Attach_4_Addendum_52_212-2_-_Evaluation.pdf

Attachment 4 Solicitation No. FA3002-16-R-0011

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Items

1. EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

A. SOURCE SELECTION

(a) Basis for Contract Award. This will be a competitive best value award decision utilizing the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) evaluation strategy, in which award will go to the offeror who is determined to be “technically acceptable”; receives a past performance rating of “acceptable”; receives a Small Business Subcontracting Plan rating of “acceptable” (large businesses only), offers a price that is determined to be “fair and reasonable” and balanced, and is determined responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9.1, as supplemented.

(b) Discussions. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, in accordance with FAR 15.306 (c)(1) a competitive range will be established consisting of the most highly rated proposals based on the evaluation of each proposal against all the evaluation criteria. Additionally, in accordance with FAR 15.306 (c)(2) the Government reserves the right to further reduce the competitive range based upon efficiency concerns.

The Government may 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. The offerors responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror's proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror's proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

(c) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP for each offeror evaluated will be determined by first multiplying the quantities in the Schedule of Supplies/Services by the fully-burdened unit price (rounded to the nearest whole dollar amount) entered for each FFP CLIN to confirm the extended total amount for each FFP CLIN, which should exactly equal the quantity multiplied by the unit price. The TEP will not include the Not-to-Exceed cost reimbursable CLINs. The sum of the extended total amounts for all FFP CLINs for all four (4) pricing periods will equal the TEP. Failure to comply with the Schedule of Supplies/Services may render the proposal unacceptable and ineligible for award.

(d) Evaluation Process. The government will evaluate all proposals for technical acceptability. If the proposal is determined to be “Technically Unacceptable”, it will not be evaluated any further or be considered for award. All “Technically Acceptable” offers will then be evaluated for “Acceptable” past performance. If an offeror is determined to have “Unacceptable” past performance, the offer will not be evaluated any further or be considered for award. All offers that are determined to be “Technically Acceptable” and deemed to have “Acceptable” past performance will then be evaluated for having an “Acceptable” Small Business Subcontracting Plan (large businesses only). If an offeror (large businesses only) is determined to have an “Unacceptable” Small Business Subcontracting Plan, the offer will not be evaluated any further or be considered for award. All remaining offers that have been determined to be “Technically Acceptable” and deemed to have “Acceptable” past performance and Small Business Subcontracting Plan will then be ranked by the initially proposed TEP, from lowest-to-highest. If the lowest priced proposal is deemed fair and reasonable and balanced and the offeror is determined to be responsible, the process will stop and award will be made to that offeror. If the lowest priced proposal is not determined “fair and reasonable” and balanced, then the next lowest priced proposal will be evaluated. This process will continue until a proposal is found fair and reasonable and balanced, and deemed responsible, unless the Contracting Officer determines discussions are necessary.

(e) Solicitation requirements, 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 or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify an exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

B. EVALUATION FACTORS

(a) Evaluation Factors and Subfactors. The following outlines the evaluation factors and subfactors. The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability, but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors or subfactors.

FACTOR 1-TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

• Subfactor 1: (FAA 147 CERTIFIED TRAINING COURSES AND FACILTIES)

• Element 1: FAA 147 Certification.

• Subfactor 2: (TRAINING APPROACH)

• Element 1: CONUS maintenance training and certification process.

• Element 2: OCONUS maintenance training approach

• Element 3: Recruiting and sustaining trained, qualified, and certified personnel,

• Element 4: Coverage of Instructors

• Subfactor 3: (STUDENT MANAGEMENT APPROACH)

• Element 1: Manage, schedule, and track the progression of students attending training

• Element 2: Communication with the AFSAT TPM/COR and the CO in regards to the student training issues and incidents

• Element 3: Maintaining student lodging

• Element 4: Student transportation

C. FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions.

TABLE 1 – TECHNICAL 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.

Proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

(a) Subfactor 1: FAA Certified Courses and Facilities.

This subfactor assesses the offeror’s ability to provide Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) courses and facilities that are FAA Part 147 Certified. The evaluation will address the offerors response as outlined in the right-hand column (the “Instructions to Offerors” column on the left is verbatim from Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 and is provided here for reference only):

Subfactor 1: FAA Certified Training Courses and Facilities Instructions to Offerors

Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Evaluation Criteria

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Section B– Volume I – FAA 147 Certified

Training Courses and Facilities Section C– Subfactor 1 – FAA 147 Certified Training

Courses and Facilities The Offeror shall provide detailed documentation that shows FAA 147 Certification, date and time.

The offeror provided the FAA 147 Certification with date and time.

(b) Subfactor 2: Training Approach

This subfactor assesses the offeror’s approach to provide training.

Subfactor 2: Training Approach

Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Evaluation Criteria

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Section B – Volume I – Training Approach Section C– Subfactor 2 – Training Approach

The Offeror shall provide training approach/rationale that:

a. Describes offeror’s commercial off the shelf CONUS maintenance training and certification process. This training approach should include lecture, seminars, and other on the job training readily available for delivery to the International Military Students (IMS) IAW the PWS.

Reference PWS paragraphs 1.3.3, 1.3.3.1 thru 1.3.3.14, 3.1, and 3.4

b. Describes offeror’s OCONUS maintenance training approach, to include on the job training readily available, and Mobilization Plan IAW the PWS.

(Reference PWS paragraphs 1.3.4, 1.3.4.1 thru 1.3.4.8, 3.2, 4.8, and 4.9)

c. Describes offeror’s approach to recruiting and sustaining trained, qualified, and certified personnel, including instructor staffing approaches throughout the life of the contract IAW the PWS. (Reference PWS paragraphs 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.2.1, 2.3.2.2, 2.3.3, and 3.3)

d. Describes the offeror’s ability to ensure coverage of instructors when on leave, illness, or due to a no notice departure from the company.

The proposed training approach/rationale provided:

a. An acceptable and efficient CONUS maintenance training and certification process IAW the PWS.

Reference PWS paragraphs 1.3.3, 1.3.3.1 thru 1.3.3.14, 3.1, and 3.4

b. An acceptable and efficient OCONUS maintenance training approach and Mobilization Plan IAW the PWS.

(Reference PWS paragraphs 1.3.4, 1.3.4.1 thru 1.3.4.8, 3.2, 4.8, and 4.9)

c. An acceptable and realistic approach to recruit and sustain trainined, qualified, and certified personnel, to include instructor staffing approaches throughout the life of the contract, IAW the PWS. (Reference PWS paragraphs 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.2.1, 2.3.2.2, 2.3.3, and 3.3)

d. An acceptable and realistic approach to ensure coverage of instructors when on leave, illness, or due to a no notice departure from the company.

(c) Subfactor 3: Student Management Approach

This subfactor assesses the offeror’s approach.

Subfactor 3: Student Management Approach

Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Evaluation Criteria

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Section B – Volume I – Student Management

Approach Section C– Subfactor 3 – Student Management

Approach The Offeror shall provide an approach/rationale that:

a. Describes the process to manage, schedule, and track the progression of students attending training. The detailed management approach shall include student record keeping, student accountability, course evaluation and student certificates IAW the PWS. (Reference PWS paragraph 3.5(a)-(h))

b. Describes the process for communicating with the AFSAT TPM/COR and the CO in regards to student

a. The Offeror provided an acceptable detailed technical approach to manage, schedule, and track the progression of students attending training, to include student record keeping, student accountability, course evaluation and student certificates IAW the PWS. (Reference PWS paragraph 3.5(a)-(h))

b. The Offeror provided an acceptable approach on how the offeror will communicate with the AFSAT TPM/COR and the CO in regards to student training issues and incidents IAW the PWS. (Reference PWS training issues and incidents IAW the PWS. (Reference PWS paragraph 3.5(e), 4.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.3, and 4.6)

c. Describes the process of providing and maintaining student lodging IAW the PWS. (Reference PWS paragraphs 1.3.6.1, 1.3.6.1.1, and 3.8(e))

d. Describes the process of providing student transportation IAW the PWS. (Reference PWS paragraphs 1.3.6.2, 1.3.6.2.1 thru 1.3.6.2.5, and 3.8(a)- (d), 4.1.2, and 4.4) paragraph 3.5(e), 4.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.3, and 4.6)

c. The Offeror provided an acceptbale process for providing and maintaining student lodging IAW the PWS. (Reference PWS paragraphs 1.3.6.1, 1.3.6.1.1, and 3.8(e))

d. The Offeror provided an acceptable process of providing student transportation IAW the PWS.

(Reference PWS paragraphs 1.3.6.2, 1.3.6.2.1 thru 1.3.6.2.5, and 3.8(a)-(d), 4.1.2, and 4.4)

D. FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Offerors must receive a past performance rating of “Acceptable” to be eligible for award.

(a) Procedures in Evaluating Past Performance

(b) Recency: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be Recent, the effort must have been performed during the three (3) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation, to include at least 90 days of documented performance during the three (3) year period. If past performance information is not recent it will not be considered.

(c) Relevancy: The Government will evaluate the relevancy of offeror’s past performance and assign ratings of relevant or not relevant. The Government will combine all recent past performance information obtained and determine an aggregate relevancy assessment. In determining relevancy consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor. The relevancy of recent contracts will be assessed as defined in Table 2 below.

TABLE 2

RATING DESCRIPTION

RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

To be considered Relevant, the aggregate of the combination of the offeror, major subcontractor, and/or teaming partner’s recent past performance information, up to four (4) contracts, must demonstrate the following:

(a) Documented services (USG Contract or Commercial Contract) efforts that are similar to this effort in size and complexity that provide maintenance training in light, turbo propeller airframes in support of international training and provide student support services to include transportation and lodging.

(b) A minimum ability to provide Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) maintenance training for students with limited maintenance experience to individual qualification in the Cessna 208 aircraft system and the ability to provide student support services for approximately 100 students per year.

