Attachment 4 - DRAFT Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-2.pdf

Attachment 4

Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-2 Evaluation of Commercial Items

1.0 SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This is a competitive best value subjective tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) 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/. The Government will evaluate the IDIQ and the Initial Task Order separately. The Government will select the best overall proposal, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk (IDIQ Factor 1), Past Performance (IDIQ Factor 2), and Price (Initial Task Order Factor 2) (see note below). Initial Task Order Factor 1, Staffing and IDIQ Factor 3, Price will not be included in the integrated assessment. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors-Commercial Items, of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. 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 that the technical and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk (IDIQ Factor 1), Past Performance (IDIQ Factor 2), and Price (Initial Task Order Factor 2) Note: Initial Task Order Factor 1, Staffing and IDIQ Factor 3, Price will not be included in the integrated assessment. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the 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.

1.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one IDIQ contract from solicitation FA445220R0011 for the Logistics Integration and Weapon System Support Logistics Network (LOGNET) Support requirement. Immediately following award of the IDIQ contract, the Government intends to award an initial task order with FFP CLINS and a Time and Materials CLIN for travel.. However, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all.

1.2 Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if 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. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the https://www.acquisition.gov/

FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

1.3.1. If the Government determines that, after the initial evaluation of proposals, discussions are necessary, the Government will make a competitive range determination (limited to a restricted number of the highest rated proposals) in order to establish a list of offerors with which it will conduct discussions.

1.3.2. Discussions will be initiated by the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) upon issuance of ENs to the offerors within the competitive range. Evaluation Notices may be orally briefed to offerors prior to written release to ensure complete understanding by the respective offeror of any discrepancies.

1.3.3 The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any aspect of a proposal. The judgement of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government’s requirements and is not considered correctable, or if the amount and complexity of the corrections needed to meet the Government requirement is impractical, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1.3.4 Any offeror excluded at any time during the source selection process will be afforded the opportunity to request either a pre-award or post-award debriefing.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

This is a best value source selection utilizing the subjective trade-off process to determine the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements as stated in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2. Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors, given their relative order of importance, described below. Note: Factor 1, Staffing Approach, for the Initial Task Order, which will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis and Factor 3, IDIQ Price, will not be included in the integrated assessment. The overall evaluated price for the Initial Task Order will be used to determine price fair and reasonableness for the LOGNET IDIQ/TO award.

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate the LOGNET IDIQ Contract:

Factor 1: Technical/Technical Risk

Subfactor 1 – Technical Approach Subfactor 2 – Staffing Approach

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate the Initial LOGNET Task Order:

Factor 1: Staffing Approach Factor 2: Price

Regarding the order of importance, the relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Technical and Past Performance are of equal importance. Within the Technical Factor, the Technical Approach and Staffing Approach subfactors are considered of equal importance. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. The Government will select the best overall proposal, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk (IDIQ Factor 1), Past Performance (IDIQ Factor 2), and Price (Initial Task Order Factor 2). Initial Task Order Factor 1, Staffing and IDIQ Factor 3, Price will not be included in the integrated assessment.

2.1 LOGNET IDIQ Contract Evaluation Factors

2.1.1 Factor 1 – Technical/Technical Risk

2.1.1.1 Subfactors 1 & 2:

The Technical evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating. These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of each technical subfactor.

Technical Rating. A color and an adjectival rating will be assigned to each subfactor IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures paragraph 3.1.2.1.1, Table 2A (shown below) to reflect the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. The ratings focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror’s proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical Factor.

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Definition

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

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

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates 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 unawardable.

2.1.1.1.1 Subfactor 1: Technical Approach – Each offeror shall provide a detailed and complete plan demonstrating their capabilities, knowledge, and expertise of the LOGNET requirement and describing their technical methodology/approach to be used in performing the requirements of the PWS. Measures of merit for this subfactor are met when the plan provides the following essential elements:

2.1.1.1.1.1 An approach for supporting G081 (known as G081/MAF LOG C2) and delivering MAF G081 user training to G081 Program Management Office (PMO) as well as G081 users worldwide. This shall include the approach to providing technical assistance to G081 users, developing training products, and integrating databases, web pages and application programming. PWS Para 3.4.1 and 3.4.2

