Attachment_2__-18_Aug__ADDENDUM_TO_52.212-2.pdf

FA4417-17-R-0015

Transient Alert / Wash Rack Services Hurlburt Field, FL

ATTACHMENT 2

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

1. Source Selection Methodology. This acquisition will utilize the Best Value Continuum, in which the Government seeks to award to an offeror who provides the greatest confidence that they will meet the Government’s requirements affordably in a way that will be advantageous to the Government. Subject Tradeoff source selections procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101- 1 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS

215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315 will be used to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The tradeoff process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to award to a higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines the high priced offeror outweighs the cost difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluation of the factors and subfactors described in this solicitation. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process is by its nature, subjective; therefore professional judgement is implicit throughout the source selection process.

2. Factors and Subfactors and Relative Importance: The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors and subfactors:

Factor 1 – Price

Factor 2 – Technical

Subfactor 1 – Management Plan

Subfactor 2 – Transition Plan

Subfactor 3 – Quality Control Plan

Factor 3 – Past Performance

Technical and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

3. Below is a synopsis of the evaluation steps; the evaluation process is defined in more detail immediately following the synopsis.

3.1. The first (1st) step of the evaluation process is to review the cover page and if applicable, any proposed Teaming Arrangement/Joint Venture Documentation for completeness. Teaming arrangements shall conform to all requirements identified in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 of this solicitation and including all elements stated in the addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items. If an offeror is claiming this business approach, failure to submit

Teaming Arrangement/Joint Venture documentation will render the offeror’s proposal non-responsive and no further evaluation will be conducted.

3.2. The second (2nd) step of the evaluation process is to evaluate prices, including all option prices.

3.3. The evaluation team will then proceed to the third (3rd) step. The Government Technical Evaluation Team shall evaluate all technical proposals and assign an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” rating as described in paragraph 5.3.1.1. below.

3.4. After technical evaluations conclude, the fourth (4th) evaluation step begins. The Government shall rank all technically acceptable offers by price, including all option prices and evaluate past performance. If the lowest priced evaluated proposal has been determined technically acceptable, and is judged to have a Substantial Confidence rating, that proposal represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other proposals.

3.5. If the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal is not judged to have a Substantial Confidence rating, the next lowest priced technically acceptable proposal will be evaluated and the process will continue in order by price until a proposal is judged to have a Substantial Confidence rating or until all proposal are evaluated. The Source Selection Authority will then make an integrated assessment to render the best value award decision.

3.5. Proposals that are unrealistic in terms of technical acceptability or price may be rejected at any time during the evaluation process. The Government reserves the right to establish a competitive range; discussions or negotiation may be conducted with all offerors in the competitive range. If discussions are utilized, Evaluation Notices (ENs) will be issued to those offerors in the competitive range allowing them the opportunity to revise their proposals. Once the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) determines that all ENs have been satisfactorily answered, discussions will be closed. Once discussions have concluded, if an offeror’s proposal has an “Unacceptable” rating for any Technical Subfactor, the proposal will be unawardable.

Proposals shall meet the PWS requirements and the evaluation criteria requirements in order to be considered for award.

4. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: By submission of its proposal, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications. The Government intends to award a contract to the offeror deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the Request for Proposal (RFP) requirements including all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the RFP and is judged, based on the evaluation criteria, to represent the best value to the Government. The Government intends to award one contract to the offeror who in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall value in response to the RFP requirements.

4.1. The Government reserves the right to open discussions, or to award without discussions, based on the initial proposals submitted. Therefore, offerors are cautioned to submit their best proposal initially. Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their written proposals (e.g., defining the relevance of the offeror’s technical information and respond to adverse past performance information to which an offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor clerical errors as described in FAR 15.306(a). Any such exchange between the offeror and the Government will be for clarification only and will not constitute discussions. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical, performance and price standpoint.

4.1.1. However, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions with offerors at any time during the evaluation process if the Contracting Officer determines it is in the best interest of the Government IAW FAR 15.306. Discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306.

The Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition amount the most highly rated proposals IAW FAR 15.306(c). Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the final source selection decision.

5. EVALUATION - The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

5.1. All offerors’ cover pages and (if applicable) teaming arrangements will be reviewed for completeness in accordance with the elements stated in the addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items, incorporated into this solicitation to determine the offeror as responsive or non-responsive. Only those proposals determined complete and responsive will be considered for further evaluation.

5.2. FACTOR 1: PRICE:

5.2.1. Proposals conforming to the requirements of this solicitation will be ordered based on Total Evaluated Price:

5.2.2. Total Evaluated Price = (Evaluated Price for Base Period CLINs 0001-0008) + (Evaluated Price for Option Period 1 CLINs 1001-1008) + (Evaluated Price for Option Period 2 CLINs 2001-2008) + (Evaluated Price for Option Period 3 CLINs 3001-3008) + (Evaluated Price for Option Period 4 CLINs 4001-4008) + (Evaluated Price for Option to Extend Services IAW FAR 52.217-8):

5.2.3. Evaluated Price for Base Period Option Periods 1 through 4 CLINS 0001-4008: Quantities identified will be multiplied by the unit price to confirm the extended price and then the extended price for all CLINS will be added together for a total for that specific period.

