Attachment 3 - Addendum_to_FAR_52.212-2_Evaluation .pdf

Attachment 3: Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation -- Commercial Items

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

EVALUATION APPROACH:

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror's initial proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms from a cost and technical standpoint.

If, after initial evaluation of offers, an award cannot be made without discussions, a competitive range determination will be made by the Contracting Officer IAW FAR 15.306(c).

An “Unacceptable” rating on the Technical Evaluation Factor shall render the proposal ineligible for award, or if discussions are held, a proposal with an unacceptable rating may be excluded from the competitive range. However, as stated in the paragraph below, the Government reserves the opportunity to include proposals considered to have a reasonable chance of being selected for award.

It is the intention of the Government to award without discussions, however, if it is determined that discussions are necessary, then the determination of the competitive range will include all proposals which are considered to be the most highly rated and may include those that are considered to have a reasonable chance of being selected for award, unless the competitive range is further limited in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(2).

Those Offerors whose proposals do not fall into the competitive range will be so notified as prescribed by FAR 15.503(a)(1).

Those Offerors whose proposals are determined by the Contracting Officer to be in the competitive range will be contacted by the Contract Specialist for discussions. Exchanges (i.e., discussions) will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306(d). If verbal discussions are held, they will be followed by a written reiteration of the discussion. Written discussions also may be held, whereby the Government provides a written list of discussion questions to each Offeror, as appropriate. In the case of both verbal and written discussions, the Offeror shall provide a written response to the discussion question(s) and revision to the proposal as required.

This response and revision (if required) shall be marked accordingly to distinguish it as a supplement to the original proposal. More than one (1) round of discussions may be held. At the conclusion of final discussions, the Government will request each Offeror in the competitive range to submit a Final Proposal Revision (FPR). A common cut-off date for submission of FPRs will be established by the Contracting Officer in accordance with FAR 15.307(b). In the event further discussions are required after receipt of the FPRs, the Contracting Officer may reopen discussions and Offerors will be required to submit another FPR. Final factor ratings will be based upon the evaluation of the FPR.

A proposal will be determined ineligible for award if the Technical Capability Factor (Factor 1) is rated as “Unacceptable” or if the Past Performance Factor (Factor 2) is rated as “No Confidence.”

The Contracting Officer will promptly notify Offerors when their proposal is excluded from the competitive range, whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505. The Contracting Officer will notify unsuccessful Offerors in the competitive range of the source selection decision IAW FAR 15.503(b)(1). Upon such notification, unsuccessful Offerors may request and receive a debriefing. Offerors requesting a debriefing must make their request IAW the requirements of FAR 15.505 or FAR 15.506, as applicable.

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

The award of a contract as a result of this solicitation will be based on a Best Value/Trade Off assessment using the evaluation factors and their importance as indicated below. The integrated assessment shall include consideration of the strengths, significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and/or deficiencies of the proposals and a consideration of tradeoffs between the technical evaluation, past performance evaluation, and cost/price. Ultimately, the Contracting Officer will take into account the offeror's capability to meet the requirements of this solicitation in a timely and cost-effective manner. The Government reserves such right of flexibility in conducting the evaluation as is necessary to award a contract that is in the Government's best interest. Accordingly, the Government may award the contract to other than the offeror with the lowest price, or other than the offeror with the highest evaluation ratings.

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, in descending order of importance, shall be used to evaluate offers:

Factor 1 - Technical Capability Factor 2 - Past Performance Factor 3 - Price (price will not be assigned an adjectival rating)

Technical Capability is more important than Past Performance. Technical Capability, and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Price.

Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the price for the FAR 52.217-8 option period to the total price for the requirement. Evaluation of the FAR 52.217-8 option period shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance 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, whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the PWS with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Typographical errors indicate a lack of attention to detail and may result in a weakness noted against the Offeror’s proposal.

All proposals shall set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by this solicitation (including attachments and enclosures). The penalty for making false statements in the Offeror’s proposal is prescribed in 18 U.S.C. 1001.

EVALUATION FACTORS

Factor 1, Technical Capability Technical Capability will be evaluated to assess how well the Offeror demonstrated an understanding and ability to meet the PWS requirements at the start of full performance and throughout duration of the contract. The evaluation will include an assessment of how well the Offeror proposed to satisfy the performance requirements under following technical capabilities.

Element A, Technical Approach and Evaluation Methodology The Government will evaluate the extent of the Offeror's understanding and capabilities to provide an online academic skills training product containing the appropriate subject area content as required by the PWS. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's ability to report program metadata to document product usage and user assessment improvements in support return on investment goals. The Government will evaluate the extent of the Offeror’s capabilities based on depth and thoroughness of the proposal, proposed technical approach and methodology. The Government will also evaluate the Offeror’s approach to providing a commercially available computer adaptive course that improves cognitive, metacognitive, and non-cognitive academic skills from basic through pre-college level learning.

