Attachment 5_Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation_SETA.pdf

844CG SYSTEM ENGINEERING & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE (SETA)

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation - Evaluation Factors for Award

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 Basis For Award.

Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal results in the best value to the

Government, price, past performance and technical factors considered and set-aside to Small Businesses.

This is a Past Performance and Price trade-off that will allow the Government to accept other than the lowest priced Offeror. Past Performance is significantly more important than Price.

The Government intends to award a single award IDIQ contract for the requirement. The Government reserves the right to make no award at all. This acquisition will result in a Firm Fixed Price IDIQ contract with Time & Materials (T&M) line items.

The Government will select the submission which conforms to the RFP requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the submission instructions), and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the

Government. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who is best suited to fulfill the Air Force requirements. An IDIQ contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the RFP’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the RFP instructions) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the best value to the Government.

This may result in an award to a higher priced offeror with a higher rated past performance factor, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Government reasonably determines that the past performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference.

Following receipt of responses to this RFP, the Government will perform a Past Performance evaluation and price analysis among the offerors who have been determined to be technically acceptable. This analysis will be based on the Offeror’s responses to the factors/subfactors outlined in the RFP, given their stated relative order of importance.

The evaluation shall be based on the Offeror’s written proposal. The evaluation will be based on three (3) factors: Technical Capability (Factor I); Past Performance (Factor II); and Price (Factor III). The

Government will not search for data to cure problems or address inconsistencies in an offeror’s proposal.

The Government will review proposals for responsiveness and completeness (adhering to all information/instructions in the Instruction to Offerors/Addendum to FAR 52.212-1). If an offeror fails to comply with this RFP, the offeror’s proposal and/or related documents may be deemed nonresponsive and/or incomplete and will receive no further consideration and be eliminated from the competition. The

Government will only evaluate proposals deemed responsive and complete. Offeror’s Proposals will be evaluated using the following evaluation process:

1.2 Evaluation Factors.

IAW FAR 15.304(d), regarding the relative importance of each factor: Past performance is significantly more important than price; price will contribute substantially to the selection decision. This may result in an award to a higher priced offeror with a higher rated past performance factor, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Government reasonably determines that the past performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference. Within the Technical Capability

(Factor I), subfactor 1 and subfactor 2 are of equal importance. Responses to this RFP will be evaluated against the following factors and subfactors:

1.2.1 FACTOR I: Technical Capability

The Government will evaluate all responsive proposals for technical acceptability. On or before the proposal due date, the offeror shall submit their proposal IAW paragraph 1.0 of the Addendum FAR

52.212-1 – Instructions to Offerors. If revisions are required and allowed, all documents shall be resubmitted and include Revision numbers on the title page. The Offeror’s proposal shall, at a minimum, address each of the subfactors, as they apply to the PWS. The technical proposal should demonstrate the

Offeror’s ability to perform the technical requirements.

To be eligible for award, an Offeror must have the required facility clearance at the time of proposal submission prior to award. Sponsorship will not be granted. Failure to provide proof of an active or interim FCL by the proposal submission would render an offeror “ineligible for award.”

The Government will evaluate the submission and will provide feedback to determine the Offeror’s comprehensive understanding of and ability to meet all requirements listed below as defined in the PWS.

1.2.1.1 Volume I, Subfactor 1: Technical Approach.

This requirement is met when the Offeror sufficiently demonstrates a methodology that details a structured approach to Mission Essential Services (MES) IAW PWS Section 6.7, to include staffing and retaining personnel with all required security clearances, certifications, and/or licenses.

1.2.1.2 Volume I, Subfactor 2: Staffing/Management Plan.

The offeror must adequately demonstrate an approach to recruit, hire, train, maintain and retain qualified staff from contract start and throughout the period of performance to meet the overall PWS requirements.

An acceptable approach shall also specifically address bench strength and obtaining personnel.

This requirement is met when the Offeror sufficiently demonstrates a Staffing/Management Plan to be incorporated into the contract and applied to the staffing levels for the duration of the contract POP. The staffing/management plan shall include details of recruitment and retention of qualified and certified Key

Personnel, and Emergency Support Staffing as highlighted in appendix C of the PWS. Offeror shall submit sanitized (redacted of personal information) letter(s) of commitment for each Key Personnel proposed. A plan to recruit, hire, train, maintain and retain qualified staff from contract start and throughout the period of performance to meet the overall PWS requirements. This plan shall also specifically address bench strength and obtaining and retaining any required security clearances, certifications, and/or licenses.

