Attachment 2 52.212-2 Addenda - Amended.docx

ATTACHMENT 2 - ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2, EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

The following is inserted as new paragraph (d) of the provision:

(d) BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Parts 12, 15; Air Force FAR Supplement (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedure (MP) 5315.3, and the Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures in which competing offerors’ combined past performance information and technical acceptability will be approximately equal to price. 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. All technically acceptable offers will be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. Any proposal with an unacceptable Technical rating will not receive further evaluation. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined unacceptable. The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP), if the difference in the Past Performance Confidence Rating of another offeror justifies the higher price premium. In that event, the Source Selection Authority will make an integrated assessment best value award decision using the TEP and the Past Performance Confidence Rating. The evaluation process will include the following:

(1) Technical Acceptability Factor. The Government will evaluate technical proposals on a pass/fail basis and assign an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating as described in Table 1 below. A rating of unacceptable in one or more technical subfactor will constitute an overall rating of Unacceptable for the technical evaluation. The offeror’s proposal shall, at a minimum, address each of the subfactors outlined below as they apply to the Performance Work Statement (PWS), in Attachment 1. Detailed preparation instructions are included in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1(m), Proposal Preparation Instructions.

Table 1. Technical Acceptability Ratings, Defined

The proposals will be evaluated against the following subfactor(s):

Subfactor 1, Virtual School Capabilities. This subfactor is met when the offeror successfully demonstrates how their virtual school technology will satisfy the requirements in PWS Sections 4 and 5. The offeror will demonstrate how their virtual school technology will satisfy the requirements in PWS Sections 4 and 5. The offeror will demonstrate the ability to provide a learning management system and course materials in support of the Syllabus and Lesson Plan in PWS Appendices 4 & 5, taught in a) Bulgarian b) French, or c) Spanish. To enable this demonstration, the contractor will send the government a welcome e-mail with instructions for logging onto their Virtual School, email address is kimberly.knott.1@us.af.mil and mark.restad.1@us.af.mil. The government will sample various functions of the school. The “Instructions to Offerors” column on the left is verbatim from the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 and is provided here for quick reference only.

At a minimum, the contractor must demonstrate ability to fulfill the following requirements:

Table 2: Subfactor 1: Virtual School Capabilities

(1) Registration Instructions: Demonstration of how the contractor will e-mail course registration information to students IAW PWS 5.2.6.1. The contractor’s initial registration e-mail to students will include information on the course (language, level, start date, end day, days, times, etc.). As an e-mail attachment, the contractor will provide the Client’s approved Statement of Understanding (SOU) (Appendix 8).

(2) Access and Navigation: The Virtual School web interface must be Operating System (OS) and hardware agnostic, accessible to any one of a wide-variety of internet-enabled devices, to include Personal Computer (PC), mobile, iOS, and Android devices and IAW PWS paragraph 4.1.3. The government will utilize a variety of devices and peripherals to access the Virtual School.

(3) Technical Requirements. The Virtual School must demonstrate technical requirements specified in PWS Figure 4.2, items a, b, c, e, f, h, and r.

(4) Virtual Homeroom Functionality: Demonstration of Virtual Homeroom with functionality IAW PWS paragraph 4.1.4, to include a document repository (syllabi, lesson plans, homework assignments or projects, assessments), course schedule, announcements, homework assignments, attendance tracking, student and eMentor contact information (with protections of the Privacy Act of 1974). The government will upload sample homework to the Virtual Homeroom. The government will download the course syllabus and class lesson plan IAW Appendices 4 and 5. The government will download a sample PowerPoint presentation, developed by the offeror, for the “Involvement in Conflicts” lesson – minimum of 10 and maximum of 15 slides with embedded web site links, IAW Subfactor 3(5).

(5) Resource Library: Demonstration of the resource library that allows users to search, view, and download course materials in either (a) Bulgarian, (b) French, or (c) Spanish, regardless of course level in accordance with PWS paragraph 4.1.5. The offeror must display self-generated material and/or open source material such as articles and videos. Offerors must cite sources.

(6) Helpdesk. Demonstration of how students will be able to communicate technical issues to the helpdesk through chat support and e-mail IAW PWS paragraph 4.3, PWS Figure 4.2, item p and PWS paragraph 5.2.6.

(1) The offeror’s e-mail must demonstrate the ability to accurately communicate course information to the student. The offeror’s e-mail must include information on the course (language, level, start date, end date, days, times, etc.) and instructions for logging onto the Virtual School with attached Client’s approved Statement of Understanding (SOU) (Appendix 8).

(2) The offeror’s Virtual School web interface must be Operating System (OS) and hardware agnostic, accessible to any one of a wide-variety of internet-enabled devices, to include Personal Computer (PC), mobile, iOS, and Android devices and peripherals IAW PWS paragraph 4.1.3. The government will utilize a variety of devices and peripherals to access the Virtual School.

(3) The Virtual School must clearly demonstrate technical requirements specified in PWS Figure 4.2, items a, b, c, e, f, h, and r.

(4) The Virtual School must demonstrate Virtual Homeroom functionality that allows a student to access the document repository (syllabi, lesson plans, homework assignments or projects, assessments), course schedule, announcements, homework assignments, attendance tracking, student and eMentor contact information (with protections of the Privacy Act of 1974), IAW PWS paragraph 4.1.4. The government will upload sample homework to the Virtual Homeroom. The government will download the course syllabus and class lesson plan IAW Appendices 4 and 5. The government will download a sample PowerPoint presentation, developed by the offeror, for the “Involvement in Conflicts” lesson – minimum of 10 and maximum of 15 slides with embedded web site links, IAW Subfactor 3(5).

(5) The Virtual School must demonstrate the Resource Library that allows users to search, view, and download course materials in either (a) Bulgarian, (b) French, or (c) Spanish, regardless of course level in accordance with PWS paragraph 4.1.5. The government will search, view, and download the offeror’s self-generated material and/or open source material such as articles and videos. The government will review resource library materials to ensure sources are cited.

(6) The offeror must demonstrate how students will be able to communicate technical issues to the helpdesk through chat support and e-mail IAW PWS paragraph 4.3, PWS Figure 4.2, item p and PWS paragraph 5.2.6. The government will communicate a message to the helpdesk via e-mail and chat.

Subfactor 2 – Management Plan. This subfactor is met when the offeror’s management plan describes its approach/process to ensure functional continuity and capability to address all requirements described in the PWS. At a minimum, the management plan will describe how the offeror will satisfy PWS requirements in Table 3 below: The evaluation will address the offeror’s response as outlined below in the right-hand column. The “Instructions to Offerors” column on the left is verbatim from the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 and is provided here for quick reference only.

Table 3. Subfactor 2: Management Plan

(1) Key Personnel. The offeror will submit resumes for the two qualified personnel intended to fill the two positions designated as key personnel IAW PWS paragraph 7.1 and PWS Figure 7.3.

(2) Plan for recruiting a cadre of qualified eMentor instructors IAW PWS paragraph 3.4.1 and subparagraphs.

(3) Plan for training and certifying eMentors IAW PWS paragraph 3.4.3 and subparagraphs.

(4) Plan for grouping students. The offeror will describe in detail how they will group students in order to enhance the peer-to-peer academic experience and meet student throughput requirements IAW with PWS paragraph 5.2.4. The offeror will provide visual “screen shot” illustrations of their scheduling algorithm that meet requirements IAW PWS paragraph 5.2.4.

(1) Two resumes for the two qualified key personnel positions must reflect the offeror’s ability to satisfy requirements stated in PWS paragraph 7.1 and PWS Figure 7.3.

(2) The offeror’s plan must demonstrate ability to recruit a cadre of qualified eMentor instructors IAW PWS paragraph 3.4.1. and subparagraphs.