Element B, Program Management The Government will evaluate the extent of the Offeror's ability to manage all aspects of the contract requirements and manage and staff personnel per the Technical Approach and Methodology to support PWS requirements.

Element C, Staffing Plan The Government will evaluate how the Offeror’s staffing plan supports its technical approach by providing labor categories, experience and skill level of proposed personnel, and labor hours with a crosswalk to the PWS requirements. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s capability to provide the appropriate staffing and shall address the ability to vet prospective employees, staff the requirement in known high stress environments, and retain quality employees.

Element D, Transition and Execution Plan The Government will evaluate the Offeror's Transition Plan to assess the Offeror's ability to successfully transition and be prepared to fully execute the PWS on the first day of full performance.

Evaluation Risk:

The evaluation of risk is related to the technical capability assessment. Risk assesses the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed technical approach could cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Risk is part of the overall assessment of the technical capability factor rating and is not a separate evaluation element.

Any proposal receiving an overall rating of Unacceptable in Factor 1, Technical Capability, will be deemed to have a risk that is so high that award cannot be made against the proposal, and the proposal will not be further evaluated.

A color and adjectival rating will be assigned to evaluate the Offeror’s Technical Capability, and the degree to which it demonstrates an understanding of the requirements through an assessment of the proposal, including its strengths, significant strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and risk. Technical Capability will be rated at the overall Factor 1 level, that is inclusive of each element.

Color Rating Adjectival Rating

Description

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

Factor 2, Past Performance.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

The Offeror will be evaluated on the references provided in the offeror’s Past Performance Proposal and information obtained from other sources which may include: the Federal Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) application, System for Award Management (SAM), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Contracting Officer’s Representatives (CORs) or other pertinent officials; and responses received from the Past Performance Questionnaire.

The Government shall first evaluate the offeror’s past performance references to determine the recency and relevancy of those references to this acquisition. In the context of this procurement, recency is defined as a contract performed within five (5) years of the solicitation issuance date. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated. If contract performance is within five (5) years of the solicitation issuance date, the contract performance will be considered as part of the performance confidence. The relevancy assessment shall consider the similarity of scope, magnitude of effort, and the complexities this solicitation requires. With respect to recency and relevance, more recent and relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the performance confidence assessment than less recent or relevant past performance. In addition, a strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating.

Relevance is defined in the following table:

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.

The Government shall then determine how well the contractor performed on the recent and relevant contracts (Quality of Products or Services). The Government will assign an overall performance confidence assessment rating as to the Offeror’s ability to perform on the required effort based upon the recent and relevant past performance record demonstrating: (1) A quality product or service (i.e., the conformance to contract requirements, specifications, and standards of good workmanship); (2) Timeliness of the contract with regard to completion of contract, task orders, milestones, delivery schedules and administrative requirements (e.g., effort that contributes to or affects the schedule variance); (3) Management of key personnel with regard to demonstration of a commitment to the management of key personnel with regard to the Offeror’s performance in selecting, retaining, supporting, and replacing, when necessary, key personnel; and (4) regulatory compliance.

One of the following ratings will be assigned at the Past Performance factor level:

Adjectival 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.

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.

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.

A signed commitment by the Offeror and major subcontractor certifying that the parties commit to joint performance as proposed is required for past performance of a major subcontractor to be evaluated or considered. Major subcontractor references without a signed commitment will not be considered or evaluated.

Offerors without a Past Performance Record, for whom a Past Performance Record is not available, or whose relevant performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, shall receive a “Neutral Confidence” Performance Confidence Assessment rating.

Factor 3, Price.

The Government will assess the Offeror’s price proposal. This assessment will determine the reasonableness of the price proposed. Price analysis will not be conducted on proposals determined to be unacceptable for award or for inclusion in the competitive range, as it will be assumed that the price proposed is not reasonable based on an unacceptable technical approach.

The Government anticipates that adequate price competition will establish a fair and reasonable price. However, if the Government does not receive adequate price competition, it will evaluate price proposals to ensure price reasonableness of the services being provided to the Government, considering the specific terms, conditions, and relevant commercial practices.

Price proposals will not receive an adjectival rating. The Government will assess the total proposed price which will determine the reasonableness of the pricing proposed. The Government will evaluate Total Price, for award purposes, by adding the total of all line items for the base period and all options plus half of the total price of option year four to account for FAR 52.217-8. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the CLIN or option pricing are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of option(s) shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option. This factor will be evaluated utilizing price analysis techniques under FAR part 15.404. The analysis will be conducted on the total evaluated price.

The total evaluated contract Price will be calculated by adding the Offeror’s total price for CLINs X001 through X002 and the FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services price to arrive at a total evaluated price.

(End of Addendum)

Attachment 3: Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation -- Commercial Items