1.2.1.3 Technical Acceptability Rating

A Technical Acceptability Rating provided below will be assigned to the Technical Factors and subfactor levels. The overall technical acceptability (Factor I) will be determined when the offeror’s proposal meets both Subfactors 1 and 2.

Table 1 – Technical Acceptability Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the RFP.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the RFP and is not awardable.

1.2.2 FACTOR II: Past Performance.

The Government will evaluate past performance submissions for recency, relevancy, and quality. The

Government will review up to five (5) total contractor's past/present performance submitted by the

Offeror in two categories: up to two (2) contracts for the prime contractor and a maximum of three (3) contracts for major subcontractors that will be performing key or critical portions of the effort and/or performing greater than or equal to 30% of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price. Each past performance submission will be determined as recent or not recent. Then, each recent past performance submission will receive a relevancy rating. Next, each recent and relevant past performance submission will receive a quality rating. As a result of recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the individual contracts evaluated, an overall Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. Only offerors with a past performance confidence rating of

“Satisfactory” or “Substantial” will be considered eligible for award. Any proposals receiving a confidence rating below “Satisfactory” for Factor II will not be eligible for award. For this solicitation, the following definitions will be used to assign Past Performance ratings. The offeror shall submit a proposal that clearly identifies and supports recency, relevancy, and quality based on the following definitions:

1.2.2.1 Recency. An evaluation of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have at least twelve (12) months of continuous active contract performance within the last five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated further. The Government may conduct an independent review to confirm the offeror’s submission and may supplement the offeror’s submissions with additional Federal contracts the offeror was awarded within the Recency timeframe.

1.2.2.2 Relevancy. The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the products provided/services performed under those contract citations relate to the Technical and Price factors, including their relative order of importance. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the

Technical and Cost/Price Factors (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s).

In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance citations, the

Government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, Subcontractor, or teaming partner. The past performance information forms and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance.

Relevancy will be determined based on the definition provided in Table below. Each performance information will receive a relevancy rating.

Table 2 – Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this RFP requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this RFP requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this RFP requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this RFP requires.

1.2.2.3 Quality. The Government will consider information from customers on how well the offeror performed on past contract citations. For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the quality of products or services, the work performed, will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and

Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). The quality assessment consists of an evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source. A separate quality rating will not be given.

The Government reserves the right to obtain information relative to present and past performance on its own, in addition to information provided by the Offeror. The quality of an Offeror’s past performance may be reviewed and evaluated through the use of systems such as the Contract Performance Assessment

Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition or other sources or databases known to the

Government. Interviews may be conducted with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee

Determining Officials, Defense Contract Management Agency or other sources known to the

Government.

1.2.2.4 Performance Confidence Assessment. The Performance Confidence Assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of services assessments. Offerors will receive one integrated overall Performance Confidence Assessment rating. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful performance rating can be reasonably assigned will receive an “Unknown /Neutral” rating for the Performance Confidence Rating.

A strong record of relevant past performance will be considered more advantageous to the Government than an unknown/neutral performance confidence assessment rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

The Government will use the following performance confidence assessment ratings when assessing recent, relevant efforts.

Table 5 – Quality Assessment Table

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.

Offerors receiving a "No Confidence" performance confidence assessment rating will be deemed as ineligible for award.

1.2.3 FACTOR III: Price.

The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness, balance, completeness, and the

Professional Employee Compensation Plan (PECP) will be evaluated for realism. Only proposals determined to be reasonable, complete, balanced, and with a PECP determined to be realistic will be eligible for award.

Price proposals should support the proposed technical approach and will be evaluated for (i) Total

Evaluated Price (TEP), (ii) reasonableness, (iii) realistic PECP, (iv) completeness, and (v) unbalanced pricing. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, unrealistic, unbalanced, or unreasonable will not be considered for award.

a. Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The proposal will be evaluated on the total evaluated price (TEP) and the price proposed for each CLIN. The TEP consists of the total proposed price for all CLINs, Optional CLIN, and NTE CLINs (although NTE CLINs will not be evaluated), for a 5.5-year period (i.e., Five (5) one-year ordering periods and one (1) six-month optional ordering period).

