2nd Draft Appendix K DRAFT_C20_C37 CLS Addendum 52.212-2.pdf

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FA8134-23-R-B002

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0. Source Selection (SS)

1.1. Basis for Contract Award

This acquisition will utilize Tradeoff Source Selection procedures, with technical proposals, to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. Tradeoffs will be made only between Past Performance and Price among those offerors who have been determined technically acceptable. Award will be made to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with (IAW) the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by FAR 52.212-1 and its Addendum of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines the technically acceptable proposal, and superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference with lower priced offerors.

1.1.1. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the 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.

1.1.2. This source selection is conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI) 215.3, DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 20 August 2022, the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3.

These regulations are available electronically at https://www.acquisition.gov.

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to select one contractor for this acquisition. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

1.3. Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider throughout the evaluation, the correction potential of any technical proposal aspect evaluated as a deficiency. The correction potential shall be based on the amount and/or complexity of the corrections needed to meet Government requirements. If a deficiency is not considered correctable, or if the amount and/or complexity of the corrections needed to meet the government requirement requires a major proposal revision, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range. The government also reserves the right to eliminate an

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

offeror from the competitive range where the technical proposal does not require a major proposal revision, but the offeror is not among the most highly rated offerors.

1.4. Competitive Range Determination

If discussions are conducted, the Government shall establish a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals, in accordance with FAR 15.306(c). During the evaluation process multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition IAW FAR 15.505. The competitive range determination can be based on Factor 1 Technical, Factor 2 Past Performance, Factor 3 Price, or a combination of the three factors. A competitive range determination may eliminate Offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), prior to issuance of the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request, or for efficiency. If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505, or a post award debriefing IAW FAR 15.506.

1.5. Facility Clearance

1.5.1. Facility Clearance Information

The offeror, and subcontractors as required, must possess or acquire prior to Source Selection Authority Decision Brief a final facility clearance equal to the highest classification specification (DD254) attached to this solicitation and be entitled to Communications Security (COMSEC) information without additional authorization (i.e. National Interest Determination (NID)).

Therefore, all final facility clearances must be approved prior to the Source Selection Authority Decision Brief. The Industrial Security Facilities Database (ISFD) will be used to verify final facility clearances one business day prior to the Source Selection Authority Decision Brief.

Offerors who do not have a final facility clearance equal to the highest classification specification (DD254) attached to this solicitation in the ISFD database one business day prior to the Source Selection Authority Decision Brief will be considered non-responsible and will not be eligible for award. The Source Selection Authority Decision Brief may occur without discussions if there is a fully acceptable and awardable initial proposal among the offers tendered, or may occur following discussions and receipt of the final proposal revisions. The Government is not obligated to hold discussions nor delay the Decision Brief awaiting Offeror completion of the facilities clearance requirement. Any determination that an offeror is non-responsible will be in accordance with FAR Part 9.

1.5.2. Proscribed Classified COMSEC Information Notice to Offerors and any and all subcontractors: Proscribed classified COMSEC information is involved in this effort. Therefore, US companies operating under Foreign Ownership, Control or Influence (FOCI) as defined in the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM) with a Special Security Agreement as the mitigation instrument are on notice that a National Interest Determination (NID) will be required. The NID decision will be made by the Government and documented prior to award of the contract. The Government is not obligated delay contract award in order to complete the NID process. If the NID is denied, the contractor will be determined non-responsible and will not be eligible for award. Any determination that an offeror is non-responsible will be in accordance with FAR Part 9. Reference Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 6.3.6.3. if the offeror intends to subcontract classified COMSEC work.

1.6. Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. Therefore, it is imperative that Offerors submit their best terms initially.

However, if during the evaluation period it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, the Government will determine if responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) received during discussions will be considered formal proposal revisions, or if offerors will be required to include EN responses in the Final Proposal Revision (FPR). The Request for FPR letter will include specific instructions on how offerors will submit FPRs. The Government also reserves the right to request Draft FPRs during discussions. Offeror responses to ENs for Volume II (Past Performance) shall not be included in the FPR. Offeror responses to Past Performance ENs during discussions will automatically be considered in the final evaluation.

