Atch_9_Evaluation_Amend_0001_20240207.pdf

Amendment 0001

FA255024R0003

Attachment 9

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Items

B1.0 Introduction.

B1.1 This Addendum defines the evaluation factors the Government shall consider in its evaluation of an offeror’s proposal submitted for this acquisition.

B1.2 This is a 100% small business set-aside competitive acquisition. This is a Performance Price Tradeoff source selection 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 the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at www.acquisition.gov.

B1.3 Award shall be made to the offeror whose proposal is deemed the best value to the Government, based upon an integrated assessment using the evaluation factors as stated in this addendum, and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements, and who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.1.

B1.4 Minimum Contract Experience Requirements. To be considered for award, an offeror's proposal must meet the minimum contract experience requirements at B3.0, Factor 1, Experience. If a proposal does not meet the minimum contract experience requirements, it will not be further evaluated for award.

B1.5 A proposal not submitted by the offeror using the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) Solicitation Module shall not be considered for award.

B1.6 Proposals, and Past Performance Questionnaires, must be submitted and received by the Government by the due date and time for proposals in order to be evaluated by the Government.

B1.7 Only one proposal from each offeror shall be evaluated by the Government for award.

B1.8 The offeror’s proposal shall be composed of the completed Past Performance, Price, and Technical volumes, and also Past Performance Questionnaires completed by contract customers and submitted directly to the Government. The offeror's proposal shall be evaluated for submission of all items required by the solicitation, including proposal prices for all solicitation Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs), completion of all required representations and certifications, acknowledgement of any solicitation amendments issued, and all other items identified in the solicitation. A proposal which does not contain all items required by the solicitation may be rejected by the Government without further evaluation.

B1.9 Compliance with Terms and Conditions. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information in the format specified in the proposal preparation instructions located in FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors -- Commercial Items and in Attachment 8, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being removed from consideration for award. Proposal pages in excess of the page limits stated in Attachment 8, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items, will not be evaluated by the Government.

B1.10 Discussions. The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Government determines it is in its best interest to do so. Any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) submitted by an offeror in response to a request by the Government are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal will be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

B1.11 Correction Potential of Proposals. The Government will consider the correction potential of any portion of an offeror's proposal which is evaluated as not meeting the Government's requirements as stated in the solicitation. The judgment of such correction potential is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable without a major revision, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

B2.0 Evaluation Factors for Award.

B2.1 The Government will evaluate proposals based upon the following factors:

Factor 1: Experience Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price Factor 4: Technical

B2.2 This Request for Proposal includes Provision 52.212-2, Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Nov 2021).

B2.2.1 Evaluation Factor Weights

B2.2.1.1 Factor 1, Experience, is a threshold for an offeror's proposal, is not used for making the tradeoff award decision, and does not have a weight.

B2.2.1.2 Factor 4, Technical, is evaluated on an Acceptable / Non Acceptable basis, is not used for making the tradeoff award decision, and does not have a weight.

B2.2.1.3 Factor 2, Past Performance and Factor 3, Price, are used for making the tradeoff award decision, and are approximately equal to each other in weight.

B2.3 In order to be considered for award, an offeror's proposal for Factor 1, Experience, must be rated as acceptable, and an offeror's proposal for Factor 4, Technical, must be evaluated as acceptable for all Subfactors.

B2.3.1 In addition to the Evaluation Factors, each offeror's proposal shall be evaluated for, Price Reasonableness, Unbalanced Pricing, and Affordability.

B2.3.1.1 Price Reasonableness. Adequate price competition in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 is anticipated to determine price reasonableness. Price analysis will be used to evaluate the reasonableness of each offer’s TEP to satisfy the requirement mandated by FAR 15.305(a)(1).

Price reasonableness will be determined based on comparison of each offer’s TEP to the TEPs from all other offers. However, if the price evaluation team determines that information on competitive proposed prices is not available or is insufficient to determine that the proposed price is fair and reasonable, the Government may use any of the remaining techniques and procedures per FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) as appropriate to the circumstances applicable to the acquisition.