The price proposed for each CLIN includes the applicable unburdened labor hour rates, burden rate, and any other rate applied to each respective CLIN total. If cost information is needed by the

Contracting Officer to determine a fair and reasonable price, the offeror shall submit the information as requested. Evaluation of options or optional CLINs shall not obligate the

Government to exercise such options or optional CLINs.

The Government will evaluate the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) by evaluating all proposed CLINs and Optional CLIN for all years of performance. The TEP will include evaluation of FAR 52.217-

8, Option to Extend Services. This option to extend the contract term shall be evaluated as part of the initial evaluation, whereby any resultant exercise of this option is within scope of the pending contract. The option provision may be exercised more than once, but the total extension of performance hereunder shall not exceed six (6) months. Offerors are required only to price the baseline CLINs (i.e., CLINs 0001, 1001, 2001, 3001, and 4001). Offerors shall not submit a price for the potential six (6) month extension of services period (i.e., CLIN 5001) because the

Government will use the price of the final year to calculate the price of the six (6) month extension as shown in the pricing attachment (i.e., The Government will calculate one-half of

CLIN 4001 and add it to the TEP).

b. 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. The Government will determine prices fair and reasonable through the use of one or more of the price analysis

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.

techniques at FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). An Offer that is determined to be unreasonably high will not be considered for award.

Submission of certified cost or pricing data is not required; however, if the cost information is needed by the Contracting Officer to determine a fair and reasonable price, the Offeror shall submit the other than certified cost or pricing data as requested.

c. Realism. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s and first-tier subcontractor(s)/teaming partner(s)’ (if applicable) PECP for realism by assessing the compatibility of proposed price with proposal scope and effort IAW FAR 52.222-46. For the PECP to be realistic, it must reflect what it would cost the Offeror to perform the effort, if performed with reasonable economy and efficiency in the relevant geographic area, based on recognized national and regional compensation surveys.

The PECP will be evaluated to determine if the compensation level proposed is unrealistically low

IAW the scope and effort of the PWS. The analysis will be based on labor rates in the National

Capital Region and/or DC Metropolitan Area (Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-

WV). The Government may utilize SOC rates from BLS.gov, government civilian rates, similar contract labor rates, salary.com, other similar or relevant websites, or anything else it deems appropriate or beneficial in its evaluation of realism. Failure to comply with the requirements in

FAR Provision 52.222-46 may constitute sufficient cause to justify rejection of the proposal. For the PECP to be realistic, it must demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to successfully recruit and retain qualified professional employees in the geographical area where the work is being performed.

d. Completeness. The proposal will be reviewed to determine the extent to which all the price elements have been addressed, to include the PECP requirement. The Offeror’s proposed price and other information will be evaluated to ensure continuity and traceability of prices to the technical volume and between the initial proposal and any revisions thereto. The review will determine the adequacy of the Offeror’s proposal in addressing and fulfilling the RFP requirements.

e. Unbalanced pricing. Offerors 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 (1) or more contract line items is significantly over or understated. The

Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to cost/price, variable quantity matrix factors, and separately priced line items. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

1.3 Discussion.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make award based on the initial proposal submissions without conducting discussions. Therefore, each offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. During the evaluation process, the Government may enter into clarifications or communications as needed.

In evaluating the proposals, the Government may establish a Competitive Range to reduce the Offerors participating in the competition to only those Offerors most likely to receive the award. Any Offeror eliminated from further consideration will be notified officially in writing.

If the Government determines discussions are necessary, the Government will establish a competitive range and begin negotiations with those Offerors within the competitive range.

1.4 Final Proposal Revision (FPR):

If required (based upon discussions mentioned above in paragraph 1.3), the offerors will provide proposal change pages along with their Evaluation Notice (EN) responses for any aspect of the proposal that will be incorporated into the awarded contract. After discussions are completed, offerors within the competitive range will be given an opportunity to submit final proposal revisions.

END OF ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION