Attch XX_Draft_Addendum 52.212-2 Evaluation.docx

55TH WING ENTRY CONTROL MONITOR, OBSERVER, AND CONSTRUCTION SURVEILLENCE TECHNICIAN SUPPORT

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2

EVALUATION

COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS

COMMERCIAL SERVICES

FA4600-23-R-0008

Attachment XX

EVALUATION—COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES

I. SOURCE SELECTION

Offerors are cautioned to completely read this entire solicitation and submit sufficient and correct information, and in the format specified. Offerors not submitting the required information, initially with their proposals, may be rejected as non-responsive.

Basis for Contract Award This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures, Appendix C, 20 August, 2022 and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3, 2019 Edition. These regulations are available electronically at acquisition.gov. Award will be made to the lowest priced technically acceptable (LPTA) offeror with an acceptable past performance assessment. The Government intends to make award without discussions with respective Offerors. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. To be eligible for award offerors must be deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9.1 and their proposal must conform to the solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by of this solicitation) and are judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal having an acceptable past performance rating. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

The offerors selected for award shall receive a task order, for the minimum guaranteed amount of $1,000.00 to attend a post award conference at the Government issuing office.

Award without Discussions The Government intends to award without discussions. Therefore, offerors are advised to submit proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable as a standalone document without additional information. If award will be made without conducting discussions, offerors may only be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of proposals (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.

Discussions If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) 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 in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

Competitive Range/Discussions The Government reserves the right to open and conduct discussions if it deems them to be necessary. Discussions will be held only with those offerors determined to be in the competitive range. If discussions are deemed necessary the Government will establish a competitive range IAW FAR 15.306(c). Offerors whose proposals are not included in the competitive range will be notified as soon as practicable. Discussions will include issuance of evaluation notices. An offeror initially included in the competitive range may be eliminated from consideration for award during discussions. At the conclusion of discussions, each offeror still within the competitive range shall be given an opportunity to submit a Final Proposal Revision (FPR). Only offerors deemed “Acceptable” in all Technical sub-factors with acceptable past performance are eligible for award.

Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions 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 factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions as unacceptable.

II. EVALUATION FACTORS

Evaluation Factors and Subfactors The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability, but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors or subfactors.

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Staffing Plan/Recruitment, Training and Retention Plan Subfactor 2: Mobilization/Equipment Plan

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

The Government will:

1.) Order all proposals by total evaluated price from lowest to highest.

2.) It is the Government’s intent to evaluate the three (3) lowest priced offers for technical acceptability. Evaluations will continue until a total of three (3) proposals are rated as acceptable or until all offers are evaluated. However, if there are less than three offers, then the lesser number of offers will be evaluated.

3.) Evaluate past performance of the offers rated technically acceptable.

4.) Evaluate price of the proposals rated acceptable in technical and past performance.

5.) Award will be made to the lowest price technically acceptable proposal that is determined to have an acceptable past performance rating.

Evaluation Procedures for each Factor

Technical Factor (Volume I) 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, unawardable. 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 intends to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions.

Ratings. Each technical sub-factor factor will receive one of the ratings described below.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Staffing Plan/Recruitment, Training and Retention Plan

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s submitted staffing plan/recruitment, training and retention plan. Specifically, this plan will evaluate the offerors ability properly staff and maintain this contract with the required numbers of trained personnel.

Measure of Merit: This subfactor will be considered acceptable if the offeror’s proposal provides a successful Staffing/Recruitment, Training and Retention Plan that successfully demonstrates:

· Must show examples of how members are getting TS clearances and actual obtained clearances through Defense Information System for Security (DISS) or system comparable to DISS.

· Must provide specific named individuals with verification of required clearance in the following numbers, 5 Top Secret Construction Security Technicians (CSTs), 10 Top Secret Observers and 6 Top Secret Entry Control Monitors (ECMs).

· Must provide an effective and comprehensive recruitment plan that ensures sufficient, qualified personnel are hired and trained for each position and specifically identifies and addresses hard to fill positions, i.e., CST, Observer, Top Secret ECM.