B2.3.1.2 Unbalanced Pricing. Prices will be reviewed for unbalanced offers in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an unbalanced offer. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to price.

The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items. The Government may also consider an offer unbalanced if there is a significant difference between proposed prices from year to year, including all years of the period of performance, such that they are above or below what would be considered a reasonable adjustment for inflation. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government (Reference FAR 15.404-1(g)(3)).

B2.3.1.3 Affordability. Each offer will be evaluated for affordability by comparison of each offer's total proposed price by period of performance to the Government's budget in Table B2.3.1.3. An offer which exceeds the Government's budget for one or more periods of performance may be rejected for award by the Government.

Table B2.3.1.3 - Budget

Contract Period

Phase-In Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option to

Extend Services

Total

Budget $2.2M $5.4M $5.5M $5.6M $5.7M $5.8M $2.6M $32.8M

B2.4 Evaluation of Factors.

B2.4.1 In arriving at the best value decision, the Government shall do the following:

B2.4.1.1 The Government shall evaluate each offeror's proposal for Experience. If the offeror's proposal is evaluated as acceptable for Experience, the offeror's proposal shall be evaluated under the remaining three factors. If the offeror's proposal for Experience is not evaluated as acceptable for award, then the offeror's proposal shall not be evaluated further for award.

B2.4.1.2 The Government shall evaluate the offeror's proposal for Past Performance for Recency, Relevancy, and Quality; the evaluation shall result in an overall confidence assessment rating.

B2.4.1.3 The Government shall conduct a Price evaluation. The price evaluation shall be the calculation of the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). A TEP for each offeror will be calculated for evaluation purposes only and used in determining the best value to the Government. The TEP for an offer shall consist of the sum of all pricing for the Phase-In period, all five one-year Option periods, and the 6-month extension period. The TEP shall include the prices of CLINs identified in the solicitation as determined by the Government.

B2.4.1.4 The Government shall conduct a Technical evaluation. The technical evaluation shall document the acceptability of the offeror's proposed Team Structure; Staffing Plan; Shift Schedule; Offeror Approach to Recruiting, Hiring, Retaining, and Replacing Qualified Staff;

Ability to Obtain Facility Clearance(s) by Award; Approach for Performance of Contract Security Guard Requirements under Federal Exclusive Jurisdiction; Plan for Executing Civil Engineering Work Orders; and Plan for Continuation of Essential Services. A proposal which is evaluated as not acceptable for any proposal item identified in paragraph B2.4.1.4 of this Addendum shall be evaluated overall as Unacceptable for the Technical Factor and shall not be considered for award.

B2.5 Award Decision.

B2.5.1 The Government shall select the best overall offer, evaluated as acceptable for award, including:

an evaluation of Acceptable for Factor 1, Experience; and an evaluation of Acceptable for Factor 4, Technical; and an evaluation of the offer being reasonably priced; and an evaluation of the offer's CLIN prices as not unbalanced; and an evaluation of the offer being affordable, based upon an integrated assessment of Factor 2, Past Performance and the Total Evaluated Price under Factor 3, Price. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and it is reasonably determined that the Past Performance of the higher priced offeror justifies the price difference.

B2.5.2 The Government intends to award one contract, or to not award any contracts, depending on the quality of proposals submitted and subject to the availability of funds. No partial awards shall be made. In the event the Government awards a contract, the Government intends to award both Phase-In and Option 1; award of Option 1 is subject to the availability of funds of the next fiscal year.

B2.5.3 The Government shall not make an award at a price premium it considers disproportionate to the benefits associated with the evaluated superiority of one proposal over another.

B3.0 Factor 1, Experience.

B3.1 The offeror's proposal shall be evaluated for Experience by the prime offeror, and also Experience by the prime offeror's proposed subcontractors. The evaluation for Experience shall be conducted using the contract references submitted in Volume 1, Past Performance.

B3.2 All submitted contract references evaluated for Experience must be for a minimum period of performance of six months each, and for performance not more than 60 months before the date of proposal submission.