5.2.4. Unit prices shall be used in the event that extended prices are calculated incorrectly.

5.2.5. Evaluated Price for Option to Extend Services IAW FAR 52.217-8: The Government reserves the right to extend services for an additional 6 month extension period, in accordance with FAR 52.217-8. Offerors shall not submit pricing for the six (6) month extension option.

The Government will calculate the Total Evaluated Price for the six month extension period by multiplying half the quantities by the unit prices for CLINs 4001-4008 (Option Period 4).

Evaluated Price for Option to Extend Services six month extension is included in the Total Evaluated Price for evaluation purposes only. The Option to Extend Services price totals will not be included in the contract value. If the Government exercises FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, the extension will not exceed 6 months total and CLINS will be added to the contract at the time FAR 52.217-8 is exercised at a monthly price equal to the preceding period of performance’s monthly price in accordance with FAR 52.217-8.

5.2.6. The Government will review pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with the solicitation. Price will be evaluated using techniques established in FAR 15.404-1 to ensure the Government receives fair, reasonable, and balanced prices:

5.2.7. The Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price; and

5.2.8. Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze each proposal to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices proposed on different CLINs for the same of similar services in the same or similar quantities with respect to option pricing. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the prices are significantly unbalanced or if the unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

5.29. If the Government cannot determine the proposed pricing to be fair and reasonable, other than certified cost and pricing data will be obtained from the offerors.

5.3. FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL: All proposals will be evaluated for technical acceptability.

The technical rating reflects the degree to which the offeror’s proposal meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements. The focus is on the ability of the offeror’s proposal to meet the minimum requirements of the PWS. Technical proposals will be assessed a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” IAW Table C-1 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures effective 1 April 2016. To be eligible for award, offerors are required to receive an overall “Acceptable” rating in the Technical Factor. Failure to meet the requirement in any subfactor will render the entire Technical Factor an “Unacceptable” rating. Proposals that exceed the evaluation criteria will not receive higher ratings. In assessing the acceptability of the

Technical Factor, any weaknesses or deficiencies will be noted in accordance with the definitions located in Section 5, Definitions, of the DoD Source Selection Procedures. Proposals that receive weaknesses in the Technical Factor may receive an “Unacceptable” rating depending on the nature of the weakness. Proposals that receive a deficiency in the Technical Factor will receive an “Unacceptable.”

Procedures at FAR 15.306, Exchanges with Offerors After Receipt of Proposals, may be implemented to determine technical acceptability in accordance with the solicitation requirements. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable will be considered for further evaluation.

5.3.1. The rating assigned to this factor will be based on the offeror’s technical proposal. The validity and thoroughness of the offeror’s technical proposal will be evaluated as specific evidence of the offeror’s understanding and capability to perform this requirement. An overall rating will be assigned; failure to be assigned an acceptable rating in any element will render the proposal unacceptable:

5.3.1.1. Definitions: Evaluators shall assign a rating which falls within one of the following definitions according to the degree which the offeror’s technical proposal meets the minimum requirement described below:

Acceptable: Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable: Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

5.4. Part 1: Management Plan:

5.4.1. The Management Plan will be rated acceptable if it demonstrates a reasonable approach to managing the contract and demonstrates an understanding of the requirements of the PWS. The plan shall have demonstrated how the contractor will recruit, retain, and replace personnel who have the knowledge, experience, training, and technical expertise (to include certification and security checks) commensurate with the requirements of the PWS.

5.4.2. The plan shall have demonstrated a reasonable approach to manning the contract by the number and labor category of personnel; and

5.4.3. The plan shall have demonstrated a reasonable approach on how services shall continue uninterrupted in the event of long term (two weeks or more) personnel absences due to sickness, vacations, and attrition.

5.4.4. The plan shall have demonstrated a reasonable approach of how the contractor shall continue to perform Essential Contractor Services identified in PWS paragraph 1.7 (CLINs 0001, 1001, 2001, 3001, 4001, 0003, 1003, 2003, 3003, and 4003) in accordance with DFARS

252.237-7023 and includes the minimum items as identified in accordance with DFARS 252.237-7024 and paragraph 4.4.3.1.1.3 of the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1.

5.5. Part 2: Transition Plan:

5.5.1. The Transition Plan will be rated as acceptable if it demonstrates a reasonable approach to how the offeror intends to manage, staff, schedule, and complete all required tasks within (21) twenty-one days of contract award so that the contractor will be able to perform IAW the PWS on the first day of the performance period without degradation in services from the previous contract.

