Attachment 5 FAR 52.212-1 and 52.212-2.docx

Attachment 5: FAR 52.212-1 and 52.212-2

ADDENDUM 52.212-1

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS—COMMERCIAL ITEMS (APR 2014)

THIS SECTION IS FOR SOLICITIATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS SECTION WILL BE PHYSICALLY REMOVED FROM ANY RESULTANT AWARD, BUT WILL BE DEEMED INCORPORTED BY REFERENCE INTO ANY RESULT CONTRACT.

PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

Adherence to instruction: The offeror must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award.

Exception to Terms and Conditions: Offerors must clearly identify any exception to solicitation terms and conditions and provide accompanying rationale.

Period of Acceptance of Offeror: Paragraph 52.212-1(c), Period of Acceptance of Offerors. The paragraph is tailored as follows: The offeror agrees to hold the prices in its firm for 90 days from the date specified for receipt of offers”.

Registration in System for Award Management (SAM): Paragraph (k) of 52.212-1 is revised as follows:

By submission of an offer, the offeror acknowledges the requirement that a prospective awardee shall be registered in the SAM database prior to the date and time established for receipt of proposals during performance and through final payment of any contract resulting from this solicitation. If the Offeror does not become registered in the SAM database in the time prescribed by the Contracting Officer, the Contracting Officer will proceed to award to the next otherwise successful registered Offeror. Offerors may obtain information on registration and annual confirmation requirements via the SAM database accessed through https:www.acquisition.gov.

Contract Award: The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. The Government may reject any or all offers if such action is in the public interest; accept other than the lowest offer; and waive informalities and minor irregularities in offers received.

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions: This section of the instruction to offerors prescribes the format of the proposal and describes the approach for the development and presentation of proposal data. The instructions are designed to ensure the submission of necessary information to provide for the understanding and comprehensive evaluation of the proposal. Submit a clear and complete proposal as detailed in this section and Basis for Award/Evaluation of Offers section. Include only information that is relevant to this acquisition. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience, and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror’s proposal. FAILURE TO SUBMIT A PROPOSAL IN THE FORMAT PRESCRIBED MAY, AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER, RENDER AN OFFEROR’S PROPOSAL NON-RESPONSIVE AND RESULT IN BEING INELIGIBLE FOR AWARD.

Proposal Submission: Proposals shall be submitted electronically via Electronic (email) to the Points of Contacts listed below and in the quatities specified in Table 1. Proposal shall be submitted by electronic email:

randal.rose@us.af.mil, and malik.vasciannie@us.af.mil

Organization/Distribution/Number of Copies/Page Limits. Offerors shall prepare their proposal as set forth in Table 1 below. Proposals shall be submitted in the number of hard and electronic (email) copies as specified.

Table 1

**Excess pages will not be evaluated and will be returned to the Offeror

HAND-CARRIED, TELEGRAPHIC, OR FACSIMILE PROPOSALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.

The Proposal offer shall consist of the following:

Volume I – Cost/Price and Contract Documents: This Volume consist of the following:

The total annual price for each period of performance is the sum of the extended unit prices for all the CLINs. The totals for the basic period and all option periods will be added together to arrive at each offeror’s total price for evaluation purposes. Attachment 4 Price Breakdown Sheet.

All required Representations, Certifications and Acknowledgements as set forth in the Solicitation.

Offeror shall provide their Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code.

Remittance Address if different from offeror’s address.

Primary Point of Contact Information: Name, Title, address, phone number, and email.

Acknowledge all amendments to the Solicitation. Offerors must acknowledge all amendments issued by signing the amendment and returning it.

Volume II – Technical Proposal (Page Limit - 25 pp max for technical*): This Volume shall consists and address the following two technical subfactors:

Staffing Approach: Offerors shall submit their staffing plan demonstrating a clear understanding and sound approach so that sufficient, qualified personnel are available to meet the requirements in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Logical and concise methodology must be presented in the offeror’s proposal as to what staffing techniques will be used to ensure sufficient and qualified personnel are provided to meet PWS requirements. The staffing plan shall address as a minimum:

Minimum Manning Level as stated in PWS. The number of qualified personnel, including responsibility descriptions, of the intended staff the offeror will use to meet the requirements of the PWS.

Copies of Automotive Service Excellence (ASE) certifications or demonstration of 3 years experience in medium/heavy duty vehicle maintenance for qualified personnel the offeror is proposing to staff the requirement as required by paragraph 4.1.3 of the performance work statement.

Quality Control: Provide an effective and complete quality control plan as required by paragraph 2.1.7 of the PWS to ensure services provided as a minimum meet the performance objectives and thresholds identified in the services summary (paragraph 2.1.6 of the PWS). The quality control plan shall as a minimum identify:

The role and authority of Primary Quality Control personnel.

Methods to be used for identifying and preventing defective services before performance becomes unacceptable.

Procedures used to prevent defective services from recurring; including what corrective actions will be taken.

Volume III – Past Performance: (Page Limit - 15 pp. total max for past performance*): This Volume consists of the following:

The offeror shall submit evidence of any recent and relevant contracts performed for Vehicle Maintenance (or similar Vehicle Maintenance service) in accordance with Performance Work Statement (IAW PWS). For the purpose of this solicitation, recency is performance occurring within the last six (6) years from the period of the solicitation release date. For the purpose of this solicitation, relevancy is defined as performance of Vehicle Maintenance (or similar Vehicle Maintenance service) in accordance with PWS.

Provide references for no more than five (5) recent and relevant services performed in the last six (6) years that demonstrates your company’s ability to perform the services listed in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Contracts in excess of six (6) years will not be read or evaluated and will be removed from the proposal. Each reference shall include the reference agency/company name, contract number, period of performance, accumulated value (include only exercised options). If performed as a subcontractor, state the percentage of work your company performs or performed. The offeror should present the most recent experience first (i.e. Reference #1). Past Performance Information obtained will be used both for the responsibility determination and to determine adequate past experience.