B3.3 At least one of the submitted contract references evaluated for Experience must include at least six (6) months of the offeror's prime contract experience.

B3.4 All submitted contract references evaluated for Experience must be evaluated as at least Somewhat Relevant, using the Relevancy evaluation for the Past Performance Factor.

B3.5 Minimum Experience Threshold. To be considered for award, an offeror's proposal, consisting of the contract experience of the offeror and any applicable subcontractors submitted in its Past Performance Volume, must meet a minimum of:

B3.5.1 Two years dual armed Contract Security Guard services, and

B3.5.2 Two years Civil Engineering services.

B3.6 Proposals not meeting the minimum Experience threshold shall not be further evaluated for award.

B3.7 The following Experience Factor Ratings shall be used for the evaluation of an offeror's proposal for Experience:

Table B3.7 – Factor 1 - Experience Factor Ratings

Rating Definition

Acceptable

The offeror's proposal for Experience meets the Minimum Experience Threshold of two years dual armed Contract Security Guard services, and two years Civil Engineering services for contract experience of the offeror and any applicable subcontractors submitted in its Past Performance Volume, and meets the other requirements of Factor 1, Experience.

Unacceptable

The offeror's proposal for Experience does not meet the Minimum Experience Threshold of two years dual armed Contract Security Guard services, and two years Civil Engineering services for contract experience of the offeror and any applicable subcontractors submitted in its Past Performance Volume, and/or does not meet the other requirements of Factor 1, Experience.

B4.0 Factor 2, Past Performance.

B4.1 The Government shall conduct a Past Performance evaluation that examines an offeror’s Past Performance record to assess the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to perform as proposed. For this solicitation, Past Performance includes present performance for contracts under performance at the time a proposal is submitted. The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Government’s confidence of the offeror meeting the solicitation requirements. There are three aspects to the Past Performance evaluation:

Recency, Relevancy and Quality.

B4.2 Past Performance Evaluation Process. The Past Performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of Past Performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating the Recency, Relevancy, and Quality of each of the offeror’s Past Performance records. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and, if necessary, information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS); Responsibility / Qualification information at SAM.gov;

other information available at SAM.gov; Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS);

and/or other databases; Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) completed by customers and sent directly to the Government; interviews with Government Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Contracting Officer's Representatives, and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

B4.3 Past Performance Rating. For the Past Performance factor, each proposal shall receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in the table below.

Table B4.3 – Past Performance Factor Confidence Assessments, Ratings Definitions

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.

B4.3.1 Neutral Confidence Rating. In the case of an offeror 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 offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on Past Performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown Past Performance and shall be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral Confidence”. A strong record of evaluated Past Performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating.

B4.3.2 Limited Confidence Rating. The Government may have a low expectation that an offeror will successfully perform the required effort either because of concerns with the scope, magnitude, and/or complexities of the evaluated past performance record and/or concerns with the quality of this performance.

B4.4 Confidentiality of Performance Information. Past performance information, including CPARS, questionnaires, etc., is confidential and is not to be released to anyone outside the Government source selection process. Offerors are cautioned that contacting or seeking out source(s) of past performance information is strictly prohibited. Any attempts to influence past performance ratings shall be perceived negatively and could impact the overall performance rating. Any questions should be addressed directly to the CO only and not to any other individual(s). Offerors are responsible for ensuring that all subcontractors and teaming partners are aware of this information and are in compliance.

B4.5 Recency Assessment. An assessment of the Past Performance information shall be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed no more than 60 months before the date of proposal submission. The Government shall only consider performance on efforts that have been in performance for at least six months. In addition, one of the past performance references submitted must include at least six months of prime offeror contract experience. The Government shall use the following ratings and definitions when assessing the Recency of past performance:

Table 4.5 – Past Performance Factor, Recency Assessments Ratings Definitions

Very Recent Performance effort which is currently being performed as of the date of the proposal submission or which was completed no more than 12 months before the date of proposal submission.