NOT RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

To be considered Not Relevant, the aggregate of the combination of the offeror, major subcontractor, and/or teaming partner’s recent past performance information, up to four (4) contracts, did not demonstrate the following:

(a) Any contract efforts that involve little to no experience in providing similar scope to this effort, little to no experience with international training or providing student support services to include transportation and lodging.

(b) A minimum ability to provide Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) maintenance training for students with limited maintenance experience to qualification in the Cessna 208 aircraft system and ability to provide student support services for approximately 100 students per year.

(d) Acceptability: The Government will determine how well the offeror performed on past contracts and assign ratings of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” using descriptions in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Past Performance Evaluation Rating.

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*.

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.

*In 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 assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

(e) Sources of Past Performance Information for Evaluation: 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 information obtained from Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting Systems (CPARS), Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and/or the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA).

(f) The quality assessment for each recent and relevant past performance information reviewed, will be assessed based on the evaluation ratings obtained from CPARS, PPIRS (if available), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and/or DCMA. The quality assessment may reveal positive or adverse past performance information. Adverse past performance 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. Multiple ratings of less than “Satisfactory” in CPARS, PPIRS, or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and/or DCMA may result in a performance quality assessment rating of “Unacceptable.” Offerors may be given an opportunity to respond to adverse past performance information for which they have not previously had an opportunity to address.

E. FACTOR 3 – SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

If the Offeror is other than a small business, the Offeror must complete the Subcontracting Plan Checklist in Attachment 5 of the RFP and provide all the required documentation required by FAR 52.212-1 Addendum.

(a) If the offeror is other than a small business, the offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan submitted IAW 52.219-9 will be evaluated for acceptability. The Government will evaluate the Subcontracting Plan using the Subcontracting Plan Checklist attached to the RFP. Offerors shall identify and commit to the participation of Small Businesses (SB),Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB), Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB), Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone), and Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB) whether as joint venture members, teaming arrangement, or subcontractor. Goals provided by the offerors will be incorporated into and become a part of the contract. The successful offeror will be required to provide reports on small business participation IAW FAR 52.219-9. Failure to submit a plan as outlined above will render the offeror ineligible for award.

(b) The offeror’s proposed approach will be evaluated on whether it sets forth achievable subcontracting goals.

(c) The proposal will be evaluated for the commitment to use SB, VOSB, SDVOSB, HUBZone, SDB, and WOSB.

(d) In order to be found “Acceptable,” an offeror’s subcontracting plan must provide achievable goals (past performance information on complying with subcontracting plan goals, if available, will be used to validate whether the offerors’ proposed goals are achievable).

F. FACTOR 4 – PRICE

The source selection will be conducted with the expectation of adequate price competition per FAR 15.403- 1(c)(1)(i); therefore, certified cost or pricing data is not required. However, if at any time during this competition the PCO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists or that price reasonableness or balance cannot be determined, Offeror(s) may be required to submit data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, for the CO to determine price reasonableness and balance. The Government will evaluate the price information submitted by an Offeror as required per 52.212-1of the RFP, to determine if the proposed prices are fair, reasonable and balanced as determined by one or more of the proposal analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404 based upon an Offeror's proposed approach.

(a) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP for each offeror evaluated will be determined by first multiplying the quantities in the Schedule of Supplies/Services by the fully-burdened unit price (rounded to the nearest whole dollar amount) entered for each FFP CLIN to confirm the extended total amount for each FFP CLIN, which should exactly equal the quantity multiplied by the unit price. The TEP will not include the Not-to-Exceed cost reimbursable CLINs. The sum of the extended total amounts for all FFP CLINs for all four (4) pricing periods will equal the TEP. Failure to comply with the Schedule of Supplies/Services may render the proposal unacceptable and ineligible for award.

(b) FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, will be incorporated into the resultant contract. Upon exercise, the clause will extend the terms and conditions of the contract period being extended at the rates specified in the contract for a period not to exceed 6 months. Per FAR 17.207(f), all pricing period prices for the FFP CLINs will be evaluated during the initial contract award process and determined fair and reasonable. Therefore, in the event the Government requires continued performance beyond the awarded contract performance period, the Government’s evaluation of prices proposed for all pricing periods will be considered fair and reasonable as applied to an extension of services (IAW FAR 52.217-8). Should an extension of services be required, rates will be adjusted only as a result of revisions to applicable prevailing Department of Labor wage rates. Costs associated with the Cost Reimbursable CLINs will be evaluated and negotiated after contract award as needed at the task order level.

(c) Reasonableness: For the offerors being evaluated, prices and data other than certified cost or pricing data submitted in the Volume II Price Proposal, as required by Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, will be evaluated for price reasonableness, pursuant to FAR 12.209 based upon each offeror’s proposed approach. For additional information, see FAR 31.201-3. If the CO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, the CO may request and evaluate additional data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, to make a determination of price reasonableness.

(d) Unbalanced Pricing: The Government may also determine a proposal is unacceptable should the proposed prices be materially unbalanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line item or sub-line item appears to be significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. An offer may be rejected if the PCO determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(end of provision)