Attachment 4 - ADDENDUM 52.212-2.pdf

502 CONS / JBKAE MTI Deliberate Development JBSA Lackland, TX FA3016-22-Q-0001

Attachment 4 – Addendum 52.212-2 Page 1 of 6

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION - COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

Addendum to 52.212-2(a): Paragraph (a) is tailored as follows:

(a) Basis for Contract Award. The Government intends to award one Firm Fixed Price Base plus Options Requirement contract as a 100% Woman Owned Small Business Set-Aside service acquisition. Award resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offer whose quote is responsive to the RFQ, technically acceptable and considered to be Best Value based upon a technical factors, past performance, and price trade-off. A responsive quote is one that meets all of the terms, conditions and specifications in the RFQ. The offeror must provide all documents listed and comply with all RFQ instructions in order for their quote to be considered "responsive" to this RFQ. Non-responsive offerors will be considered ineligible for award.

The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, and all other information required by this solicitation. Unless specifically identified in your quote, by submission of its offer, the Offerer accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. Failure to meet a requirement will result in a quote being determined ineligible for award.

This contract will be awarded one Firm Fixed Price Base plus Options Requirement contract as a 100% Woman Owned Small Business Set-Aside service acquisition. It is the Government's intent to evaluate quotes and award a contract IAW FAR 13.106. FAR Part 15 based evaluations will NOT be used for this acquisition. The initial quote should contain your best terms; however;

the Government reserves the right to conduct interchanges if determined necessary by the Contracting Officer to resolve issues such as technical or price, or deal with contract documentation including any other matter in the evaluation process. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity to revise quotes.

1.0 Evaluation Process. The Government may consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any quote. The judgment of such "correctional potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If any aspect of an offeror's quote does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the offer will be ineligible for award. The following factors shall be used to evaluate quotes: Technical, past performance and price. Offers will be ranked based on initial assessment of total overall evaluated prices, followed by a full evaluation of Technical and Past Performance. Tradeoff considerations may result in the determination that it is in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced quote or other than the highest rated offeror in past performance. Only technically acceptable quotes are eligible for award.

1.1 Quotes. The Government will rank quotes based on an initial assessment of offeror's total evaluated prices, followed by a full evaluation of Technical, Past Performance and Price as follows:

1.2 Price Evaluation. Offers shall be ranked according to price, from lowest to highest based on total evaluated price (TEP). TEP will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in

Attachment 4 – Addendum 52.212-2 Page 2 of 6 the Bid Schedule by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN). The extended amount for each CLIN will be totaled to obtain the estimated total amount for each performance period. The estimated total amount for the basic performance period will then be added to the estimated total for each ordering period to obtain the Total Evaluated Price. Price will be evaluated for price reasonableness per FAR 13.106-3(a).

The contract will include (one Firm Fixed Price Base plus Options Requirement contract as a 100% Woman Owned Small Business Set-Aside service acquisition) with the potential to extend the contracts an additional 6 months beyond the awarded contract performance IAW FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services which is also included in the evaluation of prices. The price for that period will be determined based on the unit prices proposed for the current period of performance and will be evaluated at time of award. In the event the Government requires continued performance, the Government's evaluation of prices proposed will be considered fair and reasonable as applied to an extension of services. Should an extension of services be required rates will be adjusted only as result of revisions to applicable prevailing Department of Labor wage rates.

1.3 Technical Evaluation. The Government will evaluate all quotes for Technical Acceptability.

An offeror will be selected based on technically acceptable and considered to be Best Value based upon a technical acceptability and past performance/price trade-off.

1.3.1 Acceptability Ratings. The technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical factors identified below. All technical factors are considered equal in importance. For a quote to be technically acceptable, all technical factors must be rated as acceptable. The failure of an offer to meet all the technical criteria will result in a technically unacceptable rating and be ineligible for award. The technical factors will receive one of the ratings listed below.

Rating Description

(A) Acceptable The quote clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

(U) Unacceptable The quote does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

1.3.2 Evaluation of Factors. Offerors are advised that their submission should be their best effort. Only technically acceptable quotes, either initially or as a result of interchanges, are eligible for award. If award is made without interchanges, quote revisions will not be permitted.

The Government will evaluate the quotes selected above for technical acceptability on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. For the technical quote to be rated as "Acceptable", all technical factors and sub factors must be rated acceptable. If any technical factor or sub factor is rated "Unacceptable" the overall quote will be rated as "Unacceptable". The technical quote will be evaluated for the following technical factors and sub factors:

(A) Technical-Factor# 1 - Staffing Plan.

Attachment 4 – Addendum 52.212-2 Page 3 of 6

Standard: The Staffing Plan shall ensure that the contractor can find, qualify, and retain personnel to perform all functions as described in the PWS dated 20 September 2021.

Additionally, it demonstrates how well the contractor understands each of the five separate work areas (Behavioral Analyst - BMT, Behavioral Development Specialist, Military Values- Based Instruction, Data Processor/Survey Administrator and Behavioral Analyst - HP) and the manpower necessary to accomplish the tasks.

