Att 1 Addendum 52.212-1 Revised 15 June 2020.pdf

P a g e | 1

Revised 15 June 2020

The evaluation criteria are price, technical, and past performance. Technical will be evaluated as “pass/fail”. Past performance will be evaluated on the basis of approximately equal to price. Past performance will only be assessed on quotes with a “pass” technical rating. An integrated assessment will be made to determine the best value to the Government.

1. FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors:

1.1 Period of Acceptance of Offers: The offeror agrees to hold the prices firm for 120 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers. The Period of Performance begins 1 October 2020.

1.2 Offers shall consist of three Volumes – Price, Technical, and Past Performance.

1.3 Volume I – Price: The offeror shall provide a Firm-Fixed Price Quote. The offeror shall provide pricing data on Page 3 of the SF1449 specifying the Unit Price and the Extended Amount for each CLIN. Offerors shall round all calculations to the nearest dollar. Any quote submitted with extended figures hidden or set to display to the nearest dollar without rounding may not be accepted.

1.4 Volume II – Technical Capability: The offeror shall submit a quote that includes an approach for meeting the response time as defined in the PWS, a Staffing Plan, and a completed Revised Staffing Table dated 29 May 2020 (Attachment 2). Font shall be no less than Times New Roman 10 pt. or Arial 11 pt. and the Technical Capability Volume shall be no more than 6 pages double-spaced. Quotes shall be submitted via email to The Team Lead and Contract Specialist listed below in Section 8. Hard copies of quotes will not be accepted. Soft copy file formats are acceptable, but are limited to Microsoft Excel, PDF, or Microsoft Word.

1.5 Volume III - Past Performance: The Government requires a minimum of two (2), but not more than two (2) recent past performance reference citations be submitted with the offeror’s quote.

Within each past performance reference citation, the offeror must provide customer name, customer phone number, contract number, title of requirement and dates of performance; as defined below under “Recency”, past performance reference citations must demonstrate performance within 3 years of the solicitation issuance, 08 May 2020. If a past performance reference citation is not “Recent,” it will not be evaluated for Relevancy or Quality. For all Recent past performance reference citations, the Government will assess the following categories for each past performance reference citation: quality, schedule, and management; all categories are considered equal and will result in an overall Quality Rating (Table 1). The Government reserves the right to independently assess past performance as well, utilizing the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), or any and/or all other sources deemed appropriate by the Government to assess the offeror’s past performance. The evaluation review may result in positive or adverse findings. Any past performance reference citations that do not conform to the requirements of this solicitation shall not be evaluated.

2. FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items

2.1 The Government will award a Firm-Fixed Price contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in the quote being deemed non-compliant. The following factor(s) shall be used to evaluate offers:

P a g e | 2

(1) Price

(2) Technical

(3) Past Performance

Technical Capability will be evaluated on a “pass/fail” basis. Past performance is approximately equal to price when being evaluated. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

2.2 If the lowest priced technically capable offeror is determined to have a “Substantial Confidence”

Assessment, that offer represents the best value for the Government as it is rated above “Satisfactory Confidence”. The evaluation process stops at this point and award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers. If the lowest priced technically capable offeror is not determined to have a “Substantial Confidence” Assessment, the next lowest priced technically capable offeror will then be evaluated and the process will continue (in order of price) until a technically capable offeror receives a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment. If all technically capable offers are evaluated and none have a “Substantial Confidence” Assessment, the Government will make an integrated assessment best value award decision to determine which quote represents the best value to the Government. Multiple contracts will not be awarded as a result of this solicitation.

Factor 1: Price First, the Government shall arrange offerors’ quotes by price (from lowest to highest Total Evaluated Price). For quote evaluation purposes, Total Evaluated Price (TEP) is the aggregate total of pricing on all CLINs as outlined on Page 3 of the SF1449. The offer with the lowest aggregate total of all CLINs shall constitute the lowest price offer. Offerors shall ensure that prices entered for each Base CLIN and Option CLIN is exclusive of any costs of other CLINs and pricing is not duplicated to ensure the calculated aggregate of total extended price is the offeror’s lowest price for the entire project.