Recent Performance effort which was completed at least 13 months before the date of proposal submission but not more than 36 months before the date of proposal submission.

Somewhat Recent Performance effort which was completed at least 37 months before the date of proposal submission but not more than 60 months before the date of proposal submission.

Not Recent Performance effort which was completed 61 or more months before the date of proposal submission, which will not be considered for Past Performance.

B4.6 Relevancy Assessment. Relevancy of contracts is determined by considering scope, magnitude, and complexity compared to the effort described in this solicitation. The Government shall conduct an evaluation of all Very Recent, Recent, and Somewhat Recent performance information submitted to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the requirements of this effort. The Government may also consider contract type, contract value, contract term, and similar contract characteristics, to determine Relevancy. In determining Relevancy for individual contracts, consideration shall be given only to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed to be performed by the offeror. Joint venture partners’ past performance shall be part of the aggregate performance evaluation.

B4.6.1 Past Performance Questionnaires received by the Government, and information obtained from other sources, if necessary, shall be used to establish the Relevancy of Past Performance.

B4.6.2 The Government shall use the following ratings and definitions when assessing the overall Relevancy of Past Performance:

Table B4.6.2 - Relevancy Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant Past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

B4.6.2.1 In evaluating Past Performance Relevancy, the Government shall consider the following ratings for Contract Management, Contract Security Guard Services, and Civil Engineering Services:

B4.6.2.1.1 Contract Management Relevancy Ratings.

Table B4.6.2.1.1 - Contract Management Relevancy Ratings

Very Relevant Past performance effort was for a requirement of similar magnitude which included at least four functional areas and management of at least one of those functional areas was accomplished through a subcontractor.

Relevant Past performance effort was for a requirement of similar magnitude which included at least three functional areas and management of at least one of those functional areas was accomplished through a subcontractor.

Somewhat Relevant

Past performance effort was for a requirement which included at least two functional areas; no performance requirements were subcontracted.

Not Relevant Past performance effort was for a requirement with only one functional area; no performance requirements were subcontracted.

B4.6.2.1.2 Contract Security Guard Services Relevancy Ratings.

Table B4.6.2.1.2 - Contract Security Guard Services Relevancy Ratings

Very Relevant Past performance effort was for an entire installation’s/facility’s security, including entry control responsibilities; the installation/facility included one separate controlled or restricted area. Contract security guards were dual-armed and performed 24/7 security requirements for two or more buildings and/or locations.

Relevant Past performance effort was for an entire installation’s/facility’s security, including entry control responsibilities; the installation/facility included one separate controlled or restricted area. Contract security guards were single-armed and performed 24/7 security requirements for two or more buildings and/or locations.

Somewhat Relevant

Past performance effort was for an installation's/facility's security, including entry control responsibilities. Contract security guards were single-armed and performed 24/7 security requirements.

Not Relevant Past performance effort was for a single building's security, and included entry control responsibilities. Contract security guards were not armed.

B4.6.2.1.3 Contract Civil Engineering Services Relevancy Ratings.

Table B4.6.2.1.3 - Contract Civil Engineering Services Relevancy Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description*

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort was for comprehensive civil engineering requirements involving both maintenance and operations, and ensuring uninterrupted service of an entire installation or non-housing facility site of at least 20 buildings, and/or serving a population base of 51 or more people. Services included call-back services for repair or unplanned maintenance, and/or emergency repair services.

Relevant Present/past performance effort was for comprehensive civil engineering requirements involving both maintenance and operations, and ensuring uninterrupted service of an entire installation or non-housing facility site of at least ten buildings, and/or serving a population base of 26 to 50 people. Services included call-back services for repair or unplanned maintenance, and/or emergency repair services.

Table B4.6.2.1.3 - Contract Civil Engineering Services Relevancy Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description*

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort was for comprehensive civil engineering requirements involving both maintenance and operations, and ensuring uninterrupted service of an entire installation or non-housing facility site of at least five buildings, and/or serving a population base of 10 to 25 people. Services included call-back services for repair or unplanned maintenance, and/or emergency repair services.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort was for many civil engineering requirements involving either maintenance or operations for one or more buildings. Services included after normal duty hour support.