Description: The staffing plan describes how the contractor will man each of the five sections (number of personnel) and how they will ensure that qualified personnel can be hired and retained at the prices that the contractor bids for the work.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the Offeror's quote demonstrates the evaluated areas below:

i. Detailed staffing plan to ensure performance of all services required by the PWS; (PWS 1.2.1., 1.2.2., 1.2.3., 1.2.4., and 1.2.5.) including how much manpower will be used in each area to accomplish tasks.

ii. Contractor must include how they will ensure new personnel are trained to perform tasks on contract start and how they will ensure employees cover 100% compliant performance objectives during times of employee vacation, illness, replacements or times when employees may be unavailable. (PWS 3.4.)

iii. The staffing plan describes how turnover of staff will be minimized including addressing background security checks (PWS 2.7.)

(B) Technical Factor# 2 - Operations Plan.

Standard: The Offeror's Operations Plan shall address how the contractor will ensure all deliverables meet the requirements listed in the PWS dated 20 September 2021 and the contractors plan for implementing the two software requirements identified within the data administrator functions.

Description: The operations plan shall ensure the contractor has a plan for meeting deliverable requirements and provide specific plan for implementing the software requires within the PWS.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the Offeror's quote demonstrates:

i. A thorough plan for addressing how to meet on a timely basis in accordance with the PWS the 33 listed deliverables. (PWS 4.0.)

ii. Quality control measures associated with how the deliverables are meeting the quality standards listed in the PWS. (PWS 4.0.)

iii. Describe the voice recognition software to be used and associated equipment which will be used to read hand written comments into an MS Excel spreadsheet/database software and how this information will be uploaded into analytic software. Include what analytic software will be used and what format the information will be in as a deliverable to the government. (PWS 1.2.4.10.)

Attachment 4 – Addendum 52.212-2 Page 4 of 6

iv. Describe what automated system will be used including software and computer equipment to log all feedback into. Include how this system will store, protect (security) the feedback information. Additionally, how this system will email information to BMT leadership and how it will meet the 24 hour requirement. How will this system be maintained and be current. (PWS 1.2.4.8.)

v. How the contractor will ensure the Behavioral Analyst – BMT and Behavioral Analyst – HP are using statistically sound industry standards and ensure there are less than 1 data entry/calculation error per month. (PWS 3.1 and 3.5)

(C) Technical Factor#3 - Contingency Plan

Standard: The Offeror's Contingency Plan shall ensure continuous operations for all five sections within the PWS dated 20 September 2021.

Description: The Contingency Plan ensures that continuity of operations for all five sections are maintained during staffing shortages, equipment or communication failures, or other delays.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the Offeror's quote describes:

a) How continuity of operations are maintained during staffing shortages, equipment or communication failures. (PWS 1.2.1., 1.2.2., 1.2.3., 1.2.4., 1.2.5.)

b) How the contingency plan does not rely on the Government to ensure continuity of operations.

(PWS 2.3.)

The standard has been met when: The offeror adequately demonstrates a sound, comprehensive, realistic, effective, and efficient contingency plan in accordance with the requirements of the

PWS.

1.4 Past Performance Evaluation. All quotes determined technically acceptable will be evaluated on past performance. Using the past performance data provided by the offeror and data independently obtained from other Government sources, the CO will evaluate recent and relevant past performance information, and using this information will develop a performance confidence assessment. The quote must identify at least two but no more than four contracts/task orders for past performance evaluation that demonstrate recent and relevant past performance as the prime contractor.

The Government will seek recent and relevant performance information from: (i) past and present efforts provided by the offeror and (ii) data independently obtained from other government sources. These may include the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), and the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), as well as other sources.

Rating Description

(A) Recent To be recent, some portion of the Past performance effort must have occurred within the last three years prior to the issue date of the solicitation. For current contracts/task orders work must have been performed for a minimum of six

Attachment 4 – Addendum 52.212-2 Page 5 of 6 months prior to the issue date of solicitation. Performance not qualifying as recent will not receive further evaluation or consideration. Non-recent performance will not be evaluated for relevancy.

(B) Relevant

The Government will next evaluate the relevancy of performance that qualified as recent. To be relevant, performance includes performance of efforts that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude and complexity than the effort described in this RFQ and the SOW. Performance qualifying as recent will be categorized as Relevant or not relevant. Performance that does not meet the definition of relevant will not be evaluated for quality of performance.

Past Performance Relevancy Rating

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, magnitude and complexity of effort as this Requirement.

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, magnitude and complexity of effort as this RFQ.

Based on the evaluation of individual performance efforts, the Government will then assign one of the following ratings:

Performance Confidence Assessment 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

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the fact of past performance

Limited

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort

Attachment 4 – Addendum 52.212-2 Page 6 of 6

No

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.

** Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history or whose performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned may receive the rating of "Neutral Confidence", meaning the rating is treated neither favorably no unfavorably. Offeror's may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their quote (for example, 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. Adverse past performance is defined as past or present performance effort that is rated less than satisfactory overall or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

If the lowest priced evaluated offer is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance rating and the offeror is determined to be responsible, that offer represents the best value for the government and the evaluation process may stop. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment or until all offerors are evaluated if necessary. After all evaluations have been completed and the Government determines none of the technically acceptable offerors has a past performance confidence assessment rating of “Substantial” Government will then conduct an integrated best value trade-off among those offerors with a “Satisfactory” past performance confidence assessment rating and price. The best value to the Government will be the lowest priced, technically acceptable offeror with a “Satisfactory” past performance confidence assessment rating. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

(End of Addendum 52.212-2)