The quoted price for the 6-month base period, option periods, and 6-month extension will be evaluated in order to determine if the TEP is reasonable in accordance with FAR 13.106-3(a).

Pricing for quotes that do not “pass” evaluation of technical capability may not be evaluated.

Offerors shall complete the pricing data on Page 3 of the SF1449.

The price will be evaluated to determine if the offeror’s price is reasonable and balanced. Quotes should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their reasonableness. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, unbalanced and/or unreasonable may not be considered for award.

The Government may determine that an offer is unawardable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

Factor 2: Technical Acceptability

2.1 Second, the Government will evaluate the technical capability on a “pass/fail” basis, starting with the quote with the lowest total evaluated price (TEP). Any Technical Subfactors evaluated as “fail” may render the entire quote unacceptable and, therefore not awardable. Only quotes that receive a “pass” rating for all subfactors will go on to the Past Performance Evaluation.

i. To receive a “pass” in Technical Capability, both subfactors below must be evaluated as a “pass” rating for an overall “pass” rating to be considered for award. Quotes that receive a “fail” rating for one, both or either subfactors may not be considered for award.

P a g e | 3

Subfactor 1: Staffing: The offeror shall provide a quote that includes a staffing plan and table (Attachment 2) inclusive of Labor Category, Proposed Hours/Work Schedule and Number of Employees for each labor category. To receive a “Pass” rating, the staffing plan must address relevant (as defined below) experience, qualifications and expertise to successfully fulfill ALL PWS requirements. Additionally, the staffing plan shall address an acceptable approach to ensuring employees maintain current certifications and licenses throughout the entire period of performance.

Subfactor 2: Response Time: To receive a “Pass” rating, the offeror shall provide a plan with an acceptable approach to meet the 8 minute response time (herein “Response Time”) as required in Paragraph 1.1.3 of the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

ii. Quotes that do not meet all stated requirements of the solicitation may be considered non-compliant and may not be considered for award. As stated in 1.4, font shall be no less than Times New Roman 10 pt. or Arial 11 pt. and the Technical Capability volume (Volume II) shall be no more than 6 pages double-spaced.

Factor 3: Past Performance

2.2 Third, starting with the lowest priced (TEP) offer with a “pass” in technical capability, the government will evaluate the offeror’s past performance, which will result in a performance confidence assessment rating, or an assessment of the offeror’s probability to successfully meet the solicitation requirements.

i) Each offeror’s past performance will be evaluated based on that offeror's demonstrated performance on recent, relevant contracts. Past performance references, the contact information for which is listed on the past performance reference citations, may be contacted by the Government as part of the past performance evaluation. The Government may also consider any additional past performance information that is available as part of its evaluation. Offerors are reminded that, while the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of providing thorough, accurate, and complete past performance information rests with the offeror.

ii) The past performance assessment will be subjective and will be evaluated using the past performance reference citations provided by the offeror as well as any other information available to the Government. This information will be used to determine the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to perform the requirement.

iii) If the offeror does not have relevant past performance as a prime contractor, meaning an offeror has entered into a prime contract with the Federal Government, the Contracting Officer intends to rate that offeror’s past performance as "Neutral."

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 solicitation, based on the offeror’s demonstrated past performance. The Contracting Officer will evaluate recent and relevant performance information based on the offeror’s past performance reference citations. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence rating of either Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, or No Confidence as defined in Table 2. Offerors with no relevant past performance history or with a performance record so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating "Neutral Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

P a g e | 4

Recency - For the purposes of this evaluation, “Recency” is defined as work completed or ongoing during the 3 years prior to the solicitation issuance of 08 May 2020. After evaluating for Recency, the Government will assign a rating of Recent or Not Recent; if a past performance reference citation is determined Not Recent, the past performance reference citation will not be evaluated for Relevancy, Quality, or given an overall performance confidence assessment rating.

