Attachment_3-_52_212-2_Evaluation_Factors_14_Aug_15.pdf

FA3002-15-R-0026

Attachment 3

FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS

ADDENDA TO 52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS

THIS SECTION IS FOR SOLICITATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS SECTION WILL BE

PHYSICALLY REMOVED FROM ANY RESULTANT AWARD, BUT WILL BE DEEMED

INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE. THIS ADDENDA SUPPLEMENTS FAR 52.212-2.

I. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) with Past Performance

A. Basis for Contract Award.

1. This is a Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial

Items, competitive best value source selection conducted in accordance with FAR 13.5, Program for Certain Commercial Items, procedures as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement

(AFFARS). This source selection will follow a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable with Past

Performance source selection process in accordance with FAR 15.101-2, in which award will be made to the technically acceptable offeror with the lowest reasonable total evaluated price and acceptable past performance.

2. 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 sub-factors.

3. A Past Performance evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing aspects of an Offeror's recent and relevant past performance, focusing on and targeting performance which is relevant to the effort, as it directly relates to the work being procured under this solicitation and recent within three (3) years from the date of this solicitation.

4. The government will conduct a price evaluation of all technically acceptable proposals submitted. Total evaluated price (TEP) will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) and then totaling all CLINs.

5. Price reasonableness will be determined using one or more price analysis techniques which include, but are not limited to, a comparison of proposed prices submitted by the competition, comparison to the IGE, or any other techniques deemed appropriate by the

Contracting Officer.

6. The Contracting Officer has 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 cost information will be requested, and certification under FAR

15.406-2 will not be required. 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 cost data to the extent necessary for the Contracting Officer to determine the reasonableness of the price.

7. It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions. Offerors are encouraged to present their best technical proposal and prices in their initial proposal submission. However, should discussions become necessary, the Government reserves the right to conduct them. If the

Government awards without discussions, the Offeror’s may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of proposals or to resolve minor clerical errors. The Government may reject any or all offers if such action is in the public interest.

B. Evaluation Criteria

The evaluation criteria are divided into three factors: Technical Capability, Price, and Past

Performance. Technical Capability will be assessed as Acceptable or Unacceptable based on demonstrated technical expertise and approach to meeting the requirements of the PWS.

1. The proposals will be evaluated based on the following three (3) evaluation factor(s) and three (3) sub-factors:

Factor 1: Technical Capability (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

Sub-factor 1: Management Approach

Sub-factor 2: Staffing Approach

Sub-factor 3: Quality Control Plan

Factor 2: Price

Factor 3: Past Performance

(a) Factor 1 - Technical Capability. The Technical Capability evaluation provides an assessment of the Offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. The technical approach will be evaluated for evidence of the degree to which the Offeror’s technical approach demonstrates a clear understanding of CDSS as defined within the PWS, Attachment 1, of this solicitation. Proposals should display a clear understanding and reasonable, well-thought-out approach, that demonstrates the

Offeror’s understanding of all tasks to be performed, as well as, the technical approach and methodology for accomplishing all tasks under any resultant award to meet the requirements of the PWS. The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following sub-factors:

Sub-Factor 1 – Management Approach. The offeror shall provide a detailed

Management Approach that will successfully accomplish the requirements of the solicitation, which include providing expert guidance on safety, nutrition, physical fitness workout plans, mental dexterity, and use of proper exercise techniques to ensure candidates for Pararescue (PJ), Combat Control (CCT), Special Operations Weather

(SOWT), Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technician (EOD), Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) Specialists, and Tactical Air Control Party (TACP) career fields reach their full potential in preparation for the Physical Ability and Stamina

Test (PAST). Standard:

(i) The offeror proposed an acceptable approach for securing locations to administer the PAST for the duration of the period of performance. The locations proposed are sufficient and well distributed throughout the various field locations to accommodate all geographic regions and meet the standards outlined in the PWS and subsequent attachments. Contractor provided the name, address and location of the facilities to be used for administering the PAST.

(ii) The offeror proposed an acceptable approach to administering, recording and reporting candidate PAST evaluation results to identified Government representatives.

