Attachment 6 - Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 20 July 2022.pdf

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 – CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

Addendum to 52.212-2 - Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services.

1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD.

1.1. This is a competitive, 8(a) small business set-aside, subjective tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Parts 12 and 15 as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), and the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures to make an integrated best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation to the Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR Subpart 9.1 as supplemented, and whose:

(1) Proposal conforms to all requirements set forth in the RFP and is a 8(a) Small Business;

(2) Proposed technical subfactors receive a rating of “Acceptable”;

(3) Proposal receives a Performance Confidence Assessment rating of “Substantial Confidence”;

“Satisfactory Confidence”, or “Neutral Confidence”;

(4) Proposed Price is determined fair and reasonable and balanced; and

(5) Proposal is determined by the SSA to represent the best value to the Government.

1.2. This is a subjective tradeoff source selection. For those Offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs will be made between past performance and price in which competing offerors’ past performance information will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price. However, the Government reserves the right to award to an offeror with other than the highest rated past performance.

2.0. Evaluation Methodology.

The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows:

2.1. Proposals will be ranked from lowest to highest Total Evaluated Price (TEP) and evaluated starting with the lowest priced proposal. The sum of FFP CLINs X001-X0013, for the Base Period and each Option Period, and CLIN 0018 (Transition), will form the Offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The Not-To-Exceed CLINs X014-X017 for the base period and each option period will not be evaluated for award decision purposes, and therefore, are not included in the TEP.

2.2. The evaluation team will review the lowest priced offeror’s technical proposal first. If the lowest priced offeror is determined “technically acceptable,” the evaluation team will move on to evaluate the lowest priced offeror’s past performance.

2.3. If the lowest priced offeror receives a past performance rating of “substantial confidence,” proposal evaluations will continue until a minimum of two technically acceptable proposals have been evaluated. At that point, evaluations cease and the SSA will make an integrated assessment best value award decision using the TEP and the past performance confidence rating.

2.4 If the lowest priced offeror is rated technically unacceptable or receives a past performance rating of less than substantial confidence, evaluation will continue in order of price until at least two offerors are rated technically acceptable and at least one offeror receives a past performance rating of substantial confidence or until all proposals have been evaluated, whichever occurs first.

2.5 At that point, evaluations cease and the SSA will use an integrated assessment to make a best value award decision using the TEP and the past performance confidence rating of those offerors rated technically acceptable.

2.6. While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the Source Selection Authority (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.

Proposals will be evaluated based solely on the factors contained in this solicitation.

3.0 Discussions:

3.1. The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR

15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

3.2. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to establish a competitive range and hold discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) 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 submitted to the Government in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may render the Offeror’s proposal ineligible for award. After conclusion of discussions and receipt of FPRs, the Government will make award to the Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government.

3.3. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (e.g. the relevance of an Offeror’s past performance information and adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor or clerical errors.

Exchanges conducted IAW FAR 15.306(a)(1) and FAR 15.306(a)(2) will not constitute discussions.

4.0 EVALUATION FACTORS / SUBFACTORS FOR AWARD

4.1. Proposals will be evaluated using the three evaluation factors as outlined in Table 1, Evaluation Factors and Subfactors.

Table 1 – Factors and Subfactors

Factors / Subfactors Description Factor 1

Subfactor 1 Subfactor 2 Subfactor 3

Technical

Transition Plan Technical Approach Staffing Approach

Factor 2 Past Performance Factor 3 Price

5.0. EVALUATION OF OFFEROR’S PROPOSAL

5.1. Technical Proposal (Factor 1). The technical factor and subfactors listed in Table 1 above will be evaluated using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated 31 March 2016, as shown below in Tables 2. The Offeror’s proposal must demonstrate a clear understanding of the nature and scope of work required. Failure to provide a complete proposal may reflect a lack of capability to perform the work requirements and may result in a determination that the Offeror’s proposal is “Unacceptable.” Detailed instructions are included in the addendum to 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items and Commercial Services, of this solicitation. The Government will assign a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” for the offerors technical proposal. If any Subfactor is determined to be technically unacceptable, then the entire technical proposal will be determined “Unacceptable”.