1.7. Reviews and Visits

Site visits are not planned. However, the SSEB may conduct site visits during the evaluation phase to gather information for judging the Offeror’s potential for correcting deficiencies, quality of development of manufacturing practices/processes, or other areas useful in evaluating the offer. If conducted, the results will be assessed under the applicable factors/subfactors and will be used to validate and confirm the Offeror’s written proposal.

1.8 Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements, in addition to those identified as factors and subfactors. Requirements included in the factors and subfactors will be evaluated in accordance with the process described for each factor and subfactor. 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 unacceptable, and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

2.0. Evaluation Factors

2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

2.1.1. Evaluation Factors Used to Evaluate Each Proposal

Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination of factors deemed most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

Factor 1: Technical o Subfactor 1: Program Management o Subfactor 2: Supply Support o Subfactor 3: Maintenance o Subfactor 4: Small Business Participation

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

2.1.2. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

For this solicitation, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the best value analysis and potential trade-off between Past Performance and Price. The Order of Importance is used to explain how the other factors will be traded off on technically acceptable proposals.

For all technically acceptable proposals, Factor 2 (Past Performance) is considered approximately equal to Factor 3 (Price).

2.1.3. Evaluation Methodology

The Government will evaluate all factors concurrently for all proposals. Initial ratings for all factors will be established for each offeror in determining the competitive range. The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable as described in Tables 2.2 and 2.2.4 below. The proposals shall be evaluated against the subfactors listed in paragraph 2.2 below. Past Performance will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.3 below. Price will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.4 below. For the award decision, the SSA will assess the Past Performance ratings, along with supporting information, and Price for all technically acceptable offers to make an integrated assessment of which offeror provides the overall best value.

2.2. Factor 1 – Technical

The Technical evaluation will be based on each offeror’s approach for meeting the technical requirements listed below. The evaluation focuses on the technical approach as described in each offeror’s technical volume. The technical evaluation does not consider price. Subfactors 1, 2 and 3 within the technical factor will receive one of the ratings described below in Table 2.2 based on the criteria listed below. Subfactor 4 within the technical factor will receive one of the ratings described below in Table 2.2.4 based on the criteria listed below. Individual subfactor ratings will be used to determine the overall technical acceptability of each offeror. To be determined technically acceptable at the factor level, the Offeror must be rated acceptable in each subfactor.

A single deficiency within a subfactor will result in an unacceptable rating for that subfactor. A final unacceptable subfactor assessment will determine an overall technical unacceptable rating, and therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially, or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The technical evaluation will also consider risk in determining overall acceptability. Risk pertains to the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. Risk will not receive a separate rating, rather, it will be inherent within the subfactor ratings, and the overall Technical rating. Only Low Risk approaches will be deemed acceptable.

Table 2.2

Rating Description ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2.2.1. Subfactor 1: Program Management

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Program Management approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential elements with little potential for disruption of schedule, or degradation of performance:

a. Program Management Approach – The offeror’s approach must ensure their Program Management plans and methods establish and maintain adequate program oversight and risk management for CLS to the C-20 / C-37 fleets IAW PWS sections 2.4, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.9, 2.15, 2.17, 2.19, 2.21, 2.21.3, 4.20, 4.20.1, 4.20.2, 4.21.

(1) Continuation of Essential Services Plan – The offeror’s approach must ensure their plans and methods sufficiently establish and maintain essential services for CLS support to the C-20 / C-37 fleets IAW PWS sections 1.1.1 and 2.5.

The proposed plan shall provide mission essential services IAW DFARS 252.237-7023 and 7024(b) (1) and (2).

(2) The Offeror must provide an approach that sufficiently tracks and provides a real-time, web-based automated funds management system in accordance with PWS paragraph 2.27.

(3) The Offeror’s approach must demonstrate the establishment of primary vendor agreements and access to primary OEM data required to support the program after contract award and must meet the requirements of PWS 2.23.

b. Subcontractor Management Approach – The offeror’s subcontracting approach must ensure their plans and methods effectively manage subcontractors’ performance with respect to schedule and cost as well as meeting PWS sections 2.4.2, 2.6, 2.8, 2.9, 2.9.2, 2.9.3, and 2.18.1.

c. Phase-In Transition Planning – The Government will assess the Offeror’s Phase-In Transition Plan. The Offeror’s approach must demonstrate the integrated planning, resources, ability, and risk mitigation required to establish full C-20 / C-37 CLS performance at the beginning of full contract performance IAW PWS section 5.1 and subsections 5.1.1 through 5.1.11.