2.1.1.1.1.2 An approach demonstrating how the offeror will provide IT infrastructure support for HQ AMC/A4 staff, G081 PMO, and Wing-level logistics organizations including maintenance and enhancement of electronic tools (eTools) / Mobile Computing Devices (i.e. rugged and standard laptops, tablets and handheld devices, etc.), servers, and supporting applications that reside on these devices. PWS Para 3.2, 3.3

2.1.1.1.1.3 An approach that demonstrates an understanding of the Army in Europe Regulation (AER) and NATO SOFA status accreditation. This approach shall also provide a viable approach for implementing the Technical Expert Status Accreditation (TESA) requirements. PWS Para 4.3

2.1.1.1.1.4 A phase-in plan that describes the approach for start-up, mobilization, and transition depicting the chronological sequence of events which will be accomplished in order to meet all PWS requirements.

2.1.1.1.2 Subfactor 2: Staffing Approach – Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed labor categories and labor category descriptions to support all tasks covered under the IDIQ. The Offeror shall provide an effective and detailed staffing plan identifying how the Offeror’s approach will fulfill the PWS requirements. Measures of merit for this subfactor are met when the offeror’s proposed staffing plan provides the following essential elements:

2.1.1.1.2.1 An approach correlating each labor category proposed to each PWS task.

PWS Para 3.2.1, 3.3.1, 3.4, and 3.5.

2.1.1.1.2.2 Labor category descriptions that show proposed personnel, including key personnel, have the certifications, training, knowledge, and experience for the LOGNET requirement. PWS Para 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5.

2.1.1.1.2.3 An approach identifying how the offeror will recruit/retain/replace personnel having knowledge, experience, training, and technical expertise of the LOGNET requirement. PWS Para 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5.

2.1.1.1.2.4 A Quality Control Plan that demonstrates the contractor’s ability to control Task Order processes, invoicing, deliverables, and subcontractor relationships, as well as accomplish performance objectives and thresholds listed in the PWS. PWS Para 4.30.2

Technical Risk Rating. Assessment of technical risk considers the risk associated with the technical approach to meeting the requirement, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses. It considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The subfactors will each receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures paragraph 3.1.2.1.2 Table 2B – Technical Risk Rating Method, excerpted below. For any weakness or significant weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror’s proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

Adjectival Rating Definition

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

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

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

Strengths Exceedances The Government intends, if it is in its best interest, to incorporate into the resulting contract/task order, all beneficial aspects of the awardee’s proposal and all above threshold (minimum) attributes, performance levels, or capabilities for which evaluation credit was given. The Government will use PWS Attachment 2 to Incorporate Performance or Capability Exceedances, as stated in RFP Attachment 1, Performance Work Statement.

2.1.2 Factor 2 – Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The Government shall consider the entire LOGNET IDIQ contract size and magnitude when considering each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance, as well as the quality of that performance. Therefore, the offeror shall consider the entire LOGNET IDIQ contract size and magnitude when submitting past performance products and services that meet the contract’s requirements.

Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method, excerpted below.

Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Definition

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.

2.1.2.1. Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance, as well as the quality of that performance, in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements.

Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Price factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered) taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. 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 Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and commercial sources. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information). The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture members’, parent, or affiliate present/past performance will include the present/past performance of any predecessor companies, affiliates, other divisions or corporate management if the company will perform major or critical aspects of this requirement. The offeror shall demonstrate in its proposal how the joint venture, parent, or affiliate is proposed to perform on this effort.

2.1.2.1.1 – Recency. An evaluation of the Past Performance Information (PPI) will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, all or some performance must have been performed within the past three-years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be considered.

2.1.2.1.2 – Relevance.

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price factor, including their relative order of importance (Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, paragraph 2.2). Consideration will be given to things such as similar service, similar complexity of the effort, breadth and depth of skills, similar contract scope and type, contract magnitude and schedule. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance (including teaming/joint venture partner(s) and major/critical subcontractor(s), as defined in paragraph 2.3.3 of Addendum to FAR 52.212-1) will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government will consider the portion of the effort accomplished on previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort. The past performance information submitted by offerors (PPIS) along with information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. Past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts (DoD Source Selection Procedures, Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method, and Table 4):

Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Definition

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.