(End of Addendum)

ADDENDUM 52.212-2

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2—EVALUATION—COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

A. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

1. Award will be made based on the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable offer, meaning award will be made to the lowest evaluated priced proposal meeting or exceeding acceptability standards for non-price factors. No purchase or award shall be made unless the contracting officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility in accordance with FAR 9.104.

2. While the Government and Contracting Officer will strive for objectivity, the evaluation process, by its nature, is subjective and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire evaluation process.

3. By submission of its proposal in accordance with instructions provided in the FAR Clause 52.212-1 Addendum, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors.

4. The government shall review the three (3) lowest priced proposals first. If all three (3) of these proposals are found to be technically acceptable, with acceptable past performance, the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal will be selected as the proposal that represents the best value to the government. If any of these three (3) proposals are found to be technically unacceptable, or have unacceptable past performance, then the government will continue to review the proposals from the next lowest priced proposal until three technically acceptable proposals, with acceptable past performance, have been found or all proposals have been reviewed.

B. EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. Price Evaluation:

a. To determine price, the basic performance period and all option periods will be added together to determine the offeror’s total proposed price. Proposed prices will then be evaluated to determine whether an offeror’s proposed prices are realistic in relation to the solicitation requirements, the Government’s independent cost estimate, and prices received through competition under this solicitation. The offeror will use the CLIN formatting shown in the solicitation to establish quantity, unit of measure, unit price, amount and net amount per respective option year.

b. Price: Pricing will be evaluated for reasonableness.

Reasonableness. As there is a high probability of competition, reasonableness shall be established through competition in accordance with FAR 13.106-3(a)(1). In the event that only one offeror is received reasonableness will be established in accordance with FAR 13.106-3(a)(2).

c. The Government will use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price. It is expected that the competitive nature of this acquisition will drive price reasonableness and fairness; however, the Government reserves the right, if it deems appropriate, to make these determinations by means of one or more price analysis techniques in FAR 15.404-1.

d. The CO has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the CO will review this determination and if, in the CO’s opinion, adequate price competition exists, no additional cost information will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required. However, if at any time during this evaluation the CO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists; Offerors may be required to submit information other than cost or pricing data that is adequate to the extent necessary for the CO to determine the reasonableness of the price in accordance with FAR 15.403-3.

e. The Government will review the prices submitted for unrealistically low prices using price analysis techniques listed in FAR 15.404-1(b). Failure to provide realistic prices may result in a proposal being rated unawardable on the basis that unrealistically low prices are an indication that the Offeror does not understand the requirements.

2. Technical Factors Evaluation and Contract Documents Evaluation:

a. The government will evaluate technical factors and contract documents from proposals on a pass/fail basis and assign ratings of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable,” respectively. Separate ratings will be assigned for each technical subfactors and contract documents. A rating of “Unacceptable” in one or more technical subfactors or contract documents will constitute an overall rating of Unacceptable for the technical and contract documents evaluation.

b. Contract Documents from Volume I (i-viii) will be evaluated for accuracy and completeness.

c. The following Table 2 provides technical and contract document descriptions that will be used:

Table 2 Technical & Contract Documents Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

d. The proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactors:

(1) Staffing Approach. The staffing approach is acceptable when the staffing plan clearly demonstrates sufficient, qualified personnel are available to meet the requirement in the PWS. Logical and concise methodology, to include staffing techniques, were presented to ensure sufficient qualified personnel are provided to meet PWS requirements. The staffing plan included:

(a) A sufficient number of qualified personnel, including responsibility descriptions of the staff, the offeror intends to use to meet the requirements of the PWS.

(b) Copies of Automotive Service Excellence (ASE) certifications or demonstrated 3 years of experience in medium/heavy duty vehicle maintenance for the qualified personnel the offeror is proposing to staff the requirement with.

(2) Quality Control. The quality control plan is acceptable when the offeror has provided a complete quality control plan as required by paragraph 2.1.7 of the PWS to ensure services provided meet the performance objectives and thresholds identified in the services summary (paragraph 2.1.6 of the PWS). The quality control plan identified:

(a) The role and authority of Primary Quality Control personnel.

(b) Methods to be used for identifying and preventing defective services before the performance becomes unacceptable.

3. Past/Present Performance Evaluation:

a. In assessing performance, the evaluator may: (1) use data obtained from Air Force automated Past Performance Data Bases (i.e. CPARS and PPIRS); (2) use data provided by the offeror or obtained from other sources (questionnaires); (3) use data independently obtained from other sources; (4) rely upon personal business experience with the offeror; (5) consider any information the offeror submits which explains any problems encountered on the identified contracts and the offeror’s corrective actions; The Government reserves the right to obtain and evaluate past/present performance information from any source it deems appropriate.

b. Past performance will be rated on a “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis using Table 3 below.

NOTE: 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 (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.” An offeror may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposals (i.e. the relevance of an offeror’s past performance information, as related to this acquisition, adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an oppurtunity to respond or to resolve minor clerical errors).

c. The following table provides Past Performance Evaluation Ratings that will be used:

Table 3 Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

d. Recency and Relevancy: The government will consider the recency and relevancy of the performance information as defined below:

Recency For the purpose of this solicitation, recency is performance occurring within the last six (6) years from the period of the solicitation release date.

Relevancy For the purpose of this solicitation, relevancy is defined as similar performance of vehicle maintenance services in accordance with given Performance Work Statement.

4. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information in the format specified in the proposal preparation instructions to permit a meaningful assessment of past performance. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal 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 performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

(End of Addendum)