Attch_2_ADDENDUM_TO_52.212-2.docx

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

This acquisition will utilize the best value approach, in which the Government seeks to award to an offeror who provides the greatest confidence that they will meet the Government’s requirements affordably. The Best Value technique for this acquisition will be Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT), where technical and past performance, when combined, are significantly more important than price.”

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

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 the 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 offerors proposal non-responsive and no further evaluation will be conducted.

The second (2nd) step of the evaluation process is to evaluate prices and order all responsive offers by price from lowest to highest.

The evaluation team will then proceed to the third (3rd) step. The first three (3) of the lowest priced responsive offers shall be evaluated for technical acceptability. In the event that the first three evaluated offers do not yield an offer with an acceptable technical rating, the evaluation process will continue in increments of the next three lowest priced responsive offers until a technically acceptable offer is identified.

After technical evaluations conclude, the fourth (4th) evaluation step begins. For those offers deemed technically acceptable, past performance will be evaluated for the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal. If the lowest priced evaluated offer has been determined technically acceptable, and is judged to have a Substantial Confidence rating that offer 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 offers.

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 award decision.

Offerors are cautioned to follow the detailed instructions fully and carefully, as the Government reserves the right to make an award based on initial offers received, without discussion of such offers. Non-responsive offers will not be evaluated.

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. Offerors may be required to participate in telephone discussions or in face-to-face oral discussions at the 1st Special Operations Contracting Squadron, 350 Tully Street, Hurlburt Field, FL.

Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their written offers (e.g., defining the relevance of the offeror’s technical information and adverse past performance information to which an offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor clerical errors. Any such exchange between the offeror and the Government will be for clarification only and will not constitute discussions within the meaning of FAR 15.306(a).

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

The Government intends to evaluate quotes and make award without discussions (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)), however, prior to establishing the competitive range of proposals for this acquisition, the contracting officer may conduct discussions, request clarifications, and/or have communications with offerors to determine technical acceptability of their proposal IAW the solicitation requirements. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical, performance and price standpoint.

The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

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 offers determined complete and responsive will be considered for further evaluation.

2. FACTOR 1: PRICE: All offers will be ranked by price:

2.2 Price quotes conforming to all requirements of this solicitation will be ordered based on the Total Evaluated Price:

2.2.1 Total Evaluated Price = (Total Evaluated Price for Base Period) + (Total Evaluated Price for Option Period 1) + (Total Evaluated Price for Option Period 2) + (Total Evaluated Price for Option Period 3) + (Total Evaluated Price for Option Period 4) + (Total Evaluated Price for Option to Extend Services IAW FAR 52.217-8 for CLINs 5001 and 5002):

2.2.1.1 Total Evaluated Price for Base Period Option Periods 1 through 4: 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.

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

2.2.1.2 Total Evaluated Price for Option to Extend Services IAW FAR 52.217-8: Offerors shall not submit pricing for the Option to Extend Services CLINS. The Government will calculate the Total Evaluated Price for Option to Extend Services IAW FAR 52.217-8 by multiplying a quantity of 6 months by the unit prices proposed for CLIN 4001. The prices are evaluated in the Total Evaluated Price for evaluation purposes only. The Option to Extend Services is not considered part of the contract period of performance and resultantly these totals will not be included in the contract value, however the CLINS will be included in the contract as information only.

2.2.2 Prices will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness:

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

2.2.2.2 CLINs X002 will be $5,000.00 NTE. CLINs X002 (fully burdened rates provided by the offeror) will be evaluated to establish fair and reasonable rates only. This total sum of $5,000.00 will be considered as part of the total evaluated price for price evaluation purposes for contract award.

3. FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL: The first three lowest priced offers will be evaluated for technical acceptability. If none of the first three lowest priced offers are determined technically acceptable, the technical evaluation will continue in increments of three until all offers are evaluated or until a technically acceptable offer is identified. 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 offerors determined to be technically acceptable will be considered for further evaluation.

3.1 The rating assigned to this factor will be based on the written 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:

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 clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

3.2 Part 1: Management Plan:

3.2.1 The Management Plan will be rated acceptable if it demonstrates a reasonable approach to managing the contract. The plan shall have demonstrated how the contractor will recruit / retain / replace personnel who have the knowledge, experience, training, and technical expertise / certification / security clearances commensurate with the requirements of the PWS. The plan shall have addressed any risks that are considered likely to have a significant adverse impact to schedule, or performance. The plan shall have identified key performance measures and objectives and shall state the process for taking those measurements and making organizational, operational and / or personnel changes necessary to maintain compliance with regulations.

3.2.1.1 Includes the number and labor category of personnel, equipment and supplies to be used; and

3.2.1.2 Includes information on how services will continue uninterrupted in the event of personnel absences.

3.3 Part 2: Transition Plan:

3.3.1 The Transition Plan will be rated as acceptable if it demonstrates a reasonable approach to managing, staffing, scheduling (with key milestones), equiping, and completing all required tasks within thirty (30) days of contract award and that the contractor will be able to perform IAW the PWS on the first day of the performance period without degradation in service from the previous contract; and

3.3.2 Includes the number and labor category of personnel to be used.

3.4 Part 3: Quality Control Plan:

3.4.1 The quality control plan will be rated as acceptable if it demonstrates a reasonable approach to successfully comply with the PWS and as a minimum addresses:

3.4.1.1 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

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

3.5 Only technically acceptable proposals will move on to the Past Performance phase of the evaluation.

4. FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE: 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.

4.1 Past Performance will first be evaluated for recency; all performance prior to three years from the date of the solicitation or not yet performed on the date of this solicitation will not be evaluated;

4.2 Past Performance will then be evaluated for relevancy and rated as relevant, somewhat relevant, or not relevant; and

4.3 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 Proposal, 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:

4.3.1 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;

4.3.2 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;

4.3.3 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;

4.3.4 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

4.3.5 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:

4.3.5.1 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.

4.4 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.

4.5 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;

4.6 If the lowest priced evaluated offer has been determined technically acceptable, and is judged to have a Substantial Confidence rating, that offer 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 offers; and

4.7 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 award decision.

(End of Addendum)

ATTACHMENT 2 FA4417-17-T-0002