*Notes: As used in this table, a building, in addition to walls and a roof, is climate controlled with heat and ventilation, electrical power, potable water, and wastewater service; a population base is the maximum number of people that could be on an installation or non-housing facility at the same time.

B4.7 Quality Assessment. Quality is an assessment of how well the offeror performed on contract Past Performance submitted by the offeror.

B4.7.1 The quality assessment shall consist of an evaluation of the Past Performance Questionnaire responses, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS) for Past Performance Questionnaire responses, and CPARS for contracts not submitted in the proposal, if necessary, and, if necessary, interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials and, if applicable, commercial clients. It may also include, if necessary, interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as Past Performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation shall consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements, and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends. The Government shall use the following ratings and definitions when assessing the quality of past performance:

B4.7.2 The Government shall consider the performance quality of contract experience references submitted that are evaluated as Very Recent, Recent, or Somewhat Recent, and which are evaluated as Very Relevant, Relevant, or Somewhat Relevant.

B4.7.3 The following Past Performance Factor Quality Assessment Ratings Definitions will be used by the Government:

Table B4.7.3 - Past Performance Factor, Quality Assessment Ratings Definitions

Exceptional Past performance effort met contractual requirements and exceeded many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of services evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good Past performance effort met contractual requirements and exceeded some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the services evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory Past performance effort met contractual requirements.

The contractual performance of the services evaluated contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appeared or were satisfactory.

Marginal Past performance effort did not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the services evaluated reflected a serious problem for which the contractor had not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appeared only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory Past performance effort did not meet most contractual requirements and recovery was not, or is not expected to be, likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the services evaluated contained a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appeared or were ineffective.

B4.8 Assigning Ratings. As a result of the Recency, Relevancy, and Quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, the offeror shall receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating in accordance with the ratings in Table B4.3. Although the Past Performance evaluation focuses on performance that is Very Relevant, Relevant, or Somewhat Relevant when compared to the solicitation's requirements, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. More recent performance may result in a higher Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent effort. 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. In addition, a higher quality past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a record of lower quality performance. The Source Selection Authority may determine that a Substantial Confidence or a

Satisfactory Confidence performance rating justifies award to a higher priced offer than a lower-priced offer with a Neutral Confidence past performance rating when making the best value trade-off decision.

B5.0 Factor 3, Price.

B5.1 Total Evaluated Price (TEP). A TEP for each offer will be calculated for evaluation purposes only and used in determining the best value to the Government. Proposals shall be evaluated, for award purposes, based upon the TEP, which consists of the sum of all pricing for the Phase-In period, all five one-year Option periods, and the 6-month extension period.

B6.0 Factor 4, Technical.

B6.1 The Technical Factor consists of the following eight Subfactors:

B6.1.1 Subfactor 1: Team Structure. The offeror's proposal for Team Structure shall be evaluated for an acceptable approach for meeting the requirements of the solicitation, including that the offeror's proposed Team Structure covers all of the requirements of the Performance Work Statement, either by the prime offeror's own efforts, by identified subcontractor efforts, or by the use of arrangements with identified local businesses.

B6.1.2 Subfactor 2: Staffing Plan. The offeror's proposal for staffing shall be evaluated for an acceptable approach for meeting the requirements of the solicitation, with a staffing plan showing labor categories and estimated labor hours for the base period, for each Option, and for the 6-month extension. The offeror's proposal for staffing for Contract Security Guard (CSG) 24/7 posting requirements shall be evaluated for using a minimum staffing conversion factor of

6.0 for its 24/7 CSG posting requirements, and that the minimum six separate employees for each 24/7 CSG position is not allocated to other 24/7 CSG positions. The offeror's proposal shall also be evaluated for limiting the proposed hours worked for each CSG employee proposed to perform 24/7 CSG requirements to 40 hours of CSG functions per week for FPCON Normal, FPCON Alpha, and FPCON Bravo station operations, using shifts that do not exceed 8 hours per 24 hour period.

