vessel, and the flag of registry for the vessel(s) proposed for the port season. The Offeror’s approach documents how any changes/updates to vessel profile, ownership and/or control, and certificate requirements will be indicated.

2) The Offeror’s proposed approach provides a plan to maintain the same flag registry and active VISA participation for the entire period of performance.

3) The Offeror’s proposed approach documents the capability to independently onload and offload cargo at Pituffik SB for all cargo types described in performance work statement (PWS) paragraph 6.1.2(5).

4) The Offeror’s proposed approach documents the capability to ship/transport all cargo types listed in the PWS paragraph 6.1.2(5), with the ability to simultaneously ship all cargo types.

The Offeror’s proposed approach must meet all of these requirements to be deemed “Acceptable” for Factor 2, Subfactor 1. If not acceptable, the Offeror will not be evaluated for Factor 3, Price.

Subfactor 2 - Polar Code Compliance: The USG will evaluate the proposed approach to ensure that it meets the Pituffik Sealift PWS requirements, and the Offeror has provided the documentation indicating that each vessel proposed for the port season in the performance of this contract holds and maintains Polar Code compliance and includes the following:

a. The Offeror’s proposed approach provided documented adherence to the International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (Polar Code). Reference Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), 68th Session, 21, Add.1, Annex 10. (MEPC 68/21/Add.1, Annex 10);

b. The Offeror’s proposed approach documents that the materials and structure of the ice-strengthened ship used is designed for operation at the ship’s polar service temperature and resist both global and local structural loads anticipated under the foreseen ice conditions per Polar Code, Chapter 3, Ship Structure; and

c. The Offeror’s proposed approach documents a plan for operating in polar waters, masters, chief mates, and officers in charge of a navigational watch shall be qualified per Polar Code, Chapter 12, Manning and Training.

The Offeror’s proposed approach must meet all of these requirements to be deemed “Acceptable” for Factor 2, Subfactor 2.

Subfactor 3 - Cargo Security and Protection.

The USG will evaluate the proposed approach to ensure that it meets the Pituffik Sealift PWS requirements associated with Cargo Security and Protection, and the Offeror has provided the following:

a. The Offeror’s proposed approach documents a plan to protect and secure cargo from loss, theft, and/or any other damage, and includes adequate cargo protection against inclement or unusually severe weather; and

b. The Offeror’s proposed approach documents a plan to include cargo security and protection from origin storage, port(s) in Denmark, ocean freight transport, and destination handling during onloading/offloading.

The Offeror’s proposed approach must meet all of these requirements to be deemed “Acceptable” for Factor 2, Subfactor 3.

3. VOLUME 3: Price (Factor 3) To be evaluated for Factor 3, Price, the Offerors must be eligible in Factor 1 and technically acceptable in Factor 2 (to include all subfactors). For Factor 3, Offerors will be ranked by total evaluated price (TEP) from lowest price to highest within the Commercial Priorities, per DoDI 4500.57, paragraph 6.4. Factor 3, Price, shall use a TEP methodology to determine the best value Offeror for the contract award. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0002 proposed prices. The USG shall evaluate the proposal prices for completeness, reasonableness, and not unbalanced. To ensure complete and reasonable pricing, the USG shall evaluate all proposed rates using price analysis by one (1) or more of the techniques outlined in FAR Part 13.106. Reasonableness may be determined by comparing prices submitted by the competition, current market conditions, comparison to the Government estimate, or utilization of any other price analysis technique identified in FAR 13.106(a).

Factor 2 - Technical Ratings Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Any rates which appear to be not available at a complete and reasonable rate for commercial vessels of the United States will undergo further evaluation per the Secretary of Defense Delegation memorandum entitled, Delegation of Authority under the Cargo Preference Act and the Tanker Security Fleet Program, dated 25 Aug 21.

The USG reserves the right to request waivers to the Military Cargo Preference Act of 1904 if they cannot determine the Offeror's prices to be complete, reasonable, and not unbalanced. If a waiver or waivers are approved, the government shall select Offerors from the next highest VISA category per the order of precedence.

The USG shall use the procedures at FAR provision 52.225-17, Evaluation of Foreign Offerors, when evaluating an Offeror that contains a foreign currency.

4. VOLUME 4: Contract Documents All contract documents requested in Addendum to 52.212-1 will be assessed for completeness to ensure they meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as Factors or Subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award.

(End of provision)