(1) Personnel Plan – The Offeror’s planned organization and hiring approach must demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to sufficiently establish and maintain CLS support per PWS 2.9 and 5.1.5.

(2) Resources – The Offeror’s approach must ensure sufficient resources are established and maintained to provide required CLS materials, support and test equipment, furnishings, and other items necessary by the first day of contract performance at the fleet support center and each operating location IAW performance requirements per PWS 3.4 and 5.1.10.

d. Security – The Offeror’s approach must meet the security requirements of 32 CFR Part 117, National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM), the DD254, and PWS sections 2.4.1.1, 2.9.2, 2.18.1, 2.18.2, 2.18.4, 2.18.10, 3.8.4, 4.19, 4.19.1, 4.19.2.

2.2.2. Subfactor Two: Supply Support

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Supply Support approach and Material Management Plan to include, but not limited to requirement in PWS section 2.4.1. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. The subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the C-20 / C-37 supply performance requirements (PWS 3.2, 3.2.1, and 3.2.2) for all of the following essential Supply Support Elements with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance:

a. Parts/Inventory Management – The Offeror’s approach for spare and repair parts must ensure an effective process for worldwide inventory control and Supply Chain Management (SCM) for all Contractor Furnished Property (CFP) and Government Furnished Property (GFP) IAW PWS sections 3.0, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.5.1, 3.5.2, and 3.5.3.

(1) The Offeror’s approach for spare and repair parts must ensure the capability to meet performance requirements IAW PWS 3.2, 3.2.1, and 3.2.2.

(2) The Offerer’s approach for worldwide Aircraft on Ground (AOG) Parts Support must ensure transportation of parts requirements are met IAW PWS 3.8.1.

(3) The Offeror’s Inventory Management System (IMS) must ensure requirements are met IAW PWS sections 3.7.1, 3.7.2, and 3.7.3.

b. Support and Test Equipment – The Offeror’s approach must demonstrate capability to source and provide required C-20 / C-37 Support Equipment to include Test Equipment, tools, and associated equipment for each Covered Aircraft operating location and ensure supply performance requirements are met IAW PWS sections 3.6 and 3.6.1.

c. Contractor Operated and Maintained Base Supply (COMBS) – The Offeror’s approach must demonstrate capability to operate and manage a COMBS to source, manage, stock, repair, overhaul and dispose of required spares and repair parts in sufficient quantities or by other agreements by operating location to maintain the C- 20 / C-37 fleets. The Offeror’s approach must ensure COMBS and MOB Supply requirements are met IAW PWS 3.3, 3.3.1, and 3.3.2.

2.2.3. Subfactor Three: Maintenance

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Maintenance approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the maintenance performance requirements (PWS 1.9) for all of the following essential maintenance elements with little potential for disruption of schedule or degradation of performance:

a) Main Operating Base (MOB) Maintenance – The Offeror’s approach to support MOB Maintenance must ensure all requirements are met per PWS 4.4, 4.5.4, 4.5.5, 4.5.6, 4.5.9, 4.5.10, 4.6, 4.6.1, 4.6.2, 4.7, 4.20, 4.21, 4.22, and 4.22.1 through 4.22.3.

(1) The Offeror’s approach shall include effective method(s) to identify and perform Main Operating Base (MOB) maintenance (at full CLS sites) to maximize the availability of all aircraft and engines for each branch of service IAW PWS 4.5 and 4.5.1. An effective method will demonstrate adherence to FAA, OEM, and regulatory requirements and the ability to meet mission capable rates and other maintenance requirements of PWS Table 1-2 per PWS 4.2.

b) Depot Level Maintenance – The Offeror’s approach to support depot level maintenance must ensure all requirements are met per PWS 4.12, 4.12.2, 4.12.3, 4.12.6, 4.12.11.5, 4.13, and 4.23.

