Attachment 5 - Addenda to 52 212 2 FA481422TF069.pdf

Attachment 5 - FA481422TF069

ADDENDA TO 52.212-2, Evaluations -- Commercial Items (Nov 2021)

1. BASIS FORAWARD:

Award will be made using the Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable (LPTA) procedure. The award will be made to the lowest priced responsive proposal that meets both technical and past performance standards. All proposals received prior to the established suspense date and time will be ranked by overall total evaluated price (TEP) and evaluated for technical acceptability starting with the lowest priced proposal. The TEP will be derived by adding the total price for the base year and option years.

The lowest priced proposal will then be evaluated for technical acceptability. Once a technically acceptable proposal is found the selection process will move to the past performance; if the past performance is rated as “acceptable” the evaluation process will end and an award will be made. If the technical and/or past performance rating is “unacceptable”, the technical team will review the next lowest TEP proposal and the process will restart until a technically acceptable proposal with a past performance rating of “acceptable” is found. If one technical factor is determined unacceptable, the entire proposal is determined to be technically unacceptable. If a proposal is found technically unacceptable, it will be eliminated from further evaluation. The Government reserves the right to enter into discussions if all proposals are determined to be unacceptable.

2. EVALUATION FACTOR 1:

2.1 Price. The price evaluation will document the reasonableness and affordability of the proposed total price offered by the contractor. For the purpose of evaluation, and to establish reasonableness and affordability, the Government may compare the offerors proposed price against the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE), and historical data from previous similar efforts. There is no page limit for this section; all offerors must complete and submit Attachment 2 CLIN Structure rounded to the nearest whole cent. All Offerors are required to submit proposals via e-mail to jamal.phillips@us.af.mil and gabrielle.arculeo.1@us.af.mil. Proposals must include the following price criteria:

2.1.1 The total of all CLINs, using maximum quantities supplied on CLIN structure document, will be evaluated for completeness and accuracy, and used for total evaluated price. Round all prices up to the nearest penny. Pricing will include testing/evaluation extended; repair hours extended; and an average of the parts submitted in Attachment 2.

2.1.2 Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price of the 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 the options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option years.

3. EVALUATION FACTOR 2:

3.1 Technical Approach. The Government will evaluate the Offeror on its entire proposed technical approach for compliance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS) as well as a technical narrative submitted in response to two Sample Projects.

mailto:william.eldridge.4@us.af.mil mailto:barbara.squitieri@us.af.mil

3.1.1 The technical approach must prove the offeror can provide all services IAW the Performance Work Statement (PWS) in Attachment 1.

3.1.2 Offerors are also required to submit a technical narrative in response to the two sample projects in Attachment 6. Narrative needs to describe specific procedures accomplished to conduct the testing and repair of the Hawkeye Satellite. Narrative must also document specific hours used for repairs, labor and product lead time to complete evaluations/testing and repairs.

Offeror not submitting all information in this paragraph will be deemed non-responsive. (The sample Project narrative cannot be more than 2 one-sided pages; and the entire technical approach submitted cannot be more than 5 one-sided pages. All documents submitted must be 12pt Font, Times New Roman)

4. EVALUATION FACTOR 3:

4.1 Past Performance. The Government will evaluate the Offeror on its entire Past Performance history. Offerors are required to submit the following as part of their Past Performance:

4.1.1 The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to 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 questionnaire 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; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercialsources.

4.1.2 The currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance will be evaluated as part of past performance. In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFP.

5. EVALUATIONPROCESS:

5.1 Step 1: The Government shall rank all offers by price (including option years) from lowest to highest.

5.2 Step 2: Evaluate lowest priced Offeror for technical acceptability. The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical approach on an acceptable/unacceptable basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable. If the lowest priced Offeror is determined “Technically Acceptable”, the evaluation team will proceed to rate the lowest priced Offerors past performance.

Should the lowest priced Offeror be rated “Technically Unacceptable”, evaluation of the next Offeror in order by price will continue until technical acceptability can be determined. At that point the evaluation team will proceed to rate the lowest priced technically acceptable Offerors’ past performance. All evaluated Offerors technical approaches shall be rated in accordance with the following:

5.2.1 Approach for Evaluation under the Technical Approach Factor. The Technical Approach evaluation provides an assessment of the Offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s requirements. The Technical Approach criteria will receive one of the ratings described in Table 1 – Technical Approach Ratings, excerpted below. The ratings depict how well the Offeror’s approach meets the Technical Approach criteria.

Table 1 – Technical Approach Rating

TECHNICAL RATINGS

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

5.3 Step 3: Evaluate lowest priced technically acceptable Offeror’s past performance. If the lowest priced technically acceptable Offeror receives a past performance rating of “Acceptable”, evaluation is complete and award will be made to that Offeror. If the lowest priced technically acceptable Offeror’s past performance does not receive an “Acceptable” rating, evaluation of the next lowest price Offeror, with an acceptable technical approach, will be accomplished. This process will continue until acceptable confidence can be determined; and award will then be made to that Offeror.

Past performance will be evaluated in accordance with thefollowing:

5.3.1 Relevancy Assessment – The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical Approach factors and Price factor. Consideration will be given to service similarity, complexity, type of effort, contract scope and performance period. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. The past performance questionnaires, and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

Table 2 – Past Performance Relevancy Rating

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved similar 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.

5.3.2 Recency Assessment: An assessment of past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past 5 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not beevaluated.

Table 3 – Past Performance Recency Rating

PAST PERFORMANCE RECENCY RATINGS

Rating Definition RECENT Recent is defined as performance occurring within the last 5 years.

NOT RECENT Not Recent is defined as performance occurring more than 5 years from the date of the issuance of the RFP.

5.3.3 Assigning Ratings. “Acceptable/Unacceptable” As a result of the complete past performance assessment, offerors will receive an “Acceptable or Unacceptable” rating.

Although the pastperformance evaluation focuses on performance that is recent and relevant to the technical approach, the resulting “Acceptable or Unacceptable” rating represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. 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. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall beconsidered “acceptable.”

Table 4 – Overall Past Performance Rating

OVERALL PAST PERFORMANCE RATING

Rating Definition ACCEPTABLE During the contract period, there is reasonable expectation that the contractor performance is meeting (or has met) contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

UNACCEPTABLE During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.