Section_L_and__M.pdf

Section L-52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items

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

PHYSICALLY REMOVED FROM ANY RESULTANT AWARD.

1.1 Addendum to 52.212-1(b), Submission of offers. Submit signed and dated offers no later than the date and time provided in Block 8, page 1 of the SF1449 to:

1st Special Operations Contracting Squadron

Attn: Destinee Narak

350 Tully Street, Building 90339

Hurlburt Field, FL 32544

1.2 Addendum to 52.212-1(c), Period for Acceptance of Offers. The paragraph is tailored as follows: "The offeror agrees to hold the prices and discount percentages in its offer firm for

120 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers."

1.3 Addendum to FAR 52.212-1(f), Late submissions, modifications, revisions, and withdrawals of offers. This paragraph is tailored to read as follows: Offerors are responsible for submitting electronic offers by the solicitation due date and time. Offers received after the solicitation due date and time are considered late and will be handled in accordance with FAR 52.212-1(f).

1.3.1 Only electronic versions of proposals will be accepted. Paper copies will be rejected and not considered for award. Offers may be submitted in one of the following three ways:

1.3.1.1 Submit offers electronically to Destinee Narak, destinee.narak@us.af.mil and Stephanie

McCullough, stephanie.mccullough@us.af.mil. All documents shall be submitted in .pdf format.

The title of the documents shall include the volume number and offeror's CAGE code (i.e. "Vol 1

Percentage CAGE#").

1.3.1.2 Hand carry/deliver offers in the form of CDs/DVDs containing electronic files. All documents shall be submitted in .pdf format. The title of the documents shall include the volume number and offeror's CAGE code (i.e., "Vol 1 Percentage CAGE#"). Contractors shall request base access for hand carried proposal deliveries NO LATER THAN 24 hours prior to the proposal due date/time by sending an email request to to Destinee Narak, destinee.narak@us.af.mil and Stephanie McCullough, stephanie.mccullough@us.af.mil identifying the company name and list of individuals requesting access to Hurlburt Field, FL.

Include Driver’s License number and State of Issuance for each individual.

1.3.1.3 Mail offers in the form of CDs/DVDs containing electronic files to the address noted in paragraph 1.1 above. All documents must be in .pdf format. The title of the documents shall include the Volume Number and the offeror's CAGE code (i.e., "Vol 2 Technical CAGE#").

1.3.2 All offers shall be complete, clearly presented, and contain sufficient detail for effective evaluation as detailed in Addendum to 52.212-2 of this solicitation. Offers shall be neat, indexed

(cross-indexed as appropriate) and assembled in an orderly manner. Elaborate artwork, expensive visual, and other presentation aids are neither necessary nor desired. Offers shall only contain information that is relevant to this solicitation.

1.3.3 Page Size, Format and Limit

1.3.3.1 A page is defined as each face of an 8 1/2" x 11" document containing information. Page limitations shall be treated as maximums and shall apply to all electronic files whether submitted via AMRDEC, email or CD/DVD. Pages in excess of the maximum page limited defined below will not be evaluated.

1.3.3.2 For the purpose of formatting, font size shall not be less than 12 pitch.

1.3.3.3 Pages shall be numbered sequentially in each volume and identify the solicitation number.

1.3.3.4 Page limits shall be considered maximums. Pages in excess of the maximum will not be read or evaluated. When Evaluation Notices (ENs) are necessary, the Government will issue them by electronic means to prospective offerors. Page limitations may be placed on responses to

ENs and such limitations will be provided at the time the EN is issued.

1.3.3.5 Indexing. Electronic files should be located in appropriately labelled files so as to easily discern each volume as outlined in 1.4.5 - 1.4.9. Each volume shall contain a detailed table of contents identifying the subparagraphs within that volume. The table of contents is not included in the maximum page limitation.

1.3.4 OFFER PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS: To assure timely and equitable evaluation of the offers, the offeror must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including format, terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors.

Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award.

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 discussions, of such offers. Non-responsive offers will not be evaluated.

The response shall include four parts: 1) Cover Page; 2) Volume I -Price; 3) Volume II -

Technical; and Volume III - Past Performance to be eligible for award. The content of each part is discussed below.

1.3.5 COVER PAGE. There is no page limitation for the Cover Page.

1.3.5.1 Solicitation Number

1.3.5.2 Solicitation Date and Time specified for receipt of offers

1.3.5.3 Company name

1.3.5.4 Company address and remit to address if different than mailing address

1.3.5.5 Company point of contact(s)

1.3.5.6 Company point of contact(s) e-mail address

1.3.5.7 Company point of contact(s) telephone numbers

1.3.5.8 SAM registration expiration date

1.3.5.9 CAGE code

1.3.5.10 DUNS number

1.3.5.11 Registration confirmation for NAICS 332510

1.3.5.12 Offer Acceptance Period.

1.3.6 VOLUME 1 -PRICE. There is no page limit for Volume 1. Offers shall submit the following information in Volume 1:

1.3.6.1 A statement the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the solicitations in its entirety. Offerors shall clearly identify any exceptions to the solicitation and provide accompanying rationale.

1.3.6.2 Complete blocks 12, 17a, 30a, 30b and 30c of the SF1449.

1.3.6.3 A statement acknowledging all solicitation amendments, if any were issued.

1.3.6.4 Completed Attachment Y, Pricing Discount Coefficient Table. The following is a brief explanation of Attachment Y, Pricing Discount Coefficient Table.

