DLA TRANSPORTATION PROCESS FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION- COMMERCIAL ITEMS ATTACH 2.docx

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (DLA) TRANSPORTATION PROCESS SUPPORT ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION- COMMERCIAL ITEMS ATTACHMENT 2

1. Selection Process The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Transportation Process Support requirement will utilize the Trade-off evaluation process where technical approach, key personnel, management and staffing plan, and past performance when combined are significantly more important than total price. The tradeoff process is appropriate when it is in the best interest of the government to consider award(s) to other than the lowest priced quoter or other than the highest technically rated quoter. This process permits trade-offs among cost or price and non-cost/price factors and allows the government to accept other than the lowest priced offer. The perceived benefits of the higher priced offer must merit the additional cost/price, and the rationale for trade-offs must be documented in the contract file. The government’s objective is to obtain the highest quality services considered necessary to achieve the required objectives. When using the trade-off process, all of the evaluation factors that will affect the task order issuance and their relative importance must be clearly stated in the solicitation.

2. Evaluation Factors Evaluation factors represent those specific characteristics that are tied to the request for quote (RFQ) requirements and are expected to be discriminators or are required by statute/regulation. They are the uniform baseline against which each contractor’s quote is evaluated allowing the government to make a best value determination. The evaluation factors, their relative order of importance, and the importance of non-price to price factors must be set forth in the solicitation in enough depth to communicate what will be evaluated. The evaluation factors will be the primary determinant of the detailed information requested in the solicitation’s instructions to contractors.

Relative importance. All non-price evaluation factors when combined are significantly more important than price. The non-price evaluation factors are of equal importance. As the non-price evaluation factors become more equal among quotes, the evaluated price becomes more important.

Basis for award(s). Quotes will first be evaluated on the basis of the non-price evaluation factors as defined below. The non-price evaluation factors include the following: Technical Approach, Key Personnel, Management and Staffing Plan, and Past Performance. Key Personnel will be evaluated as Acceptable or Unacceptable. Past Performance will be evaluated by the Contracting Officer as Acceptable or Unacceptable. Pricing will be evaluated for accuracy, fairness, reasonableness, and completeness. The task order will be issued to the contractor whose quote offers the best value to the government based on the PWS requirements and the established evaluation factors. Each non-price factor (Technical Approach, Key Personnel, Management and Staffing Plan, and Past Performance) will be rated independently, and the non-price factor ratings for Technical Approach and Management and Staffing Plan will be rolled up into an overall rating. A quote determined to be Unacceptable in either Key Personnel or Past Performance will not be eligible for award.

Factor 1 Technical Approach Quoters must provide a capability statement detailing their technical abilities in performing the work outlined in the performance work statement. Ratings will be in accordance with Table 1 below and based on the technical proficiency that the contractor provides in their response.

Factor 2 Key Personnel Key Personnel will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. In order to be found Acceptable, quotes must include resumes and letters of intent (LOI) for all key personnel provided within its quote; but at minimum for each of the two Key Personnel positions listed in the PWS. Key personnel must meet all of the key personnel education and experience requirements that are listed in the performance work statement (PWS). Ratings will be in accordance with Table 2 below.

Factor 3 Management and Staffing Plan Ratings will be in accordance with Table 1 below and the management plan will be evaluated to ensure that, at a minimum, the management plan explains how the contractor will successfully perform the following:

1.) The task order management and issue resolution.

2.) The ability to recruit qualified personnel that will be able to fulfill the solicitation and PWS requirement. This includes the ability to address turn-over rate and rapidly hire and train personnel in a dynamic environment with changing workloads.

3.) The ability to retain qualified personnel.

4.) Please provide a personnel replacement plan that aligns with section V Personnel Issues of the PWS.

5.) The contractor understands the work as evidenced by the proposed plan for overall implementation and execution.

6.) Evidence of a process for ensuring quality and timeliness of deliverables.

7.) A draft Quality Control Plan (QCP) must be submitted as well. This draft qualify control plan must outline the processes that the contractor will implement to ensure that the staffing and procedures for self-inspecting the quality, timeliness, responsiveness, and other performance requirements in the PWS are met.

Factor 4 Past Performance The past performance evaluation will determine whether the government has a reasonable expectation that the quoter will successfully perform on this contract base on its prior contracts in accordance with Table 3, below. Past performance information will be based on the quote submittal, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) reports, and other government data systems. If a contractor does not have past performance data in these systems, the Contracting Officer may request government points of contact for references. The government will consider the following in determining past performance acceptability:

a. Relevancy. Past performance data will be reviewed for relevancy to the current solicitation. Relevant past performance data is a stronger predictor of future success. Past performance relevancy will be rated as either relevant or not relevant.

b. Recency. Past performance data will be reviewed for recency, which is defined as within the past three (3) years. Past performance recency will be rated as either recent or not recent.

c. Quality. Evaluation of past performance data will be based on actual ratings received in CPARS for technical/quality, schedule, cost, and management. If CPARS ratings are not available, the Contracting Officer may request two to five government points of contact (POCs) to provide past performance information. Past performance quality will be rated as either acceptable or unacceptable.

In order for a quote to be determined as acceptable in past performance, each offered past performance effort is required to be relevant, recent, and its quality acceptable.

Please provide contract number, POC, and a brief description of the most relevant, recent, and quality contract(s).

Table 1 – Technical Approach, and Management and Staffing Plan Rating

Outstanding Quote meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements with multiple strengths (four or more) identified with few or no weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Quote meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements with a few strengths (three or less) identified with few or no weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Marginal Quote does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The quote has several weaknesses (three or more) that are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Table 2 – Key Personnel Rating

Table 3 – Past Performance Rating

NOTE: In the case of a quoter without a record of past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the quoter may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the quoter must be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating must be considered “acceptable.”

Unacceptable Rating: If a quoter receives a rating of unacceptable in either key personnel or past performance, then the quote is determined unacceptable.

Total Price Contractors must submit pricing using Attachment 4 DLA Transportation Process Support Schedule B spreadsheet that was provided. Please ensure all Excel calculations, equations, etc. are viewable, in-tact, and unprotected, limit dollar amounts to two decimal places.