Attach 8 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD.docx

FA3002-10-R-0045

Attachment 8

FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation of Commerical Items -- Addenda

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing offerors' past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than cost or price considerations. However, cost/price will contribute substantially to the selection decision.

By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors.

The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

A. The Government will evaluate the technical proposals and assign ratings of Acceptable, Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable, or Unacceptable.

(1) The offeror’s proposal shall, at a minimum, address each of the subfactors in (3) below, as they apply to the PWS. Detailed instructions are included in the proposal preparation instructions section of this solicitation. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign each subfactor a rating as shown in (2) below. A rating of unacceptable in one or more technical subfactors will constitute an overall rating of unacceptable for the technical evaluation.

(2) The ratings consist of:

Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable An approach which, as proposed, does not meet specified minimum performance/capability requirements necessary for performance due to error(s), omissions(s) or deficiency(ies) which, in the view of the Government, may be corrected through discussions without significant revision of the proposal.

(3) Description of Subfactors:

(a) Subfactor: Technical Proficiency

Description of Subfactor:

1. The offeror’s proposal exhibited acceptable technical knowledge of governing DoD instructions and Air Force Instructions for integration and development of Certification and Accreditation packages.

2. The offeror’s proposal demonstrated the ability to meet all DIACAP tasks and deliverables associated with Phases 1, 2, 3, and Receipt of ATO listed under Section 1.10 in the PWS.

3. The offeror’s proposal demonstrated the ability to coordinate with the system owner to meet minimum database solution requirements and ensure appropriate EITDR and FISMA questions are answered.

4. The offeror proposed an acceptable process for meeting DIACAP timelines for efficient and timely completion of requirements demonstrating that they can meet the FISMA requirements memo, initiate it within 10 working days of assignment and complete all requirements within 90 working days of initiation.

(b) Subfactor: Staffing

Description of Subfactor:

1. The offeror’s proposal provided an acceptable plan to provide knowledgeable employees to validate DIACAP packages and integrate the DIACAP process.

2. The offeror proposed an acceptable plan for providing qualified on-site personnel with sufficient knowledge of Information Assurance to provide technical guidance on the completion of DIACAP packages and DIACAP training IAW the PWS.

3. The offeror proposed an acceptable authority and problem mediation process.

(c) Subfactor: Security

Description of Subfactor: The offeror proposed an acceptable plan to comply with Government Communication-Computer Security policies, instruction and guidelines.

B. The Government will evaluate the price proposals, and any other relevant proposal data submitted, to determine if proposed prices are reasonable and balanced based on the offeror (s) proposed approach.

(1) Each offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated as the sum of the Firm-Fixed-Price sub-CLINs for on-site DIACAP support,under CLIN 0001, for the five-year ordering period and the total proposed price for the four sample DIACAP projects (E-Exams3, SecondLife, AUL ILS, and FISMA) per Attachment 1, Part 2: Cost Model. The proposed labor categories, labor rates, and escalation rate will be incorporated into the award under CLINs 0003 & 0004 for use in issuing future task orders for individual DIACAP projects. All proposed prices for the contract period will be evaluated for reasonableness, which may be determined based on prices submitted by the competition, historical pricing, current market conditions, comparison to the Independent Government Estimate, and/or other proposal analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1.

(2) The Government may require submission of information other than cost or pricing data to the extent necessary to evaluate price reasonableness. A contract will not be awarded to an offeror whose proposed price is not determined reasonable.

(3) Proposed contract line item prices will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing (FAR 15.404-1(g)). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items or sub line items appears to be significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. An offeror’s proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

C. The Government will evaluate past performance to assess how well the performed work relevant to the type of effort and type of requirement described in the solicitation as an indicator of an offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully. The Government will use the following procedures in evaluating past performance:

(1) The Government will accomplish the past performance evaluation, assigning a performance confidence assessment rating to the offeror’s proposal based on performance ratings of recent and relevant efforts.

(2) The Government will seek relevant performance information from: (i) past and present efforts provided by the offeror (using questionnaires which are forwarded by the offeror to their selected sources) and (ii) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. The past performance evaluation will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. The past performance evaluation may also consider the past performance of affiliated companies or operating divisions within the parent company or joint ventures of the parent company when it is reasonable to attribute the experience of these past efforts to the proposed effort and when the proposal clearly demonstrates the resources (e.g. financial resources, overall oversight and management or other resources) of the parent or affiliated division will meaningfully affect performance of the instant acquisition. The past performance of teaming partners or subcontractors who are proposed to perform less than 20% of the work and are not proposed to perform critical aspects will not be evaluated.

(a) Recency is defined as performance occurring within the last three (3) years of the date of this solicitation, except that ongoing programs must have begun no less than three (3) months from issuance of the RFP.

(b) Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving requirements that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation. Relevancy will be assigned ratings of Very Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, and Not Relevant. The Government will give greater consideration to performance on those contracts deemed more relevant to the effort described in this RFP. 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.

Past Performance Information with AF specific DIACAP and EITDR experience will be considered more relevant than non-AF specific and non-EITDR experience.

The following table provides relevancy definitions that will be used:

RELEVANCY DEFINITIONS

(c) Performance information may be obtained from the references on each project submitted. The Government may also obtain performance data from other sources.

(i) In addition to evaluating the extent to which the offeror’s performance meets basic contract PWS and technical requirements, the assessment will consider things such as the offeror’s history of adhering to schedules, (including the administrative aspects of performance), reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction.

(ii) Where a relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent projects or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and evaluate their effectiveness.

(iii) The following performance definitions will be used in the assessment of performance.

PERFORMANCE DEFINITIONS

PERFORMANCE

RATING

DEFINITION

Exceptional

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory

Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

(3) The Government will integrate the recency, relevancy and performance on all the efforts evaluated for the offeror; the integration will result in a performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence as defined below for the offeror. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history or whose performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating of “Unknown Confidence”, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS

D. After initial evaluation of each offeror’s technical and price proposals, and assessment of each offeror’s past performance, if the lowest reasonably priced technically acceptable offer (by TEP) is determined responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104, and has a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment rating, award will be made to that offeror without entering into discussions as this represents the best value to the Government.

E. If the lowest reasonably priced offer (by TEP) does not have a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment rating, the next lowest reasonably priced, technically acceptable, and responsible offeror will be considered and the process will continue (in order by TEP) until the Government reaches an offer with a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment rating or until all offers are considered, whichever occurs first. The Source Selection Authority will then make an integrated assessment best value award decision unless it is in the Government’s best interest to conduct discussions.

F. The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. Offerors shall submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Proposal Preparation Instructions. Offeror’s may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (e.g., 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. Exchanges conducted with regard to adverse past performance or to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions, and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

G. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. If the Government elects to hold discussions, a competitive range will be established based on FAR 15.306(c) procedures and this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to further limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. If the contracting officer determines that an offeror’s proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award. Written notice of this decision shall be provided to unsuccessful offerors in accordance with FAR 15.503. Offerors excluded or otherwise eliminated from the competitive range may request a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505 or 15.506.

H. After conclusion of discussions and receipt of final proposal revisions, the Government will rank all offers by TEP. If the lowest reasonably priced technically acceptable offer (by TEP), is determined responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104, and has a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment rating, award will be made to that offeror as this represents the best value to the Government. If the lowest reasonably priced offer (by TEP) does not have a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment rating, the next lowest reasonably priced, technically acceptable, and responsible offeror will be considered, and the process will continue (in order by TEP) until the Government reaches an offer with a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment rating or until all offers are considered, whichever occurs first. The Source Selection Authority will then make an integrated assessment best value award decision.