DCC_Addendum_for_52.212-2_Amendment_1.docx

Atch 2 Evaluation Factors F2V371400820Feb2014

Addendum 52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JAN 1999)

1.0 Basis of Award:

In accordance with (IAW) FAR 6.206, FAR 16.202, FAR 17.107, and 17-207, the Government intends to employ a Firm-Fixed Price contract.

Receipt of Offers. Offers are due no later than 26 March 2014 @ 11:00 EST to 6th Contracting Squadron, 2610 Pink Flamingo Ave, Bldg. 147, Room 310, MacDill AFB, FL 33621-5119. Proposals should be submitted by mail or hand-delivered. No faxed offers will be accepted. The Offeror is solely responsible for ensuring proposals are received by the deadline. The contracting office will not accept late offers.

The contracting officer determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the contracting officer will review this determination and if, in the contracting officer’s opinion, adequate price competition exists no additional information will be requested. However, if at any time during this competition the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine price reasonableness.

1.1 Award will be made to the lowest priced responsive proposal that meets or exceeds both technical and past performance standards. All proposal received prior to the established suspense date and time will be arranged by price from lowest to highest. The evaluation team will review the lowest priced Offeror first. If the lowest priced Offeror is determined “Technically Acceptable” and receives a past performance rating of “Substantial Confidence”, the evaluation is completeand award made to the lowest price Offeror without any further consideration of other proposals. Should the lowest priced Offeror be rated “Technically Unacceptable” or receive a Past Performance rating less than “Substantial confidence”, evaluation in order by price will continue until award can be made using the above factors or until all offerors are evaluated.

Specific Instructions:

1.2 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits

1.2.1 The title page of each volume must show:

(a) Solicitation Number

(b) Name, address and telephone and facsimile numbers of the Offeror (and electronic (e-mail) address if available)

1.2.2 The Offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table (Table 1.2 below). The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits and with the number of copies as specified in Table 1.2. The volumes identified in the table shall be separately bound, as necessary.

NOTE: Volume 1 should contain a tab for Evaluation Factor 1 - Price Evaluation. However, prices will be included in a separate binder/folder since the customer will not be privy to pricing information.

Table 1.2 - Proposal Organization:

Volumes

Title Hard Copies/ Disk/Copies Page Limit

Tab 2, Evaluation Factor 2 – Technical Evaluation Tab 3, Evaluation Factor 3 – Past Performance

1.2.3 Page Limitations: Page limitations shall be treated as maximums in ascending order. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal and (for paper copies) will be returned to the Offeror as soon as practicable. Page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs). The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the offerors. Each page shall be counted except the following: blank pages, title pages, tables of contents, tabs, glossaries and those noted in the Proposed Organization Chart as unlimited.

1.2.4 Cost or Pricing Information: All cost or pricing information shall be addressed ONLY in the Cost/Price Proposal Volume.

1.2.5 Cross Referencing: Cross-referencing between proposal volumes is not permitted. To the greatest extent possible, each volume shall be written so its contents may be evaluated with a minimum of cross-referencing within that volume. Information required for proposal evaluation not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal. The Offeror shall provide a cross-reference matrix indicating the proposal reference information as it relates to the PWS and Contract Line Item Numbers (CLIN) contained in the RFP.

1.2.6 Table of Contents: Each volume shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections and will not count against page limitations.

1.2.7 Include an indexed list of Tables and Figures. This index will not count against page limitations.

1.2.8 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms: Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, with an explanation for each. Glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

1.3 Page Size and Format:

1.3.1 A page is defined as each face of a sheet of paper containing information. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages. Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, not including foldouts. Pages shall be single-spaced. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be no less than 12 points. Tracking, kerning and leading values shall not be changed from the default values of the word processing or page layout software. Use at least 1-inch margins on the top and bottom and 3/4 inch side margins. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. These page format restrictions shall apply to responses to ENs. These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals. Any proposal revisions should be made via replacement pages to Offeror’s initial proposal and such pages shall be specifically marked to identify as a revision. Replacement pages shall be 3-hole punched and color-copied. All wording revisions and/or additions shall be printed in blue ink and denoted with a mark in the right hand column.

1.3.2 Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible and shall not exceed 11 by 17 inches in size. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume and count as a single page. Foldout pages may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams and schematics; not for pages of text. For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 8 point. These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals.

1.4 Binding and Labeling: Each volume of the proposal should be separately bound in a three-ring loose-leaf binder, which shall permit the volume to lie flat when open. Staples shall not be used. A cover sheet should be bound in each book, clearly marked as to volume number, title, copy number, solicitation identification and the Offeror’s name. The same identifying data should be placed on the spine of each binder. All unclassified document binders shall have a color other than red or other applicable security designation colors. Be sure to apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed in accordance with FAR 3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information.

1.5 Electronic Copies: The content and page size of electronic copies must be identical to the hard copies. In the event there is a discrepancy between the hard copy and electronic copy, the hard copy shall take precedence. For electronic copies, indicate on each Compact Disk (CD)/Digital Versatile Disc (DVD) the volume number and title. Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including required plans, exhibits, annexes and attachments, if any. Each volume shall be on a separate CD/DVD, please verify that CDs/DVDs are virus free. If files are compressed, the necessary decompression program must be included. The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Word 2007, MS Excel 2007, MS Project 2007 and MS PowerPoint 2007, as applicable.

1.6 Distribution: The "original" proposal shall be identified. Proposals shall be addressed to the Contracting Office and mailed to: 6th CONS/LGCA Attn: Ms. Genise Pennant 2610 Pink Flamingo Ave.

Bldg 147, Room 310 MacDill AFB, FL 33621

2.0 Volume I – Pricing

EVALUATION FACTOR 1:

Price Evaluation. The price evaluation will document the reasonableness and affordability of the quoted total price offered by the contractor. For the purpose of evaluation, and to establish reasonableness and affordability, the Government will compare the offerors quoted labor rates against the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) and, historical data from previous similar efforts and as applicable to FAR 19.1403. Quoted labor rates shall be fully burdened inclusive of all direct and indirect costs (e.g., profit, fringe benefits, salary, indirect rates).

An Offeror’s final price will be calculated by multiplying the hourly labor rate for each item based on a base year and four options. The total of all CLINs will be evaluated for completeness and accuracy, and used for total evaluated price. Round all prices up to the nearest penny.

Total Evaluated Price (TEP): Price proposals will be evaluated based on the TEP. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror's proposed prices for a basic period, all option year periods (4 years), and 6-month extensions. Evaluation of options/extensions shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options or extensions. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Proposed pricing for the 6-month extension will be based on each Option period to determine the total evaluated price. IAW FAR 52.217-8, offerors should not propose different pricing for each 6-month extension. The rate should be based on that period's monthly rate. For example, the monthly rate used for CLIN 0002 should be the same rate used for CLIN 0001.

The 6-month extension of services is IAW FAR 52.217-8, "Option to Extend Services" and will only be utilized if necessary. The 6-month extension of services is not to be considered part of the Option Year periods and will be a separate option exercise if it is utilized. However, proposed pricing for the 6-month extension will be based on the current performance period's (base or subsequent option year) pricing.

Volume II –Mission Capability Volume

3.0 Executive Summary: A concise narrative summary of the entire proposal, including significant risks and a highlight of any key or unique features, excluding cost/price. The salient features should tie in with Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 evaluation factors. Any summary material presented here shall not be considered as meeting the requirements for any portions of other volumes of the proposal. A master table of contents of the entire proposal.

3.1 General: The Mission Capability Volume should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. Your responses will be evaluated against the Mission Capability factors defined in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2. Using the instructions provided below, provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology you would use for accomplishing/satisfying these factors. All specified requirements in the solicitation and Performance Work Statement (PWS) are mandatory. By your proposal submission, you are representing that your firm can and will perform all requirements specified in the solicitation. Your proposal must meet all technical requirements, conform to all terms & conditions, and include all required certification. It is not necessary or desirable for you to tell us so in your proposal. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation and the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

3.2 Format and Specific Content

3.2.1 Mission Capability: In the Mission Capability volume, address your proposed approach to meeting the requirements of each Mission Capability factor, as well as the risks in your proposed approach in terms of mission capability/performance and schedule. The Mission Capability Factor is subdivided into Mission Capability Technical/Mission Capability Risk Rating.

3.2.2 Volume Organization: The Mission Capability volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

Title Page Table of Contents List of Table and Figures Glossary Evaluation Factor 1 – Price Evaluation Evaluation Factor 2 – Technical Approach Evaluation Factor 3 – Past Performance

4.0 EVALUATION FACTOR 2:

Technical Approach. The Government will evaluate the Offeror on its entire proposed technical approach for compliance with all technical aspects of the Performance Work Statement (PWS). All offerors are required to submit an original Technical Approach plus four (4) copies.

0. Introductory summary including the company’s history and strengths relative to performing the work described in the performance work statement.

4.2 Management Plan. This plan will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror has developed a strategy for the effective and efficient management of contract activities to successfully fulfill the requirements of the PWS. Company resources will be judged based upon the Offeror’s demonstrated ability to provide technical support for successful contract performance. Significant emphasis will be placed on the degree to which and the manner in which technical support personnel from corporate resources can be provided to the on-site staff. The following information will be evaluated as part of this criterion:

0. Resources dedicated specifically to the management of this contract

0. Training Program (identify steps contractor will use to ensure training requirements IAW PWS)

0. Quality Control Plan

0. Security Clearance Procedures

4.3 Operational Plan. The contractor shall submit its plan on how the work will be accomplished pursuant to the PWS. The Offeror’s operations plan will be evaluated on evidence of specific methods, techniques, and approaches that demonstrate the ability to meet the requirements specified in the PWS while mitigating risk to the DCC implementing the following labor categories:

a) AV Technician (AVT)

b) Events Manager/Team Lead

c) Client Support Administrator and Information Technology Service (CSA/IT)

4.4 Recruiting and Retention Plan. The Offeror will submit the recruiting and retention plan it will employ while performing the contract. Significant emphasis will be placed on the degree and manner in which your organization effectively recruits qualified personnel in order to respond rapidly to changing requirements on individual tasks and the ability to retain valuable contract employees to prevent the negative impact of frequent turnover and ensure program continuity. The plan must include:

a) Recruiting and retention procedures for proposed labor categories/ key positions

b) Termination policy

c) Risk mitigation efforts and how they will mitigate risk associated with award of the contract

d) Letters of Intent for all key positions

e) Resumes for all key positions

NOTE: Letters of Intent shall be limited to one (1) one-sided page per key position and be prepared in 12-pt Times New Roman Font. The Letters of Intent will not count towards the 70 page count. All Offerors are required to submit original Letters of Intent plus three (3) copies.

NOTE: Resumes shall indicate qualifications and specific experience of personnel to be provided for this effort and shall indicate that they are key positions by inserting “KEY POSITION” on the resume. Resumes shall be limited to two (2) one-sided pages per key position and be prepared 12-pt Times New Roman Font. Resumes will not count towards the 70-page count. All Offerors are required to submit original Resumes plus three (3) copies.

5.0 EVALUATION FACTOR 3:

Past Performance. The currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data and general trends in contractor’s performance will be evaluated as part of past performance. In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed "most relevant" to the effort described in this acquisition. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be rated as highly as past performance information for the principle Offeror. Additionally, past performance should demonstrate ability to deploy personnel worldwide.

0. Provide a list of three to four, of the “most relevant” contracts performed for government agencies within the last five (5) years. Information shall include company or agency contact information, address and the nature of contract performance. The government reserves the right to seek information on higher priced offerors if none of the lower priced offerors receives a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment.

0. Past/Present Performance Questionnaires. The Contractor shall submit the questionnaires (attachment #3) to three to four references for completion to be returned to the identified Government POC. The Offeror is responsible for ensuring that the questionnaire is completed and returned no later than 20 March 2014 @ 11:00 EST. Greater consideration will be given to Offeror’s who submit three to four recent (within 5 yrs.) and “very relevant” questionnaires.

0. If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent past/present performance information on previous teaming arrangements with same partner. If this is a first time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of past and present relevant contracts.

0. Subcontractor Consent: Past Performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime Offeror without subcontractor’s consent. Provide with the quote a letter from all subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor.

6.0 Evaluation. The evaluation process overview follows:

Step 1 - Evaluate price reasonableness of all quotes, then rank by total evaluated price. The Government shall rank all offers by price (including options) from lowest to highest.

Step 2 - Evaluate lowest priced Offeror for technical acceptability. The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical approach on an acceptable/unacceptable basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable. If the lowest priced Offeror is determined “Technically Acceptable”, the evaluation team will proceed to rate the lowest priced offerors past performance. Should the lowest priced Offeror be rated “Technically Unacceptable”, evaluation of the next Offeror in order by price will continue until technical acceptability can be determined or until all offerors are evaluated. All evaluated offerors technical approaches shall be rated in accordance with the following:

6.1 Approach for Evaluation under the Technical Approach Factor. The Technical Approach evaluation provides an assessment of the Offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s requirements. The Technical Approach criteria will receive one of the ratings described in Table 1 – Technical Approach Ratings, excerpted below. They focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the Offeror’s approach. The ratings depict how well the Offeror’s approach meets the Technical Approach criteria.

Table 1 –Technical Approach Ratings

Step 3 - Evaluate lowest priced technically acceptable Offeror’s past performance. If the lowest priced technically acceptable Offeror receives a past performance rating of “Substantial Confidence”, evaluation is complete and award will be made to that Offeror. If the lowest priced technically acceptable Offeror’s past performance does not receive a “Substantial Confidence’ rating, evaluation of the next lowest price Offeror with an acceptable technical approach will continue until substantial confidence can be determined or until all offerors are evaluated. Past performance will be evaluated in accordance with the following:

6.2 Approach for Evaluation under the Past Performance Factor. With respect to the Performance Confidence/Past Performance factor, the Government will assign a rating to the Offeror’s quote that reflects a judgment as to the level of confidence that the work described in the Performance Work Statement will be successfully performed based on the quality of work reflected in the record of relevant past performance. An Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will be assigned an unknown confidence rating.

6.2.1 The Past Performance Factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in Table 2 – Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below.

Table 2 – Performance Confidence Assessments

TABLE 2- PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

6.2.2 Evaluation Process. The Past Performance evaluation considers the Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet the users’ needs. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror is recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the technical approach factor and Cost/Price factor taking into consideration their relative order of importance. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both information provided in the Offeror’s quote and information obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, Past Performance questionnaires, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and commercial sources. Assessing an Offeror’s past performance is the Government’s method of evaluating the credibility of an Offeror’s quote and their capability to meet performance requirements. Providing references that cannot be contacted by the Government may have an adverse impact on the past performance evaluation of an Offeror.

6.2.3 Recency Assessment – An assessment of past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past 5 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

6.2.4 Relevancy Assessment – The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical Approach factors and Price factor. Consideration will be given to service similarity, complexity, type of effort, contract scope and performance period. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s (including subcontractor/teaming partner(s)) 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 past performance questionnaires, and 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 when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

RELEVANT (R)

Past/present performance effort involved much of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT

RELEVANT (NR)

Past/present performance effort involved little or none of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

6.2.5 Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy assessments, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the technical approach and cost/price factor, 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 an “Unknown Confidence” rating for the Past Performance factor.

6.2.6 More recent and relevant past performance will have a greater impact on the Past Performance Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an “Unknown 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.

(End of provision)