(3) The plan must demonstrate how the offeror will ensure eMentors are trained and certified for eMentor instruction, IAW PWS paragraph 3.4.3 and subparagraphs.

(4) The plan must describe in detail how the offeror will group students in order to enhance the peer-to-peer academic experience and meet student throughput requirements IAW with PWS paragraph 5.2.4. The government will evaluate this plan IAW PWS paragraph 5.2.4 and visual “screen shot” illustrations of their scheduling algorithm.

Subfactor 3 – Sample Lesson Presentation. This subfactor will be met when the offeror provides a recorded 1-hour lesson presentation demonstration that supports a lesson plan IAW PWS Section 3. The sample lesson presentation shall demonstrate content that an instructor will present live, synchronously to one or more students in support of lesson plan “Involvement in Conflicts,” (first hour, Introduction & Review, Presentation, and Guided Practice) IAW PWS Appendix 5. The lesson will be taught in a) Bulgarian b) French, or c) Spanish. The offeror will make this lesson presentation demonstration available for viewing and download through the Virtual School, accessible via the link provided as part of Subfactor 1. The offeror may use self-generated material such as matching vocabulary exercises and/or open source material such as links to online articles and videos. Offerors must cite sources. The evaluation will address the offeror’s response as outlined below in the right-hand column. The “Instructions to Offerors” column on the left is verbatim from the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 and is provided here for quick reference only.

Table 4. Subfactor 3: Sample Lesson Presentation

(1) Curriculum Development and Design: Through the sample presentation, the contractor will demonstrate their ability to update and/or develop classroom slides and activities in the target language that support each lesson plan IAW PWS paragraph 3.1.4.

(2) Instruction: During the recorded lesson, an instructor must interact with one or more students and demonstrate use of the Virtual School’s fully collaborative environment by demonstrating that the Virtual School meets the requirements in PWS Figure 4.2., items i, j, k, and l.

(3) Lesson Content: During the recorded lesson, the instructor must cover all objectives and samples of behavior stated in the “Involvement in Conflicts” (first hour, Introduction & Review, Presentation, and Guided Practice) lesson plan IAW Appendix 5 of the PWS. The instructor must provide an introduction and review, presentation, and guided practice, as outlined in the lesson plan.

(4) Helpdesk. During the recorded lesson, the offeror must simulate communication from the student or instructor to the helpdesk, with a response from the helpdesk, demonstrating how within three minutes’ notification of any technical issue during class that the eMentor instructor cannot immediately resolve, a technical support representative will remotely access the classroom to address the system, hardware, and/or software problems or failures IAW PWS paragraph 4.3.

(5) The offeror will provide a sample PowerPoint presentation for the “Involvement in Conflicts” lesson – minimum of 10 and maximum of 15 slides with embedded web site links, developed IAW PWS paragraph 3.1.4 and Appendix 5. This presentation must cover all objectives and samples of behavior stated in the lesson plan. The instructor must provide an introduction, presentation, guided practice, application, feedback, and conclusion, as outlined in the lesson plan. The presentation will be accessible for download in the Virtual School. A government evaluator with appropriate proficiency level in the language presented will review the presentation.

(1) Through the sample presentation, the contractor will demonstrate their ability to update and/or develop classroom slides and activities in the target language that support each lesson plan IAW PWS paragraph 3.1.4.

(2) The offeror must display an instructor interacting with one or more students and demonstrate that the Virtual School meets the requirements in PWS Figure 4.2., items i, j, k, and l.

(3) During the recorded lesson, the instructor must cover all objectives and samples of behavior stated in the “Involvement in Conflicts” lesson plan (first hour, Introduction & Review, Presentation, and Guided Practice) IAW Appendix 5 of the PWS. The instructor must provide an introduction and review, presentation, and guided practice, as outlined in the lesson plan. A government evaluator with appropriate proficiency level in the language presented will review the presentation.