2.1.2.1.3 – Quality of Products or Services. The Government will review all past performance information collected, determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information, and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment ( Addendum to FAR 52.212-2. Evaluation- Commercial Items, paragraph 2.1.2.2). A separate quality assessment rating will not be assigned; rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

2.1.2.2 Assigning Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevance and quality of products or services assessments. Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating at the factor level (see Table 5 above). Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of offeror’s performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent or relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment rating than less recent effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance

2.1.3 Factor 3 – Price

Each offeror’s Price Proposal will be evaluated but not rated. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to determine completeness and reasonableness, as defined below. Note: Factor 3 – Price will not be included in the integrated assessment.

Offerors shall provide labor rates by completing Attachment 7 – IDIQ Contract Labor Rates and Labor Category Descriptions. The offeror shall submit labor rates for each year of the entire five-year ordering period of the IDIQ. The labor categories and labor rates established at the IDIQ shall be used for the initial and all future TOs.

The Government will evaluate all IDIQ proposed labor rates to ensure that those rates are traceable to each offerors’ Initial Task Order proposed price. In addition, the labor rates not proposed on the Initial Task Order will be evaluated at the IDIQ level for completeness and reasonableness, as defined below. Note: For award purposes, price fair and reasonableness will be determined at the initial Task Order level.

2.1.3.1 Completeness. The proposals will be reviewed to determine the extent to which all the price elements of the proposal have been addressed. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to ensure continuity and traceability of prices to the technical proposal and between the initial proposal and any revisions thereto.

2.1.3.2 Reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business.

Normally, price reasonableness is established through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. In the event that price analysis techniques at FAR 15.404 are insufficient to establish a fair and reasonable price determination, other proposal analysis techniques may be used.

2.2 LOGNET Initial Task Order Evaluation Factors

2.2.1 Initial Task Order Evaluation Factor 1: Staffing Approach The LOGNET Initial Task Order staffing approach, Factor 1 will be assessed on an “acceptable/unacceptable” basis IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures paragraph C.2.1.1, Table C-1 and will not be included in the integrated assessment. An adjectival rating will be assigned to the overall staffing approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. In arriving at a best value decision, the Government will not give evaluation credit/positive consideration, i.e., assign a strength, for performance in excess of this specified threshold minimum requirements as this threshold and objective will only be evaluated on the stated “acceptable/unacceptable” basis.

Utilizing the labor categories proposed at the IDIQ level, the proposed staffing mix shall correlate each labor category by hours to each Task Order PWS task. The Government will evaluate the staffing mix to support all tasks covered under the Initial Task Order. Offerors shall complete Attachment 8 – Initial Task Order Staffing & Pricing Matrix and shall identify the labor categories proposed for the task order (Tab 7) and the proposed labor hours for each of the tasks identified

(Column C in tabs 2 thru 6) in the Task Order. Note: Factor 1, Staffing Approach, for the Initial Task Order will not be included in the integrated assessment.

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.

2.2.2 Initial Task Order Evaluation Factor 2: Price

Pricing for the Task Order shall be submitted utilizing Attachment 8 – Initial Task Order Staffing & Pricing Matrix utilizing the labor rates proposed in RFP Attachment 7 – IDIQ Contract Labor Rates and Labor Category Descriptions. The Initial Task Order Price Proposal for all offerors will be evaluated but not rated. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to determine completeness, reasonableness, and unbalanced pricing, as defined below The overall evaluated price for the Initial Task Order will be used to determine price fair and reasonableness for the LOGNET IDIQ award.

Unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing. Contractors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items or sub-line items. An offer that is determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

The initial Total Evaluated Price (I-TEP) will be calculated as the sum of the contractor’s initial TO proposed prices for phase-in period and all option periods (including the six-month extension of services option). The six-month extension of services option price will be calculated for each offeror by multiplying the last option period’s FFP CLINs monthly unit price by six. After any discussions or proposal revisions (if needed), the Government will evaluate the Final Total Evaluated Price (F-TEP) for completeness, reasonableness, and balance. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

Normally, price reasonableness is established through price analysis techniques as described in FAR

15.404. In the event these techniques are insufficient to establish a fair and reasonable price determination, other proposal analysis techniques may be used. The offerors’ F-TEP will be evaluated to determine completeness, reasonableness, and balanced pricing.

Future TOs issued under the IDIQ contract will be awarded in accordance with FAR 16.5 Ordering Procedures, as supplemented by the DFARS, and the AFFARS. These regulations are available electronically at the AFFAR Site, http://www.acquisition.gov.

3.0 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to 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. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.

(End of Provision Addendum)

3.0 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS