Attch_6_-_Addendum_to_52.212-2.docx

FA2487-20-F-0009

Attachment 6 - Addendum to 52.212-2 Evaluation Factors for Award

1.0 Basis for Contract Award:

1.1 This is competitive Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) in accordance with FAR 15.3, as supplemented by AFFARS 5315.3, MP5315.3, DoD Source Selection Procedures and the evaluation process and criteria set forth in this solicitation. This procurement will be conducted as a Small Business 8(a) Set-Aside. The Government will award a contract resulting from the solicitation to the acceptable, responsible 8(a) Offeror whose proposal, conforming to this solicitation offers the lowest price to the Government. However, the Government reserves the right to not make any awards. The evaluation factors are Factor 1: Price, Factor 2: Technical and Factor 3: Past Performance. Evaluation criteria are the same for all competing Offerors.

1.2 Offerors should assure that proposals are submitted in accordance with the instructions provided in clause FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items, and addendum to 52.212-1 of this solicitation. By submission of its offer, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, attachments, and Performance Work Statement.

1.3 Offerors shall propose individual and total prices for all items identified in Attachment 9. Any offer that fails to cite a price for each item may be rejected as nonconforming to this solicitation.

1.4 Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Failure to meet a requirement risks rejection.

1.5 Only Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) offers will be evaluated for Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs). An offer using a sliding price scale will not be accepted.

2.0 Evaluation Process

2.1 Price Factor Evaluation:

As part of the price evaluation, all CLINs’ and Option CLINs’ “Amounts” will be added together (summed) to establish the Offeror’s overall Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for the acquisition. The Offeror's price proposal will not be rated or scored; it will be evaluated for its price fairness and reasonableness and balance. Price will be reviewed and evaluated based on the CLINs and Option CLINs shown within solicitation Part I, Section B – Supplies or Services and Prices which begins on the page following the SF 33 - Solicitation, Offer, and Award. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

The Offeror's Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable and balanced. Once the PCO has determined that adequate price competition exists within this source selection, price fairness and reasonableness will be evaluated based on the comparison of the Offeror’s overall TEP with all other competitive Offerors’ overall TEPs.

To facilitate the evaluation of proposal information requested in 52.212-1 and addendum to 52.212-1 of this solicitation, information may be obtained from other sources including, but not limited to, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), U.S. Department of Labor, Global Insight Indices and any other resource available to the Government.

2.2 Technical Factor Evaluation:

The Government will evaluate each Technical Factor as follows:

Factor 1: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to assess whether the offeror demonstrates experience or ability to provide personnel that have a minimum of three (3) years’ experience with database entry to include use of Microsoft Access.

Factor 2: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to assess whether the offeror demonstrates experience or ability to provide personnel that have a minimum of three (3) years’ customer service experience to include both email and telephonic communications enabling them to communicate and coordinate with customers to facilitate performance.

Factor 3: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to assess whether the offeror demonstrates experience or ability to provide personnel that have a minimum of three (3) years’ experience of executing purchase transactions with vendors to include providing proof of purchase documentation for all software purchases.

Technical factors will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis at the Technical factors level using the ratings in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table C-1.

Table C-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Acceptable - Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable - Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2.3 Past Performance Factor Evaluation:

Using the information provided in Volume III, Past Performance information and other available government information, the PCO shall seek recent and relevant performance information on Offerors based on the past and present efforts provided by the Offerors and data independently obtained from other government sources. The Government may use other information available to it that is determined relevant to this effort, such as, but not limited to, the Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS).

Recent – Ongoing contracts with a performance history and contracts completed within three (3) years from the issue date of this solicitation.

Relevant – Performance of work efforts involving the purchase of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software, OR software maintenance, OR bundled maintenance; OR other related services include filing purchase and license information, OR database operations, OR report generation, OR general support to address software, documentation, and licensing issues; OR tracking and distributing vendor documentation, software updates, and licenses for customers that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation and PWS.

Past performance will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis at the Past Performance factor level using the ratings in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table C-2.

*Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history or the Offeror’s performance record is so limited that no past performance rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating "Acceptable".

Table C-2. Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Acceptable - Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See * above)

Unacceptable - Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the government does not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

The Government reserves the right to seek information on higher priced offerors if none of the lower priced offerors receive an Acceptable Past Performance assessment. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the Offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in this RFP, based on the Offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance. This evaluation may include the contractor’s record of (1) conforming to the PWS and contract requirements, (2) management of the project, (3) reasonable and cooperative behavior and performance and commitment to customer satisfaction, (4) quality control and (5) financial responsibility. This assessment represents the government evaluation team’s judgment of the probability of an offeror successfully accomplishing the proposed effort, based upon the Offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance. The rating will be determined as a result of evaluation. The evaluation process will result in an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating.

Offerors submitting past performance information regarding predecessor companies, or subcontractors, are highly encouraged to provide sufficient details regarding them to allow the Government to fully evaluate the relative value of the information. For example, but not limited to, how is the past performance of a predecessor company, or subcontractor relevant to the determination of this Offeror’s ability to perform this contract. Provide full details of any subcontractor’s involvement on this work effort.

2.4 Award Decision Process

The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will adhere to FAR 15.3, as supplemented, DoD Source Selection Procedures, AFFARS 5315.3, MP5315.3 and the evaluation process and criteria stated in , addendum to 52.212-2 - Evaluation Factors for Award, during evaluation of proposals.

The Government will initially rank Offerors’ proposals from the lowest TEP to the highest TEP.

The two lowest TEP Offerors’ proposals will be evaluated for Technical Factor acceptability and Past Performance Factor acceptability.

If both of the two lowest TEP proposals are determined to be reasonable and balanced, and if both are rated Acceptable for the Technical and Past Performance Factors, then the proposal with the lowest TEP will be selected for award and the evaluation process ends. Award will be made without further consideration of any other offers.

If either of the two lowest TEP proposals is rated Unacceptable for either the Technical or Past Performance Factor or is deemed unreasonable or unbalanced, then the next lowest TEP proposal will be evaluated. This process will continue until the Government has identified two acceptable proposals that are reasonable and balanced. This may be as a result of initial proposal submissions or final proposal revisions, if discussions are held. At that point, the Government will select the proposal with the lowest price.

The Government reserves the right to award to the Offeror whose proposal has the lowest TEP, even if it is the only proposal rated Acceptable for both the Technical and Past Performance Factors and is found to be reasonable and balanced.

The Government intends to award a contract without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions at any point in the process if the PCO determines this to be necessary or beneficial.

The Government may reject any or all offers, if such, is in the public interest; and waive informalities and minor irregularities in received offers.

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in FAR Clause 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items and addendum to 52.212-1 of this solicitation. Offeror’s may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the PCO reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

Proposals are intended to be evaluated, and award made, without discussions with the Offerors (other than minor clarification[s]), unless discussions are determined to be necessary. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the PCO later determines them to be necessary. Offerors may be required to participate in telephone discussions or in face-to-face oral discussions at the Source Selection Facility, 210 West D Ave, Building 373, Eglin AFB FL.

Offerors are cautioned to follow the detailed instructions fully and carefully, as the Government reserves the right to make an award based on initial offers received, without discussion of such offers. The Offeror's initial proposal should reflect their best effort.