Attachment 5 Evaluation - Commercial Item 19 Mar 2021.pdf

Attachment 5 – Evaluation – Commercial Items

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

The following addendum replaces FAR provision 52.212-2 in its entirety.

19 March 2021

1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

1.1 Source Selection Methodology

This acquisition will utilize the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision.

A decision on the technical acceptability of the three lowest priced proposals will be made. Among those Offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, award will be made to the Offeror having the lowest total evaluated price.

Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each Offeror. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable, conforms to all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, technical requirements, and also provides the best value to the government based on the results of the evaluation described in Section 2 below.

Contract terms and conditions consistent with customary commercial practices are specified in the solicitation/contract, with otherwise tailored terms and conditions specified within this addendum to the solicitation/contract at Attachment 4 Instruction to Offerors – Commercial Items.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one contract for the POU requirement. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines it is in the Government’s best interest. If the Government determines to not award a contract, the Government is not liable for any costs incurred.

1.3 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government may consider, throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any proposal. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal not meeting the Government’s requirements is not considered easily correctable within the Government’s time constraints, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competition in accordance with (IAW) FAR 15.306(c).

Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, and meets all requirements set forth in the RFP, also provides the best value to the government based on the results of the evaluation as described in Section 2 below.

1.4 Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions, based on the initial proposal received, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. .

Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Request for Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the Offeror’s proposal remains in the competitive range at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award or may affect the Offeror’s ratings.

1.5 Cross Reference Matrix

The cross reference matrix will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements documents Statement of Work (SOW), Attachment 3 Exhibit C/D/E/F/G/H/J/K/L/M/N/P Market Basket – TEP Matrix, the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), Attachment 4 Instructions to Offerors and Attachment 5 Evaluation. The cross reference matrix will help Offerors ensure they have responded to all the evaluation criteria and proposal submittal requirements identified in the solicitation. If the matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction, or provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over this matrix. Attachment 5 Evaluation references in the matrix are for informational purposes only, and the Government shall be obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with the provisions of Attachment 5 of the solicitation.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

Relative Order of Importance of Factors and Subfactors. IAW 15.304(e)(3) all evaluation factors, other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly less important than cost or price.

2.1 VOLUME I, FACTOR 1: PRICE

2.1.1 The pricing criteria used for evaluation are: (1) Completeness, (2) Reasonableness, (3) Balance, and

(4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

2.1.1.1 Completeness – The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Attachment 4 Instructions to Offeror. Completeness is submitting an Offeror’s pricing proposal with all the required portions filled out entirely. Incomplete price submissions may not be evaluated and the proposal may be eliminated from the competition.

2.1.1.2 Reasonableness – The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness of the proposed fully burdened unit prices to include profit for all Labor and Consumable Supplies. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of the Government-obtained information, additional information IAW FAR 15.4 will be required to support the proposed price.

2.1.1.3 Balance – Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more price elements is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR Subpart 15.404-1. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether there is unbalanced pricing within the proposals. IAW FAR Subpart 15.404-1, offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Air Force.

2.1.1.4 TEP - Offerors shall input into the Attachment 3 Exhibit C/D/E/F/G/H/J/K/L/M/N/P Market Basket – TEP Matrix, Not-to- Exceed (NTE) unit prices for each item for all delivery order price years to cover the 5 year ordering period and the 12 month 52.217-9 Option to Extend the Term of the Contract. Unit prices shall include direct labor rates, all direct costs, indirect costs (Overhead, General and Administrative, Fringe Benefits, etc.) and profit necessary for the performance of the entire requirement. Unit prices provided shall be rounded to the nearest penny.

The TEP will consist of the cumulative value for all CLINs 0001 through 0008, including Option CLINs 1001 through 1007, except CLIN 0007 and 1007 for Not Separately Priced (NSP) Contract Data Requirements List (CDRLs). The TEP for CLIN 0008 Post Award Conference will be evaluated as $2,000 for all Offerors. The TEP for CLINs 0001 through 0006 and Option CLINs 1001 through 1006 will be calculated by applying notional quantities to a predetermined mix of consumable supplies across all delivery order price years. The sum of these notional quantities applied to the Offeror’s proposed unit price for consumable supply item will determine TEP. Notional quantities will be for Government evaluation purposes only and will not be disclosed to Offerors. The TEP is for evaluation purposes only;

however, all proposed unit prices are contractually binding as Not-to-Exceed (NTE). A no bid or an omitted unit price may result in an incomplete Price Volume submission. An omitted unit price may result in proposal elimination.

The formula for application of notional quantities used will not be disclosed to Offerors.