(4) The simulated helpdesk call response must demonstrate the process a helpdesk technician will follow in support of the requirement to respond within three minutes’ notification of any technical issue during class that the eMentor instructor cannot immediately resolve IAW PWS paragraph 4.3.

5) The sample PowerPoint presentation must support the “Involvement in Conflicts” lesson – minimum of 10 and maximum of 15 slides with embedded web site links, developed IAW PWS paragraph 3.1.4 and Appendix 5. This presentation must cover all objectives and samples of behavior stated in the lesson plan. The instructor must provide an introduction, presentation, guided practice, application, feedback, and conclusion, as outlined in the lesson plan. The presentation will be accessible for download in the Virtual School. A government evaluator with appropriate proficiency level in the language presented will review the presentation.

(2) Past Performance Factor. The Government will evaluate recent and relevant performance information on all offerors based on (i) the references provided by the offeror, and (ii) any past performance information obtained from survey/questionnaires (RFP Attachment 5), and (iii) any data independently obtained by the Government. If a reference identified by the offeror in accordance with 52.212-1(m)B.3(e), does not submit a survey/questionnaire, the Government will follow up with the reference POC, but it is not responsible for the failure of a reference POC to provide a survey/questionnaire.

The past performance evaluation will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, or subcontractors that are proposed to perform major or critical aspects of the requirement (i.e., 25% or more of the work) when such information is relevant to this acquisition.

(A) Recent past performance information includes contracts performed and/or being performed for any customer within the last three (3) years from the issuance date of the solicitation, to include at least twelve (12) months of documented performance during the three (3) year period.

(B) Relevant contracts performance effort involved similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities to that required by this solicitation. The Government will assess relevancy for each contract and assign a rating as described in Table 5 below.

Table 5. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

· The effort involves Virtual School and Language Instruction Services > $10 million over the life of the contract.

· Performance must include the following services: Accessing the virtual school on most internet-accessing devices, including desktops, laptops, MACs, PCs, iPads, tablets, etc.; and ability for a variety of devices to log onto the virtual school and classroom simultaneously, including those with less than optimum bandwidth. Providing language instruction through eMentors that can speak, listen, read, and write at least 50 of the languages listed in the PWS, Appendix 2. Also scheduling 1,000 or more students per year in at least 50 of the languages listed in the PWS, Appendix 2, after considering all variables within a student’s data record such as Language, Inter-Agency Language Roundtable (ILR) Level, availability (days of the week, time of day, and time zone), course type, and previous academic record as well as instructors’ availability and competency.

· Performance must be done as the prime contractor, or, if a member of a joint venture or subcontractor, the Offeror must have contributed at least 50% of the effort.

· The effort involves Virtual School and Language Instruction Services > $5 million over the life of the contract.

· Performance must include the following services: Accessing the virtual school on most internet-accessing devices, including desktops, laptops, MACs, PCs, iPads, tablets, etc.; and ability for a variety of devices to log onto the virtual school and classroom simultaneously, including those with less than optimum bandwidth. Providing language instruction through eMentors that can speak, listen, read, and write at least 25 of the languages listed in the PWS, Appendix 2. Also scheduling 500 or more students per year in at least 25 of the languages listed in the PWS, Appendix 2, after considering all variables within a student’s data record such as Language, Inter-Agency Language Roundtable (ILR) Level, availability (days of the week, time of day, and time zone), course type, and previous academic record as well as instructors’ availability and competency.

· Performance must be done as the prime contractor, or, if a member of a joint venture or subcontractor, the Offeror must have contributed at least 50% of the effort.

· The effort involves Virtual School and Language Instruction Services > $2 million over the life of the contract.