Table 2 – Technical Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

5.1.1. Subfactor 1 – Transition Plan The offerors proposed transition plan will be determined acceptable if it demonstrates, at a minimum, the following:

5.1.1.1. An adequate approach to ensure a sufficient quantity of personnel possess the requisite security clearances to satisfy the requirements IAW PWS paragraph 4.27.1.1.4 during the transition period to allow for successful turnover of the EMCS requirements.

5.1.1.2. An adequate approach to ensure the offeror possesses the requisite Facility Clearance Level (FCL), which is equal to the highest classification stated on the DD254 attached to the solicitation, in advance of the transition period to allow for successful contract turnover.

5.1.1.3. An adequate approach for ensuring that all vehicles required to fulfill all daily operations are in place at Tyndall AFB, FL by the beginning of contract performance. The plan shall include milestones identifying the availability of each type and quantity of vehicles.

5.1.1.4. An adequate approach for ensuring the availability of specialized vehicles/heavy equipment required to fulfill the objectives in PWS paragraphs 1.7.2.6, 4.5.2, 1.8.2.6, 1.7.2.11 within the Priority 1 Emergency Response timeframes identified in the PWS paragraph

1.9.4.1.1.1 by the beginning of contract performance. The plan shall include milestones identifying the availability of each type and quantity of specialized vehicles/heavy equipment.

5.1.1.4. An adequate approach for ensuring that all personnel required to fulfill all daily operations are in place at Tyndall AFB, FL by the beginning of contract performance. The plan shall include milestones identifying the availability of each type and quantity of personnel.

5.1.2. Subfactor 2 – Technical Approach: The Offeror’s proposed Activity Management Plan (AMP), also referred to as lifecycle management, using an HVAC portfolio as an example, will be determined acceptable, if at a minimum, the plan:

5.1.2.1. Demonstrates an adequate understanding of the life cycle management process identified in PWS paragraph 1.3.1.4 and demonstrates a matured capability that integrates AMP plans into daily operational decisions, accomplishes full return on investment (ROI) analysis for most major infrastructure systems and produces a 7-year (FYDP+2) maintenance and replacement plan that at a minimum meets the intent outlined in the CEOE Playbook in Attachment 1N.

5.1.2.2. Demonstrates an adequate approach to addresses each of the following:

(1) The challenges associated with the HVAC requirements and the AMP process

(2) The critical path component, to include major planning milestones such as working groups, meetings, and deliverables necessary to produce the FYDP+2 maintenance and replacement plan and inform the annual integrated priority list (IPL).

(3) The risk component, to include the impacts of facility condition to decision making

(4) The prioritization component, to include how risk affects this approach

(5) The execution method, to include who is responsible for executing the work

5.1.2.3. Demonstrates a data analysis approach that addresses each of the following:

(1). An adequate data acquisition process that includes the use of Air Force required IT Tools and data as well as other methods

(2) An adequate data quality assurance method to ensure data is accurate and relevant prior to analysis

(3) Adequately identifies specific tools, methods, and/or techniques that will be used to make data driven decisions to ensure that asset requirement work is planned and executed in a manner that minimizes lifecycle costs and maximizes return on investment

5.1.2.4. Adequately identifies techniques, tools and/or procedures to fulfill cost estimation requirements that are consistent with industry standards.

5.1.3. Subfactor 3 – Staffing Approach: The Offeror’s proposed staffing approach will be determined technically acceptable, if at a minimum:

5.1.3.2. The Manpower Matrix (Attachment 9) demonstrates an adequate staffing level to fulfill all PWS requirements throughout the base period and each option period, accounting for the annual real property fluctuations presented in Attachment 1B.

5.1.3.3. Sound rationale is provided for how the proposed manpower in the Manpower Matrix (Attachment 9) will be utilized to fulfill all requirements in the PWS.

5.1.3.4. An adequate approach for ensuring all personnel are trained, certified, and qualified as required to fulfill all requirements identified in the PWS throughout the life of the contract.

5.2 Past Performance Proposal (Factor 2).

5.2.1. The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. This will be accomplished through a confidence assessment rating based on the Government’ assessment of the Offeror’s past performance history that is relevant to the requirements of this solicitation. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. The Past Performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance of services that are like the solicitation requirements and the quality of the Offeror’s performance record.