Submit a copy of the completed TEP Pricing Matrix in Price Volume I in MS Excel (non PDF format).

2.1.1.5 A price evaluation will be performed for all Offerors IAW Section 2.1 and proposals will be ranked from lowest to highest price based on TEP.

3.0 VOLUME II, FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL

3.1 The three lowest priced proposals will be identified using the TEP, and will be evaluated based on the subfactors below, to determine if the Offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the Statement of Work (SOW) and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail.

Subfactor One – Technical Approach/Process Subfactor Two – Resources Management Approach

3.1.1 A technical evaluation will be performed beginning with the lowest priced Offeror.

3.1.2 A minimum of the three lowest priced offers will be evaluated, unless fewer than three offers are received.

3.1.3 If the lowest price Offeror is technically acceptable and meets all other requirements of this solicitation, award may be made to that Offeror.

3.1.4 If the lowest price Offeror is not technically acceptable, evaluations may continue and the SSA may award to the next lowest priced technically acceptable Offeror or set a competitive range that may include some or all of the Offerors.

3.1.5 It is possible that higher priced offers will not be evaluated for technical acceptability.

3.2 VOLUME II TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

3.2.1 The written technical proposal shall be clear, concise, and include all the information required by this provision in sufficient detail for effective evaluation. Each Offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the sub-factors below, to determine if the Offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the SOW, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The proposal should not simply reiterate, rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume the Government has no prior knowledge of their capabilities, work processes, facilities, and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror’s technical proposal.

3.2.2 Technical Acceptability / Unacceptable Ratings

The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, un-awardable.

Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the Offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

Technical Acceptable / Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

3.2.3 Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable either initially, or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The Offeror is reminded that the Government intends to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions. Proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors.

3.3 Technical Subfactors

3.3.1 Subfactor One: Technical Approach/Process

This subfactor is acceptable when the offerors proposal provides an adequate and comprehensive description of the offerors approach to clearly meeting the requirements set forth in each of the sections listed below. The Offeror must demonstrate how the approach is workable and end results are achievable.

a) Consumable Supplies and Shop Operating Material Management which clearly demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to:

i. Maintain maximum individual item stock levels in Just-in-Time (JIT) operations IAW the timelines and requirements set forth in SOW Paragraph’s 2.3, 2.4.1, 2.6.1, 2.6.2.

ii. Demonstrate how the timelines and requirements set forth in SOW Paragraph’s 2.3, 2.4.1, 2.6, 2.6.1, 2.6.2 for items that are hard to stock or considered long lead-time items will be met or how notice will be provided to the Government. Additionally, in the offerors approach, the offeror shall provide an example of a scenario on how your company would address hard to stock or long lead items due to unforeseen events such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

iii. Include techniques and procedures required to comply with the Trade Agreements Act (TAA) IAW SOW Paragraph’s 2, 2.4.2, & 2.6.3.

b) Quality Control Plan (QCP): QCP is acceptable when the Offeror provides a plan IAW SOW Paragraph 2.19.

3.3.2 Subfactor Two: Resource Management Approach

The Resource Management Approach is acceptable when the Offeror’s approach provides an adequate, robust, and mature level of detail and supporting personnel to clearly demonstrate the requirements set forth in each of the sections listed below. Each section must be complete for a workable approach to successfully achieve all contractor management aspects as required in the paragraphs listed below. The submission of the Transition Plan is not required at this time, it will be required at the post award conference.

The approach shall include the following areas:

a) Ramp-Up Phase will be achieved within the time-lines IAW SOW Paragraph 2.17.

b) Transition process with minimal impact to POU operations at Hill AFB and identified GSU locations in the time frame required IAW SOW Paragraph 2.17.1.

c) Onboarding process for new worksites IAW SOW para 2.17.4.1

d) Establish initial inventory of consumable supplies and shop operating material IAW

SOW 2.17.4.7.

e) Maintain maximum stock levels on day 1 after transition is complete IAW SOW Paragraph 2.2.

4.0 VOLUME III CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

4.1 This volume will be reviewed for completeness IAW Attachment 4 Paragraph 4.1 through 4.1.5. The Offeror’s proposal shall include a signed copy of the Model Contract and Solicitation, Sections A through K, signed amendments to the solicitation (if any), and all other information required. An incomplete package may be excluded from the competitive range.

4.2 Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be reviewed for compliance with applicable clauses and regulations. The plan will be negotiated prior to award and the negotiated plan will be incorporated into the contract upon award.

4.3 The joint venture agreement will be reviewed to ensure it is signed and dated by all joint venture members.

5.0 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

5.1 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 evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.