5.5.2. The Transition plan demonstrated a reasonable sequence of events and also includes milestones for startup, mobilization and training.

5.6. Part 3: Quality Control Plan:

5.6.1. The Quality Control Plan will be rated as acceptable if it demonstrates a reasonable approach to successfully complying with the PWS and as a minimum addresses:

5.6.2. Quality Control Procedures used to ensure compliance with the PWS, Service Summary and procedures used to identify, prevent, and ensure non-performance and continual repeat of defective service does not occur; and

5.6.3. Inspection procedures, including a detailed schedule per month, quarter, and year.

5.6.4. Includes a description of the records to be kept to document inspections and corrective or preventive action taken, in addition to where the records shall be maintained and available to Government personnel upon request.

5.7. FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE: All technically acceptable offerors will be ranked by priced and the past performance evaluation will begin with the lowest priced offer. The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance record. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint members,’ and if applicable, any proposed teaming subcontractors’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying services that meet users’ needs. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered.

5.7.1. The Government will evaluate the recency, relevancy and quality of the offerors’ provided past performance information, past performance questionnaires received and other past performance information data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources to include, but not limited to: the Past Performance Information Retrieval System

(PPIRS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases.

5.7.1.1. Past Performance will first be evaluated for recency. The definition of recent as related to this solicitation includes performance within the last three years from the issue date of this solicitation. All performance prior to three years from the date of the issuance of solicitation or not yet performed on the date of this solicitation will not be evaluated.

5.7.1.2. Past Performance will then be evaluated for relevancy and shall be assigned one of the relevancy definition ratings as described below when the offeror has identified and demonstrated what elements of each contract are deemed relevant to this solicitation and indicate what percentage of service was performed by the offeror (prime), subcontractor (if applicable) and teaming contractor (if applicable). The final determination of the identified and demonstrated relevancy elements of each contract will be the decision of the government.

The primary aspect of relevancy, as it pertains to this solicitation, is based on the similarity of services performed in the past. Relevance for Past Performance will be assessed against the following:

(1) Number of TA aircraft serviced monthly/annually

(2) Number of aircraft washed monthly/annually

(3) Size of airframe washed

Definitions of relevancy are as follows:

VERY RELEVANT. Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. In order to be defined as Very Relevant, the effort shall have included the below services:

(1) Number of TA aircraft serviced monthly/annually: 51+ monthly / 601+ annually

(2) Number of aircraft washed monthly/annually: 31+monthly / 360+ annually

(3) Size of airframe washed: Large airframe (C-130 / C-5 / C-17 / B52 etc.)

RELEVANT. Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. In order to be defined as Relevant, the effort shall have included:

(1) Number of TA aircraft serviced monthly/annually: 30 - 50 monthly / 360 - 600 annually

(2) Number of aircraft washed monthly/annually: 20 – 30 monthly / 240 - 359 annually

(3) Size of airframe washed; Medium airframe (CV-22 / A-10 / Fighters / Helicopters)

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT. Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. In order to be defined as Somewhat Relevant, the effort shall have included:

(1) Number of TA aircraft serviced monthly/annually: 16 - 29 monthly / 181 - 359 annually

(2) Number of aircraft washed monthly/annually: 10 – 19 monthly / 100 - 239 annually

(3) Size of airframe washed; Small airframe (Cessna / U-28)

NOT RELEVANT. Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. In order to be defined as Not Relevant, the effort shall have included:

(1) Number of TA aircraft serviced monthly/annually: 15 or less monthly / 180 or less annually

(2) Number of aircraft washed monthly/annually: 9 or less monthly / 99 or less annually

(3) Size of airframe washed; Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs/Drones).

5.7.2. Past Performance will finally be evaluated for quality and assigned one of the following performance confidence assessment ratings based on the information provided in the Past Performance Volume, other past performance information data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources, to include, but not limited to: the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases, and questionnaires received.

5.7.2.1. 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;

5.7.2.2. 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;

5.7.2.3. 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.

5.7.2.4. 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;

5.7.2.5. 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; and

5.7.3. In the case of an offeror without a record of recent and 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. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating

5.7.4. Performance confidence assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood for the Government’s confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements based upon the offeror’s past performance information.

5.7.5. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will not be considered as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. Past performance regarding minor members of Joint Ventures will be considered in accordance with the member’s share of the prospective contract;

5.7.6. Adverse Past Performance: Offerors will be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

5.7.7. If the lowest priced evaluated proposal has been determined technically acceptable, and is judged to have a Substantial Confidence rating, that proposal represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other proposals; and

5.7.8. If the lowest priced technically acceptable offeror is not judged to have a Substantial Confidence rating, the next lowest priced technically acceptable offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue in order by price until an offeror is judged to have a Substantial Confidence rating or until all offerors are evaluated. The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment to render the Best Value Continuum award decision.

(End of Addendum)