DRAFT_FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation.docx

52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Products and Commercial Services

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Solicitation Requirements, Terms, and Conditions Offerors are required to address all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and all factors and subfactors as applicable. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for contract award. Additionally, this solicitation incorporates one or more provisions and clauses by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text.

Basis for Contract Award This subjective tradeoff source selection is conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures as tailored to this acquisition.

The Government will select and award a contract to the responsible offeror 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 the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government. Best value is defined as the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit(s) in response to the requirement.

This process 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 that the non-price factors of the higher priced offeror outweigh the price difference. However, the Government will not pay a price premium it considers to be disproportionate to the benefits associated with the proposed margin of service superiority.

Evaluation Evaluation of an offeror’s proposal will be based on the information presented in the written proposal and offeror’s demonstration. The Government intends to evaluate proposals in a phased approach using the evaluation factors discussed in FAR 52.212-2 and the Addendum to FAR 52.212-2.

During Phase I, each offeror’s proposal will be evaluated utilizing subjective criteria. Once evaluations are complete, offerors will be provided an advisory notice with their initial Phase I ratings and whether their proposal is or is not among the most highly rated proposals. This advisory notice is intended to allow the offeror to make an informed decision of whether or not to participate in Phase II or to avoid further expense of resources (i.e., time and funds) in proposal costs. Offerors may opt to move forward and participate in Phase II if they provide notice to the Government of their intent by the date and time specified in their advisory notice. The Government will not accept revisions to an offeror’s Phase I proposal with its Phase II submission.

During Phase II, each offeror’s proposal will be evaluated utilizing subjective criteria. Based on the ratings of each proposal in its entirety (Phase I and Phase II), the Government may establish a competitive range. Pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2), offerors are advised the Contracting Officer 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. Exchanges with offerors will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306(d) regarding any aspects of an offeror’s proposal. The competitive range can be reestablished multiple times as determined necessary over the course of the source selection.

Once discussions conclude, each offeror in the competitive range will be given an opportunity to submit a Final Proposal Revision. At this time, the Government intends to award without obtaining further revisions.

The Government fully intends to establish a competitive range and conduct discussions as part of this procurement; however, reserves the right to award without discussions in the event a limited circumstance exists in accordance with the DoD Source Selection Procedures. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a business, technical, and price standpoint.

Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award a single-award indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (ID/IQ) contract for the EADE requirement after conducting discussions with offerors whose proposals have been determined to be within the competitive range; however, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all.

Acceptance of Offer A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed, or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

Rejection of Offers The Government may reject any proposal that takes exception to the terms of this solicitation. Assumptions will not be entertained and may result in rejection of the proposal. The Government reserves the right to reject any or all offers.

Proposal Incorporation The Government reserves the right to incorporate all, part, or none of the offeror’s written proposal into the resultant contract. This includes incorporation of strengths and/or significant strengths identified in the offeror’s proposal.

Evaluation Factors for Award

i. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors. The Government will evaluate the following factors in a phased approach. The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal and allow the Government to assess the offeror’s approach and ability to perform the contract.

Phase I Evaluation

· Factor 1: Technical Capability

· Subfactor 1: Architecture – Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) Models

Phase II Evaluation

· Factor 1: Technical Capability

· Subfactor 2: Data Management

· Subfactor 3: Enterprise Engineering Support

· Factor 2: Past Performance

· Factor 3: Cost/Price

ii. Relative Importance of Factors. The relative importance of each factor is in descending order as follows: Factor 1: Technical Capability, Factor 2: Past Performance, and Factor 3: Cost/Price. Within Factor 1: Technical Capability, Subfactors 1, 2, and 3 are of equal importance.

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price.

iii. Phase I Evaluation Factors

a. Factor 1 – Technical Capability. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s responses to Subfactor 1.

For Subfactor 1, Architecture – DoDAF model, the offeror shall reference the Government provided Use-Case (Attachment 8). The offeror shall demonstrate their ability to develop architecture with the following models:

· OV-5a, Operational Decomposition Tree,

· OV-6c Event-Trace Description (Developed using BPMN)

· AV-2, Integrated Dictionary, utilizing DoDAF.

Offerors will be assigned one combined technical/risk rating for this Subfactor. The rating will take into consideration the offeror’s approach and understanding of the requirements and an assessment of the significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposal. The following assessments will be utilized:

The following will be utilized in determining the technical/risk rating for Subfactor 1:

iv. Phase II Evaluation Factors

a. Factor 1: Technical Capability. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s responses to Subfactor 2 and Subfactor 3.

For Subfactor 2, Data Management, the offeror shall reference the Government provided Use-Case (Attachment 8) and Interface Design Document (IDD) (Attachment 9). The offeror shall demonstrate their ability to document data management in the following models:

· DIV-2, Logical Data Model

· SV-6, Systems Resource Flow Matrix

· Spreadsheet containing Logical Data Model (LDM) Entity and Attribute to Message Element (Data Exchange) Mapping

For Subfactor 3, Enterprise Engineering Support, the offeror shall reference the Government provided Use-Case (Attachment 8). The offeror shall demonstrate their ability to document enterprise engineering in the following engineering process output documents

· Requirements spreadsheet capturing and decomposing system/user requirements included in Government-provided use case

· Security risk assessment and how those risks could be mitigated to meet security control requirements

· Project Charter, a high-level (WBS) Work Breakdown Structure, and Implementation plan.

Offerors will be assigned one combined technical/risk rating both Subfactor 2 and Subfactor 3. The ratings will take into consideration the offeror’s approach and understanding of the requirements and an assessment of the significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposal. The following assessments will be utilized:

The following will be utilized in determining the technical/risk ratings for Subfactor 2 and Subfactor 3:

b. Factor 2: Past Performance. Past performance will be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the contract. The past performance evaluation will consider the recency, relevancy, and quality of a contractor’s past performance efforts.

1. Recency: To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three years from the date of the initial proposal due date. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

The Government will consider recent past performance information identified by each offeror, as well as any additional recent past performance information obtained by the Government, in determining an overall past performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

2. Relevancy: For each recent past performance reference reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will be assessed. The past performance information submission forms and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. To be determined relevant, the past performance effort must demonstrate the following performance in relation to the current procurement:

· Enterprise Architecture and/or DoDAF Support - Performance/Experience identifying the problem, gathering information, curating a solution, and disseminating to stakeholders to resolve the problem.

· Data Management Support – Performance/Experience with Metadata, Data Architecture, Data Modeling and Design, Enterprise Logical Data Modeling, Interface Management and Data Exchange and Message Template Mining.

· Engineering Support - Performance/Experience with Information Services and Business Rules Analysis and Enterprise Engineering Design Support (MBSE).

While the Government will consider past performance information on relevant projects performed for federal, state and local Governments, as well as in the commercial sector, past performance conducted within the DoD will receive greater consideration when assigning a past performance confidence assessment rating than work performed for organizations other than DoD.

The below table reflects the definitions that will be utilized to determine the relevancy of each past performance effort.

magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

3. Quality: The Government will consider the performance quality of recent and relevant efforts. For each recent/relevant past performance reference reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) information, Responsibility / Qualification on SAM.gov, Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and/or interviews with Government mission partners.

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will be assigned a single Performance Confidence Assessment rating. The assigned rating will reflect the Government’s overall confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform this effort. The Performance Confidence Assessment rating is based upon all of the information submitted, obtained, and determined relevant by the Government, regardless of whether the information is for a prime or subcontractor.

Past Performance which cannot be validated by a source other than the offeror will not be considered in the Past Performance Confidence Assessment. Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, that offeror will receive an overall Performance Confidence Assessment rating of “Neutral Confidence” which will be considered neither favorably nor unfavorably.

The below table reflects the Performance Confidence Assessment ratings.

c. Factor 3: Cost/Price. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, to determine if it is reasonable and complete. In addition, the Government reserves the right to evaluate the offeror’s proposed prices for realism. For a price proposal to be complete, all solicitation requirements must be priced, figures correctly calculated, and costs presented in the Government provided pricing template (Attachment 4).

1. Total Evaluated Price: The Government will calculate a total proposed price by applying the Government estimated labor hours for each Fiscal year of contract performance to each offeror’s proposed fully burdened Labor Hour (LH) & Fixed Price (FP) labor rates for each labor category at both Government and Contractor sites. The estimated number of LHs for each LCAT, in each year, will NOT be provided to the offeror as part of the solicitation. The Government will utilize the same estimated number of LHs for calculating a TPP for each offeror.

FAR 52.217-8 is included in the solicitation and authorizes the Government to require continued performance of any services within the limits, and at the rates specified in the contract. The total evaluated price will include the sum of all Fiscal years and the six-month extension authorized in FAR 52.217-8. The prices proposed for the six-month extension shall be identical to the proposed pricing in the six-months prior to expiration of the contract.

2. Price Analysis: Price Analysis will be used to determine reasonableness and completeness. The Government will determine completeness of the offeror’s proposal by verifying that all solicitation requirements have been priced, figures are correctly calculated, and the offeror has submitted the Government provided pricing template, Attachment 4. The Government will determine reasonableness of the offeror’s proposal by using one or more of the price analysis techniques under FAR 15.404-1(b).

The Government will analyze all offeror’s proposed prices to determine if the prices are unbalanced. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

As stated above, the Government reserves the right to conduct a realism analysis. The realism analysis will review the offeror’s proposed labor rates to determine whether the proposed prices are realistic for the work to be performed.

3. Travel: Due to the likely inability of any offeror to accurately estimate travel requirements associated with this requirement, the Government is providing dollar figures to be used by all offerors when proposing. The proposed dollar amounts will be identified in the pricing template.

Travel shall be authorized by the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) prior to performance and will be reimbursed in accordance with PL 99-234, Federal Civilian Employees and contractor Travel Expenses Act of 1985 and FAR 31.205-46. No profit or fee will be authorized for travel, materials, or ODCs. Applicable burdens (e.g. G&A) will not be accepted or paid for on approved ODC purchases.