(1) The Offeror’s approach to depot level maintenance and teaming partners must be supported by FAA FAR Title 14 Part 145 certified Repair Station with Operations Specifications provided for each equivalent commercial model Covered Aircraft and associated High Value Assets (HVA). The proposed certified depot(s) facility for maintenance must have the capacity to support the “Aircraft 10-year depot maintenance plan” IAW PWS 4.12.1.

(2) Interior and Exterior Appearance – The Offeror’s approach to aircraft interior maintenance and executive paint application at a FAA FAR Title 14 Part 145 certificated facility per the paint specification and appearance standards must ensure all requirements are met per PWS sections 4.12.9, 4.12.14, and 4.12.16.

c) Contractor Field Teams (CFT) – The Offeror’s approach to provide FAA FAR Title

14 Part 145 qualified depot level CFT for worldwide repair/recovery of AOG to include engine replacement must ensure all requirements of PWS 4.11 and all subparagraphs are met.

d) High Value Asset (HVA) Maintenance – The Offeror’s approach must include, at a minimum, Rolls Royce Corporate Care or equivalent Comprehensive Engine Maintenance Program for C-37, C-20 engine maintenance, Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) maintenance, and Landing Gear (LG) maintenance per PWS sections 4.16 and all subparagaphs 4.17, 4.17.1, 4.17.2, and 4.18. The Offeror’s approach shall include an effective approach to plan/schedule engine shop visits, engine overhauls, landing gear overhauls, time change item work, service action compliance, Time Compliance Technical Orders (TCTO) per the aircraft 10-year depot maintenance plan and the Computerized Maintenance Program (CMP) in accordance with PWS sections 4.1.1, 4.12.1, 4.21.

2.2.4 Subfactor 4: Small Business Participation

The Offeror’s approach must demonstrate an understanding of objective to use U.S. small businesses in the performance of this acquisition. The Offeror’s proposed Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) must be successfully completed IAW Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, ITO Attachment 2.0. In addition, the Offeror’s proposed small business Minimum Quantitative Requirement (MQR) must be a minimum of 15% of the total small business subcontracting dollar value. The rating definitions for Subfactor 4 are as follows:

Table 2.2.4. Small Business Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

ACCEPTABLE

Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

2.3. Factor 2 – Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule, based on a demonstrated record of performance.

2.3.1. Ratings

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the following performance confidence assessment ratings IAW the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures.

Note: With regards to the best value award decision, all offerors rated as “Substantial Confidence” will be considered equal for the Past Performance Factor.

2.3.2. Evaluation Process

The Past Performance evaluation considers the Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet users’ needs. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Price assessment. More relevant performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort. More recent performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent performance. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. 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

TABLE 5 - PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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.

information obtained from other sources, such as, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and commercial sources. The Government reserves the right to use all information available to fully assess the Offeror’s past performance.

2.3.2.1. Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.3.2.2. Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price assessment. Consideration will be given to things such as similar service, similar complexity of the effort, breadth and depth of skills, similar contract scope and type, contract magnitude and schedule. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s) as defined in paragraph 4.3 of Addendum to FAR 52.212-1) past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government will consider the portion of the effort accomplished on previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort. For example: Past Performance for a subcontractor for Program Management will only be considered if that same subcontractor is to perform Program Management on the proposed effort.

The past performance information submitted by offerors along with information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.3.1, Table 4, when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

Degree Description

VERY RELEVANT

(VR)

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

RELEVANT

(R)

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

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

(SR)

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

NOT RELEVANT

(NR)

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Scope, magnitude and complexity will be assessed based on the prime or subcontractor/teaming partners proposed role or effort as it relates to the past performance effort. The Government may or may not utilize all or some of the following to determine the elements examined within scope, magnitude, complexity, and price:

Scope: Relevancy in regard to scope may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the C-20/C-37 CLS Requirement.

Consideration may be given to the following areas of scope when determining past performance:

Main Operating Base (MOB) / Worldwide Mission and Supply Support Contractor Operated and Maintained Base Supply (COMBS) Scheduled Depot Aircraft Maintenance at a FAA FAR Title 14 Part 145 Certificated

Facility of an Equivalent Aircraft Fleet Unscheduled Depot and Drop-In Aircraft Maintenance Comprehensive Engine Maintenance Program World-Wide Contract Field Team Support Executive Custom Aircraft Interiors/Painting at a FAA FAR Title 14 Part 145 Facility Past Small Business Subcontracting or Required Small Business Utilization on

Government Contracts

Magnitude: Relevancy in regard to magnitude may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the C-20/C-37 CLS Requirement.

Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining relevancy with regard to magnitude:

Aircraft Type(s) Supported Location(s)/Area(s) Supported Number of Aircraft Supported Contract Type/Value

Complexity: Relevancy in regard to complexity may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the C-20/C-37 CLS Requirement.

Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining relevancy with regard to complexity:

Multiple geographic locations supported Aircraft maintenance concept Aircraft mission type (Mobility/Executive Airlift/Med Evac) Contract security requirements Breadth/Depth of skills required

Price Assessment Past Performance Relevancy: Relevancy in regard to cost/price will be assessed primarily based on similarity between contract type (i.e. Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP), Cost, Time and Materials (T&M) of previous effort as compared to the C-20/C-37 CLS requirement.

2.3.2.3. Performance Quality Assessment:

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS) (including ratings and supporting narratives), interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials and, if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information which the Government determines to be less than satisfactory performance quality. 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 when determining the quality assessment. Taking mitigating corrective actions may or may not result in a higher quality rating. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Quality Assessment Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E)

(BLUE)

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some or many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

SATISFACTORY (S)

(GREEN)

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL (M)

(YELLOW)

During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

UNSATISFACTORY (U)

(RED)

During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or fail) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

UNKNOWN (UK)

Unknown Performance rating due to lack of sufficient information to assign a rating.

2.3.3. Assigning Ratings

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating based on the definitions provided in paragraph 2.3.1 above. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Price assessment, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than a less relevant effort. A record of Somewhat Relevant to Very Relevant past performance, which may result in Substantial, Satisfactory, or Limited Confidence, may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a Neutral Confidence rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

2.4. Factor 3 – Price

Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) price reasonableness (including completeness), (2) unbalanced pricing, (3) price realism, and (4) Total Evaluated Price. Offerors whose price is determined incomplete, unreasonable, or unrealistic will not be considered for award.

Additionally, an offeror’s price may be rejected if it contains unbalanced pricing to the extent it poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

The Government shall evaluate the TEP of all Offerors, including option prices. The TEP will be calculated IAW the Calculation Methodology worksheet in the Pricing Matrix (Appendix G).

The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. NOTE: Evaluation of options or extensions does not obligate the Government to exercise such options or extensions. The 6-month Extension Period is in accordance with Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services.

The Offeror’s price proposal will be based on the prices proposed in the Pricing Matrix (Appendix G).

2.4.1. Price Reasonableness

The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. Analysis of price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) in order to determine price reasonableness. Reasonableness must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). The Government may also use other techniques as needed. To evaluate completeness, the Government will confirm all unit prices and rates in the Pricing Matrix (Appendix G), have a dollar amount, or rate proposed as applicable. Offeror’s shall provide rationale if any proposed unit price or rate is entered as zero in the Pricing Matrix (Appendix G).

2.4.2. Unbalanced Pricing

Offerors’ proposals will be reviewed for unbalanced pricing, to include any price increases greater than five percent per performance period, as well as any price decreases from one performance period to the next. The Government will evaluate any supporting information provided by the Offeror explaining variances that appear unbalanced. Evaluated offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be deemed ineligible for award by the Contracting Officer if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as demonstrated by application of price analysis techniques, such that: There is reasonable doubt the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the Government, even though it is the lowest priced Offeror; or the Offer is so grossly unbalanced, its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advanced payment.

2.4.3. Price Realism

Proposed prices will be evaluated for price realism. To be realistic, the proposed price must demonstrate an adequate understanding of the requirement and must ensure the price does not pose an unacceptable risk to performance. All documentation submitted to support price realism will be considered in making a determination of price realism. To evaluate price realism, the Government intends to use one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). The Government may also use other evaluation techniques, as needed.

2.4.4. Data Other than Certified Pricing Data

If requested by the CO, data other than certified pricing data shall be evaluated to support a determination of reasonable, balanced and realistic pricing. This information will only be requested if all other sources have been insufficient to support a determination of reasonable and/or balanced pricing and/or price realism. Offerors may provide any additional data other than certified cost or price data as believed necessary to support or justify proposed pricing.