B6.1.3 Subfactor 3: Shift Schedule for 24/7 Requirements. The offeror's proposal shall be evaluated for an acceptable Shift Schedule for the 24/7 Requirements for CSGs. The offeror's proposal shall be evaluated for not exceeding eight hours (excluding shift overlap) per each 24 hour period for each CSG employee assigned to 24/7 CSG requirements, and for not exceeding 40 hours (excluding shift overlap) per seven day week for FPCON Normal, FPCON Alpha, and FPCON Bravo station operations.

B6.1.4 Subfactor 4: Offeror Approach to Recruiting, Hiring, Retaining, and Replacing Qualified Staff. The offeror's proposal shall be evaluated for an approach which describes reasonable approaches to recruiting and hiring qualified staff, which describes at least two reasonable approaches for retaining qualified staff, and which describes a reasonable approach for promptly replacing staff if employees depart the contract.

B6.1.5 Subfactor 5: Ability to Obtain Facility Security Clearance(s) by Award. The offeror's proposal shall be evaluated for the ability to obtain the required facility security clearance by the award of the contract. The offeror's proposal shall also be evaluated for the ability of all subcontractors, which are proposed to perform contract requirements requiring a personal security clearance(s), to obtain facility security clearances.

B6.1.6 Subfactor 6: Approach for Performance of Contract Security Guard Requirements under Federal Exclusive Jurisdiction. The offeror's proposal shall be evaluated for its understanding of the limitations of Federal Exclusive Jurisdiction, and for an acceptable approach for performing the Performance Work Statement's Contract Security Guard requirements under Federal Exclusive Jurisdiction.

B6.1.7 Subfactor 7: Plan for Executing Civil Engineering Work Orders. The offeror's proposal shall be evaluated for its approach to meet Performance Work Statement requirements for performing civil engineering work orders, including receiving requests for work orders, confirming contract scope of requests, tracking open work orders, determining how and when work orders will be executed, tasking the offeror's labor or arranging for tasking the offeror's labor force and/or arranging for a local business to perform the work, follow-up, entering data into the Air Force's Civil Engineering system and invoicing for complete work orders.

B6.1.8 Subfactor 8: Proposal for Continuation of Essential Contractor Services. The offeror's proposed Plan for Continuation of Essential Services shall be evaluated for meeting the requirement of DFARS provision 252.237-7024, Notice of Continuation of Essential Contractor Services (Oct 2010).

B6.2 Technical Factor Subfactor Ratings Definitions. The Government will use the following Ratings Definitions in evaluating the Technical Factor:

Table B6.2 – Factor 4 - Technical Factor, Subfactors 1 through 8, Ratings Definitions

Subfactor Rating Definition

Subfactor 1: Team Structure.

Acceptable

The offeror's proposal for Team Structure is an acceptable approach for meeting the requirements of the solicitation. The offeror's proposed Team Structure covers all of the requirements of the Performance Work Statement, either by the prime offeror's own efforts, by identified subcontractor efforts, or by the use of arrangements with identified local businesses.

Unacceptable

The offeror's proposal for Team Structure is not an acceptable approach for meeting the requirements of the solicitation. The offeror's proposed Team Structure does not cover all of the requirements of the Performance Work Statement, either by the prime offeror's own efforts, by identified subcontractor efforts, or by the use of arrangements with identified local businesses.

Subfactor 2: Staffing Plan. Acceptable The offeror's proposal for staffing is an acceptable approach for meeting the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable The offeror's proposal for staffing is not an acceptable approach for meeting the requirements of the solicitation.

Subfactor 3: Shift Schedule for 24/7 Requirements.