Relevancy – Relevant past performance reference citations should be akin to services of the same market segment, magnitude, and complexity outlined in the PWS. For the purpose of this evaluation, “Relevant” is defined as a present or past performance effort involving similar scope, magnitude, and complexity of effort as this solicitation. Not Relevant is defined as present or past performance effort involving little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort as this solicitation. After evaluation for Relevancy, the Government will assign a rating of Relevant or Not Relevant for each past performance reference citation. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of Relevancy. If a past performance reference citation is determined not to be Relevant, the evaluation process stops, and the submission will not be given an overall performance confidence assessment rating.

Quality - Quality ratings will be based upon the definitions in Table 1, past performance reference citations, and any information obtained by the Contracting Officer from CPARS, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) information, etc. and data provided by sources other than the offeror or any other sources identified by the Government needed to evaluate past performance for each past performance reference citation. The Government will perform an independent quality assessment of each of the recent and relevant past performance reference citations provided.

For each past performance reference citation, the Government will assign Recency, Relevancy and Quality ratings. As stated above, if a past performance reference citation is deemed Not Recent, the evaluation process stops at that point, and that past performance reference citation will not be evaluated further, for either Relevancy or Quality, or given a confidence rating. If a past performance reference citation is deemed Recent but not Relevant, the evaluation process stops at that point, and that past performance reference citation will not be evaluated for Quality or given a confidence rating.

2.3 The Contracting Officer will evaluate offeror quotes with a “pass” in technical capability using an integrated assessment and select the offeror that provides the best value to the Government considering past performance as approximately equal to price. Accordingly, the Government may or may not perform a tradeoff between price and past performance, if the Government determines that doing so will result in best value for the Government.

2.4 The Government will use the standards set forth in Table 1 to assess Quality once Recency and Relevancy have been determined, as stated above. The Government will then assign an overall performance confidence assessment rating, as provided in Table 2, resulting from the Recency, Relevancy and Quality ratings.

P a g e | 5

Table 1. Quality Rating Definition

Exceptional (E)

The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds performance requirements to the Government’s benefit.

Satisfactory (S) The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and meets performance requirements.

Marginal (M)

The contractor’s performance does not meet some contractual requirements and reflects serious problems under performance requirements.

Unsatisfactory (U) The contractor’s performance does not meet contractual requirements.

Not Applicable (N/A) Unable to provide a rating.

Table 2. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method Adjectival 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.

P a g e | 6

2.5 Responsibility Determination: Information obtained from sources including without limitation, System for Award Management (SAM), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), and Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) may be used as part of the responsibility determination made IAW FAR 9.104-1.

3. This is a competitive selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR) Part 13.106-2(b)(3).

4. The Government intends to make a selection based on initial quote submissions without conducting exchanges, but reserves the right to conduct them if, during the evaluation, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Exchanges may be conducted with one, some, or all offerors as the Government is not required to conduct exchanges with any or all offerors responding to this solicitation.

5. All communications with the requiring activity concerning this solicitation shall cease until the award is announced. During this period, interaction is only allowed with the Contracting Officer.

6. Notice to Offeror(s): Funds are not presently available for this effort. No award will be made under this solicitation until funds are available. The Government reserves the right to cancel this solicitation, either before or after the closing date. In the event the Government cancels this solicitation, the Government has no obligation to reimburse an offeror for any costs.

7. Please submit all questions in writing via e-mail to the Contracting Officer and courtesy copy the Contract Specialist. Ensure the RFQ number and title are referenced in the subject line. All questions must be submitted in writing no later than (NLT) 23 June 2020 by 12:00PM Mountain Standard Time (MST). Quotations must be submitted by 12:00PM (MST) on 30 June 2020.

8. Contact Information:

Team Lead: Amanda Davidson - amanda.davidson.5@us.af.mil Contract Specialist: Krissty Gee - krissty.gee@us.af.mil Contracting Officer: Sheri L. Burks – sheri.burks@us.af.mil

Attachments to RFQ:

1. Revised 15 June 2020 Addendum 52.212-1/52.212-2

2. Revised Staffing Table, dated 29 May 2020

3. Revised Performance Work Statement, dated 8 June 2020

4. SCA Wage Determination 2015-5417, Revision 13, Dated 23 Dec 2019 mailto:amanda.davidson.5@us.af.mil mailto:krissty.gee@us.af.mil mailto:sheri.burks@us.af.mil