(iii) The offeror proposed and acceptable approach to providing physical fitness and nutritional plans for the special operations candidates.

Sub-Factor 2 – Staffing Approach. The offeror shall provide a detailed staffing plan that describes how the contractor will fill positions in a timely manner while maintaining a personnel support structure with the requisite education, skills, and expertise to perform tasks in accordance with the PWS. Standard:

(i) The proposed staffing plan and number of personnel that will be located within each recruiting zone as identified in paragraph 4.4 of the PWS is adequate to perform the requirements in the PWS.

(ii) The offeror proposed adequate personnel qualifications to meet the requirements set forth in Section 5 of the PWS and demonstrated that personnel would have the required PJ, CCT, SOWT, EOD, SERE and TACP experience.

(iii) The proposed staffing plan provided will minimize staff turnover and ensure minimal impact on continued performance of PWS requirements.

Sub-Factor 3 – Quality Control Plan. The contractor shall provide a detailed Quality

Control Plan (QCP) that identifies processes, procedures, and metrics which are likely to result in a successful outcome within proposed cost and schedule. Standard:

(i) The proposed QCP demonstrated the contractor’s ability to meet the Government’s performance objectives in a timely and consistent manner.

(ii) The proposed QCP identified an acceptable process for initiating corrective actions to mitigate and correct performance deficiencies.

(iii) The proposed QCP clearly demonstrated contractor responsibility for quality control and not shared responsibility with the government.

Technical Capability Factor Rating. The Technical Capability Factor will receive one of the adjectival ratings defined in, Table 1 – Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable

Ratings, below. The sub-factor ratings will be used to determine an overall rating for the factor. An offer rated as Technically Unacceptable in any sub-factor will result in an overall rating of Unacceptable and will not be eligible for award.

Table 1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable

Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

(b) Factor 2 - Price Evaluation. Following an evaluation of Technical Acceptability, the

Government will rank all Technically Acceptable offers by the Total Evaluated Price

(TEP) submitted at Attachment 4 of this solicitation. The Government will use this information to evaluate an Offeror’s proposal for price reasonableness, balance, and completeness.

i. Price will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for reasonableness through the use of price analysis. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2), the

Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price. Some of those techniques include, but are not limited to, a comparison of proposed prices submitted by the competition, comparison to the IGE, or any other techniques deemed appropriate by the

Contracting Officer. A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. An Offeror who submits a price proposal that is determined to be unreasonable, either initially or as a result of discussions, is not awardable and will be eliminated from the competition.

ii. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite a reasonable TEP, the price of one or more of the price elements is significantly over or understated, as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The burden of proof for balance of proposed prices rests with the Offeror. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

iii. An Offeror who submits a price proposal at Attachment 4 that fails to provide a price for all firm-fixed priced (FFP) CLINs will be determined to be incomplete will not be awardable.

iv. An Offeror who fails to identify the applicable Service Contract Labor

Standard Wage Determination(s) and/or propose prices based on them will be determined unacceptable.

(c) Factor 3 - Past Performance Evaluation. The Past Performance Evaluation (PPE) is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment will be based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertains to the services outlined in the solicitation requirements.

Past performance information shall be obtained from Past Performance Questionnaires submitted by the offeror’s references as well as any other sources available to the

Government to include, but not limited to, PPIRS or other databases; interviews with

Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee-Determining Officials; and the Defense

Contract Management Agency.

Past Performance will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis using the ratings in

Table A-2 below:

Table 2. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Rating Description

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 note below.)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the

Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or 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. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “Acceptable.”

The offeror’s present/past performance will be evaluated to determine if it is relevant and recent as defined below. Then the evaluation will determine how well the offeror performed on the relevant and recent contracts. The PPE performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the PPE process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

For the purposes of this solicitation, Relevant and Recent past performance is defined as:

(a) Relevant Performance. To be relevant, past performance must include efforts similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to efforts outlined in this solicitation.

(b) Recent Performance. For the purposes of evaluation under this solicitation, the relevant effort must be ongoing or must have been performed within the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

(End of Provision)