· Must show an example of an effective and comprehensive training plan to maintain a sufficiently trained workforce capable of providing the services as outlined in the PWS.

· Must show ability to hire 5 trained and cleared CSTs within 30 days during the construction project. Must demonstrate that CSTs will be trained and certified in accordance the PWS.

· Must show ability to hire 100 trained and cleared TS Observers within 30 days during the construction project. Must demonstrate that CSTs will be trained and certified in accordance the PWS.

· Must show ability to hire 10 TS ECMs within 30 days during the construction project. Must demonstrate that CSTs will be trained and certified in accordance the PWS.

Subfactor 2: Mobilization/Equipment Plan

Description: This subfactor evaluates offeror’s submitted mobilization/equipment plan. Specifically, this plan will evaluate the offerors ability properly acquire and mobilize the equipment for this contract.

Measure of Merit: This subfactor will be considered acceptable if the offeror’s proposal clearly and logically addresses and meets the minimum requirements specified below. The offeror must show that their mobilization and equipment approach meet the Government & PWS requirements for the IDIQ, to include;

· Demonstrates a thorough understanding of all mobilization requirements and identifies priority allocation of resources and personnel.

· Provides an example list of required/requested equipment IAW PWS.

· Show example of a schedule that clearly depicts all mobilization actions with start and complete dates which ensures the offeror is prepared to begin contract performance at the conclusion of a 30–60-day mobilization period

· Multiple sites could be under construction at one time. Show example of a mobilization plan for multiple sites at any given time during life of construction to support security needs.

· Multiple sites could be under construction at one time. Show example of a mobilization plan for for multiple sites at any given time during life of construction to support security needs.

Past Performance Factor (Volume II) The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Offerors must receive a past performance rating of “Acceptable” to be eligible for award.

Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the ratings described below.

TABLE 2- PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS

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.

Evaluation Process: The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements.

a) Recency: To be considered for recency, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated for relevancy or performance quality.

b) Relevancy: The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price factor. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). To be considered relevant any contract submitted must have a value of at least $5,000,000 annually. To be considered relevant the projects in the summary need to demonstrate either CST support or TS observer support for large construction projects. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated for performance quality.

c) Performance Quality: The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the offeror performed on the contracts). For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed using Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) to determine how well the offeror performed on the prior contracts. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports an unacceptable rating on any evaluation element. 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 have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

Assigning Ratings: As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated past performance rating at the factor level (see Table 2).

Confidentiality of Sources: Past performance information, including questionnaires and past performance sources are confidential and are not to be released to anyone outside the Government source selection process. Offerors are cautioned that contacting or seeking out the source(s) of past performance information is strictly prohibited. Any attempts to contact individuals concerning the past performance information will be perceived negatively and could impact your performance rating. Any questions regarding source selection information should be addressed directly to the source selection Contracting Officer only and not to any other individuals. Offerors are responsible for ensuring its subcontractors and teaming partners are aware of this information and are in compliance. Disclosure of past performance information to non-Government advisors is strictly prohibited.

NOTE: Teaming Agreements and Joint Ventures will be accepted in the Past Performance Evaluation. However, if a Teaming Arrangement or Joint Venture is established the 3 contract limit applies to the Teaming Arrangement or Joint Venture together. (3 contracts total)

Price Factor (Volume III) Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable or unbalanced may not be considered for award.

The offeror shall populate the pricing model provided by the Government. Offerors shall input their fully burdened (fully burdened means all indirect costs, overhead and profit are included) labor rates for the categories listed in the pricing model. Offerors shall also populate their escalation rate for each year. Offerors are only to add data to the yellow cells in the pricing model. No other changes or alterations should be made to the pricing model. If an offeror alters the pricing model in other ways it may be cause for rejection of that offer. The total evaluated price will be based on the total evaluated price in the pricing model. Award will be made to the lowest priced technically acceptable offeror. The lowest price will be the offeror who has the lowest total evaluated price in the pricing model they submit with their proposal. The weighted hours for each year of the pricing model are for evaluation purposes only, these weights are not indicative of actual performance or usage of the contract. All labor rates and escalation rates proposed will be fixed for the life of the contract and will be used to award all task orders under this contract.