2.4.5. Rounding

If any pricing proposal deviates from the format described in Addendum to FAR 52-212-1, Instructions to Offerors, section 5.2.5, the Government will apply the specified format to determine the extended pricing and TEP. Compliance with instructions regarding rounding will be verified during evaluation. Note: The Pricing Matrix (Appendix G) includes a rounding formula when calculating the extended totals to automatically round the proposed unit prices to the correct format. Unit prices and labor rates are rounded to the nearest cent (i.e., $55.493 is rounded to $55.49) and percentages, rounded to 4 places to the right of the decimal (8.952% is rounded to 8.95% and entered into the pricing matrix as 1.0895).

2.4.6. Total Evaluated Price (TEP):

Pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with Addendum to FAR 52-212-1, pricing instructions. The TEP calculation methodology is detailed in the Pricing Matrix (Appendix G).

The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only.

2.4.7. Estimating Techniques and Past Experience

The Government will review the basis of estimate on which proposed pricing was established.

The relevance and application of the Offeror’s price estimates based on past experience will be reviewed by the Government. The Government reserves the right to obtain information from the Contract Business Analysis Repository as considered necessary.

2.4.8. Proposed Price Reduction per Corporate Management Decision The Government will review the Offerors’ explanation of any reduction in proposed pricing as a corporate or management decision. This includes review of the areas of price reduction, such as profit, volume or location discounts, indirect rate reductions, and so forth. The Offeror’s explanation of how any reduction will not affect contractor responsibility or put the Government at an unacceptable performance risk will also be reviewed.

2.4.9. Price Assumptions Used in Development of Proposed Pricing The Government will review information provided in the Price Volume regarding all price assumptions, limitations, and/or qualifications utilized in the development of proposed pricing.

Such information will be used to understand the Offerors’ proposed pricing basis of estimate.

Additionally, these assumptions help provide support for the Government’s determination of price reasonableness, balanced pricing, and price realism.

2.4.10. Labor, Material Handling/Subcontractor, and Travel General & Administrative Rates The Government will review the Price Volume to ensure the Offeror has indicated their understanding that proposed ceiling rates will apply to all out-years despite what current actuals are running at the time.

2.4.11. Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS)

The Offeror’s proposal will be reviewed for compliance with SCLS or collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Compliance with the SCLS or CBA is the responsibility of the Offeror and subsequent contract awardee. In addition, the Government will review and confirm the Offeror submitted a conformance table that cross references the Offeror’s proposed job categories/skill levels subject to the SCLS with the job categories/skill levels of the applicable Area Wage Determination (AWD). It should be noted that actual compliance of Offerors’ wage rate payments to employees with the SCLS and regional AWD as appropriate is not within the responsibility or purview of evaluators and shall not be reviewed. The Department of Labor (DoL) is assigned SCLS compliance responsibilities and shall be the Government Point of Contact in regard to any compliance questions or concerns.

2.4.12. Government Furnished Property/Equipment/Material/Facilities (GFP/GFE/GFM/GFF) The Government will review all information provided in the Price Volume regarding compliance and understanding of GFP/GFE/GFM/GFF.

2.4.13. Contractor Furnished Property/Equipment/Tooling/Material (CFP/CFE/CFT/CFM) The Government will review all information provided in the Price Volume regarding compliance and understanding CFP/CFE/CFT/CFM.

2.4.14. Government Field Support Agencies

The Government will review and confirm submission of the cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) offices responsible for administration of the Offeror’s Government contracts.

2.4.15. Probable Subcontractors

The Government will review the subcontractor information provided to include the subcontractor name, description of effort, contract type, and the methodology used to determine subcontractor pricing fair and reasonable.

2.4.16. Other Documentation

In reviewing proposed prices, all additional information from the Price Volume will also be considered. Offerors may provide any additional data, other than certified cost or pricing data, as believed necessary to support, justify, or clarify their proposed pricing. All pricing information provided in response to the solicitation may be reviewed and considered, if the Government determines the information will contribute to the evaluation of price reasonableness, balanced pricing, and price realism.

2.4.17. Pricing Matrix

The Government will confirm receipt of a fully completed Pricing Matrix (Appendix G) in the required format and utilize it to evaluate Offeror’s TEP.