The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, affiliates, joint ventures, mentors, protégés, key personnel and subcontractors if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will have direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

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 Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Document Access (EDA), or other databases; and interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, COs, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

5.2.2. Recency is defined as at least 12 months of the effort’s period of performance must have been performed during the past four (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. The entire contract will be evaluated if there are 12-months of performance within the three year recency window. Performance efforts that do not meet these criteria will not be evaluated for relevancy or performance quality.

5.2.3. Relevant performance measures the extent of similarity in scope, magnitude, and complexity of the Offeror’s past performance and the solicitation requirements. For each Past Performance effort, relevancy will be determined by the similarity to the scope, magnitude of effort and complexity of the Offerors’ performance. Magnitude similarity will be calculated as an estimated annual value (EAV) as part of the relevancy determination. Relevancy will be assigned a rating outlined in Table 3, IAW the DoD Source Selection Procedures. Performance efforts that are determined to be Not Relevant will not be further evaluated.

5.2.4. The Government will use the past performance relevancy ratings and descriptions as outlined in Table 3 below:

Table 3 – Relevancy Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description 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.

5.2.5. Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality (how well the contractor performed on the contracts) of recent, relevant efforts. The quality assessment may include adverse information. Adverse is defined as past performance that supports an unsatisfactory or marginal rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. IAW FAR 15.306, Offerors may be given the opportunity to address adverse past performance information to which they have not had a prior opportunity to respond.

Note: Self-identifying adverse information and corrective actions on PPI Worksheets constitutes an opportunity to respond.

5.2.6. Past Performance Evaluation Confidence Ratings: The Government will evaluate past performance and assign an overall confidence rating outlined in Table 4 below IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures, based on an Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance.

Table 4 – Past Performance Confidence Ratings

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.

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.

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 past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral”. A “Substantial” or “Satisfactory” confidence rating may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

5.3. Price Proposal (Factor 3)

5.3.1. The Government will evaluate the price information submitted in each Offeror’s price proposal (Volume IV) in accordance with the addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Products and Commercial Services, and as described below.

5.3.2. The Government will rank all offers proposed pricing from lowest to highest based upon the offerors Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

5.3.3. The sum of FFP CLINs X001-X0013, for the Base Period and each Option Period, and CLIN 0018 (Transition), will form the Offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The Not-To- Exceed CLINs X014-X017 for the base period and each option period will not be evaluated for award decision purposes, and therefore, are not included in the TEP.

5.3.4. The contract will include FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, with the potential to extend the contract for a period not to exceed six (6) months beyond the date the Option to Extend Services is exercised. In the event the Government requires continued performance under the Option to Extend Services, the Government’s evaluation of prices proposed (specifically for the period preceding the exercise of the Option to Extend Services) will be considered fair and reasonable as applied to the Option to Extend Services. The Option to Extend Services option rates will only be adjusted as the result of revisions to the applicable prevailing wage rates of the Department of Labor Wage Determination or Collective Bargaining Agreement.

5.3.5. The contract will include FAR Clause 52.217-9, Option to Extend the Term of the Contract, with the potential to extend the contract for a period up to five years (base year plus four 1-year option periods). In the event the Government requires continued performance under the Option to Extend the Term of the Contract, the Government’s evaluation of price outlined herein will apply to all Options. The Option rates may only be adjusted as the result of revisions to the applicable prevailing wage rates of the Department of Labor Wage Determination or Collective Bargaining Agreement.

5.3.6. Price Reasonableness: The price information submitted in each Offeror’s price proposal, as required by 52.212-1, will be evaluated to determine if proposed prices are fair and reasonable IAW the proposal analysis techniques described at FAR 15.404-1 based on each Offeror’s proposed approach. A contract will not be awarded to an Offeror whose price is not determined to be fair and reasonable. The price proposed shall correspond to the requirements of the PWS. If the proposal analysis techniques IAW FAR 15.404-1(b) are insufficient to make a determination of price reasonableness or, if after receipt of a proposal, the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition does not exist and a determination is made that none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1(b) apply, the Offeror may be requested to provide certified cost or pricing data IAW FAR 15.403 or data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, in order to make a determination of price reasonableness.

5.3.7. Unbalanced Pricing: In addition, proposed unit prices will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items or sub-line item(s) appear to be significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. Each Offeror’s price proposal should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate prices are not unbalanced.

(End of Addendum)