Acceptable

The offeror's proposal is an acceptable approach for the shift schedule for 24/7 requirements. The proposed shift schedule does not exceed eight hours (excluding shift overlap) per each 24 hour period for each CSG employee assigned to 24/7 CSG requirements, and also does not exceed 40 hours (excluding shift overlap) per seven day week for FPCON Normal, FPCON Alpha, and FPCON Bravo station operations.

Unacceptable

The offeror's proposal is not an acceptable approach for the shift schedule for 24/7 requirements. The proposed shift schedule exceeds eight hours (excluding shift overlap) per each 24 hour period for each CSG employee assigned to 24/7 CSG requirements, and/or exceeds 40 hours (excluding shift overlap) per seven day week for FPCON Normal, FPCON Alpha, and FPCON Bravo station operations.

Subfactor 4: Offeror Approach to Recruiting, Hiring, Retaining, and Replacing Qualified Staff.

Acceptable

The offeror's proposal is acceptable for reasonable approaches to recruiting and hiring qualified staff, the proposal describes at least two reasonable approaches for retaining qualified staff, and the proposal describes a reasonable approach for promptly replacing staff if employees depart the contract.

Unacceptable

The offeror's proposal is not acceptable for reasonable approaches to recruiting and hiring qualified staff, and/or the proposal does not describe at least two reasonable approaches for retaining qualified staff, and/or the proposal does not describe a reasonable approach for promptly replacing staff if employees depart the contract.

Subfactor 5: Ability to Obtain Facility Security Clearance(s) by Award.

Acceptable

The offeror's proposal is acceptable for its ability to obtain the required facility security clearance by the award of the contract. The offeror's proposal is also acceptable for the ability of all subcontractors, which are proposed to perform contract requirements requiring a personal security clearance(s), to obtain facility security clearances.

Unacceptable

The offeror's proposal is not acceptable for its ability to obtain the required facility security clearance by the award of the contract, and/or the offeror's proposal is not acceptable for the ability of all subcontractors, which are proposed to perform contract requirements requiring a personal security clearance(s), to obtain facility security clearances.

Subfactor 6: Approach for Performance of Contract Security Guard Requirements under Federal Exclusive Jurisdiction.

Acceptable

The offeror's proposal is acceptable for its approach for performance of Contract Security Guard requirements under Federal Exclusive Jurisdiction. The offeror's proposal has an acceptable understanding of the limitations of Federal Exclusive Jurisdiction, and an acceptable approach for performing the Performance Work Statement's Contract Security Guard requirements under Federal Exclusive Jurisdiction.

Unacceptable

The offeror's proposal is not acceptable for its approach for performance of Contract Security Guard requirements under Federal Exclusive Jurisdiction. The offeror's proposal does not have an acceptable understanding of the limitations of Federal Exclusive Jurisdiction, and/or does not have an acceptable approach for performing the Performance Work Statement's Contract Security Guard requirements under Federal Exclusive Jurisdiction.

Subfactor 7: Plan for Executing Civil Engineering Work Orders.

Acceptable

The offeror's proposal is acceptable for its approach to meet Performance Work Statement requirements for performing civil engineering work orders, including receiving requests for work orders, confirming contract scope of requests, tracking open work orders, determining how and when work orders will be executed, tasking the offeror's labor or arranging for tasking the offeror's labor force and/or arranging for a local business to perform the work, follow-up, entering data into the Air Force's Civil Engineering system and invoicing for complete work orders.

Unacceptable

The offeror's proposal is not acceptable for its approach to meet Performance Work Statement requirements for performing civil engineering work orders, including receiving requests for work orders, confirming contract scope of requests, tracking open work orders, determining how and when work orders will be executed, tasking the offeror's labor or arranging for tasking the offeror's labor force and/or arranging for a local business to perform the work, follow-up, entering data into the Air Force's Civil Engineering system and invoicing for complete work orders.

Subfactor 8: Proposal for Continuation of Essential Contractor Services.

Acceptable

Proposal meets the requirements of DFARS provision 252.237-7024, Notice of Continuation of Essential Contractor Services.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet the requirements of DFARS provision 252.237-7024, Notice of Continuation of Essential Contractor Services.