· Performance must include the following services: Accessing the virtual school on most internet-accessing devices, including desktops, laptops, MACs, PCs, iPads, tablets, etc.; and ability for a variety of devices to log onto the virtual school and classroom simultaneously, including those with less than optimum bandwidth. Providing language instruction through eMentors that can speak, listen, read, and write at least 15 of the languages listed in the PWS, Appendix 2. Also scheduling 100 or more students per year in at least 15 of the languages listed in the PWS, Appendix 2, after considering all variables within a student’s data record such as Language, Inter-Agency Language Roundtable (ILR) Level, availability (days of the week, time of day, and time zone), course type, and previous academic record as well as instructors’ availability and competency.

· Performance must be done as the prime contractor, or, if a member of a joint venture or subcontractor, the Offeror must have contributed at least 50% of the effort.

(C) Sources. The Government will seek relevant performance information from the offeror in the form of Past Performance Questionnaires that are forwarded by the offeror to its selected sources; and data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. Performance information may also be obtained from the references for each past/present effort submitted and/or from other sources. The past performance evaluation will take into account information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, and/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:

(1) The performance of these past efforts is relevant to the proposed effort; and

(2) 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 the performance of the proposed effort.

(D) Performance Evaluation. In addition to evaluating the extent to which the offeror’s past performance meets the PWS and technical requirements of previous efforts, the assessment will consider things such as: the offeror’s history of adhering to schedules, the administrative aspects of performance, reasonable and cooperative behavior, and commitment to customer satisfaction.

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

1. Performance Confidence Assessment. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance. The Government will combine the recency, relevancy and performance evaluations of all of the efforts considered for the offeror to assign a Performance Confidence Assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence or No Confidence as described below in Table 6.

Table 6. Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

(3) Price Evaluation Factor. The Government will rank all offers by price, including all option prices. The price evaluation will document the fairness and reasonableness of the total evaluated price (TEP). Separately priced line items shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced.

1. Total Evaluated Price: A TEP will be computed for each offer in order to meet the requirements of FAR Parts 6 and 17. The offeror’s TEP will be determined as the sum of all Labor Hour CLINs (X001 and 2002) for the base period and all option periods.

1. Evaluating the Option CLINs does not obligate the Government to exercise the Options.

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

1. If the proposal analysis techniques listed above are insufficient to make a determination of price reasonableness or, if the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, the Contracting Officer may request submission of other than certified cost or pricing data and may use other proposal analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404, to the extent necessary, in order to make a determination of price reasonableness.

(4) Price Performance Trade-off. After the initial evaluation of each offeror’s price proposal, the Government will rank all offerors by price from the lowest TEP to the highest TEP and conduct the Technical Evaluation solely on the offer with the lowest TEP. If the lowest-priced offer is determined to be Technically Unacceptable, that offer will be eliminated from consideration and the next lowest priced offer will be evaluated for Technically Acceptability. Once the lowest-priced, Technically Acceptable offer is determined, the Government will then proceed to conduct the Past Performance Evaluation for the offeror. If this offeror is assessed a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence rating, its offer will be determined to represent the best value to the Government and no other offers will be evaluated or considered.

If the offeror with the lowest-priced, Technically Acceptable offer does not have a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment rating, the Government will then evaluate the next lowest-priced offer for Technically Acceptability and if determined Technically Acceptable, proceed to conduct a Past Performance Evaluation on that offeror. The process will continue (in ascending TEP) until the Government finds an offeror with a Technically Acceptable offer and a Substantial Confidence performance assessment rating or until all Technically Acceptable offers are considered.

The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will then make an integrated assessment, best value award decision which will include the offeror with a Substantial Confidence performance assessment rating (if found) and all technically acceptable offers with TEPs lower than the TEP of the offeror with the Substantial Confidence performance assessment rating; unless it is in the Government’s best interest to conduct discussions. For example: five technically acceptable offers are received; the offerors with the first and second lowest TEP offers have performance assessment ratings less than Substantial Confidence, but the offeror with the third lowest TEP has a performance assessment rating of Substantial Confidence. The SSA would make an integrated assessment, best value award decision among those three offerors.

The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors; however, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

(End of Addendum)

LEAP eMentor RFP Attachments

FA330020R0013