1.3.6.4.1 Offerors shall select pricing databases from the list of databases provided in SOW section 1.3.3 for each identified category of COCESS items, for which item prices and specifics can be researched. The offeror must propose a primary and alternate database for each category.

The offeror shall then propose a discount percentage for each corresponding database category.

The proposed discount percentage will automatically calculate a coefficient factor percentage for each category. By proposing a discount percentage against an identified database for each category, the offeror is proposing to sell items found in the database's corresponding category at the database's advertised price multiplied by the corresponding category's coefficient factor.

1.3.6.4.2 If an offeror proposes different discount percentages/coefficients for option years, the offeror must complete a Pricing Discount Coefficient Table for each proposed option year, per the instructions found in Attachment Y, Pricing Discount Coefficient Table.

1.3.6.5 Completed Attachment K, Common COCESS Items Price List. The following is a brief explanation of Attachment K, Common COCESS Items Price List.

1.3.6.5.1 Offerors shall complete Attachment K, Common COCESS Items Price List using the discount coefficients provided in Attachment Y, Pricing Discount Coefficient Table to calculate item prices.

1.3.6.5.2 If an item is found in both the primary and alternate databases, the offeror must complete Attachment K, Common COCESS Items Price List utilizing the primary database. If an item is not available in the primary database, the offeror must complete Attachment K, Common

COCESS Items Price List utilizing the alternate databases.

1.3.6.5.3 If the offeror chooses to propose different discount percentages in Attachment Y, Pricing Discount Coefficient Table for option years, a separate Attachment K, Common

COCESS Items Price List must be completed for each option year. The separate option year lists may be included on the same spreadsheet utilizing different tabs or "sheets." If the offeror does not complete separate pricing discounts for option years, it will be assumed the proposed pricing discounts in Attachment Y will extend to all available option years and will be evaluated accordingly.

1.3.6.6 Offeror's shall fill-in the HIGHLIGHTED cells only using the digital EXCEL

Spreadsheets provided as attachments. Do not attempt to alter any fields other than the highlighted cells. Separate option year lists may be included on the same spreadsheets utilizing different tabs or "sheets."

1.3.6.7 Completed representations and certifications at FAR Provision 52.212-3 and all other provisions and clauses that require fill-in information. See FAR 52.212-3 for those representations and certifications the offer shall complete electronically.

1.3.6.8 Teaming Arrangement Documentation (If Applicable). If Teaming Arrangements are contemplated they must comply with the appropriate Federal Regulations (13 C.F.R. Part 121

(Size Regulations), Part 124 8(a) & SDB) and Part 125 (Government Contracting Programs)).

Offerors shall provide the following information not later than the date and time proposals are due:

1.3.6.8.1 Signed Teaming Agreement.

1.3.6.8.2 Clearly establish roles of each party (the prime and subcontractor responsibilities for tasks, contract administration, proposals, work management, etc.).

1.3.6.8.3 Subcontractor past performance cannot be disclosed by the prime offeror without the subcontractor's consent. Include a letter from all subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor, only if it is being used as part of the past performance evaluation.

1.3.6.8.4 Identify each member's share of the prospective contract, 50/50, 51/49, etc.

1.3.6.8.5 Include exclusivity that the team member will not be replaced for the duration of the contract, any exceptions should be identified and assurance that the team members are not teaming with another firm for the same procurement.

1.3.6.8.6 Include a statement of acknowledgment that the prime contractor is responsible for adhering to contract terms and conditions and daily management. The prime contractor is obligated to negotiate in good faith and responsible for conveying mandatory Government terms and conditions to subcontractors.

1.3.6.8.7 Include a statement of acknowledgement that the prime contractor shall remain fully responsible for contract performance, regardless of any teaming agreement between the prime contractor and its subcontractors.

1.3.6.9 Financial Institution Reference Sheet

1.3.7 VOLUME II – TECHNICAL

The Technical Volume shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. Legibility, clarity and coherence are very important. Your responses will be evaluated against the Technical Factor as defined in

Addendum 52.212-2(3)(b). Proposals shall not simply rephrase or restate the Statement of Work or contain general statements such as "Standard procedures will be employed." Proposals shall provide convincing rationale addressing how the technical portion of the offer meets solicitation requirements. Offerors shall assume the Government has no prior knowledge of the offeror's experience. The Government will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offer.

Statements that the Offeror understands, can, or will comply with the Statement of Work

(including referenced publications, technical data, etc.); paraphrasing the Statement of Work or parts thereof (including applicable publications, technical data, etc.); and phrases such as

"standard procedures will be employed" or "well known techniques will be used," etc., will be considered unacceptable and will negatively impact the Offeror's rating under the Technical

Factor. Elaborate artwork, expensive visual, and other presentation aids are neither necessary nor desired.

1.3.7.1 The Technical Volume shall be comprised of two parts and shall be limited to no more than ten (10)pages each.

(1)Store Management Plan

(2)Transition Plan

1.3.8 Store Management Plan

1.3.8.1 The contractor shall submit a Store Management Plan with their proposal. The plan shall identify the management and staffing requirements the contractor plans to use to ensure compliance with Statement of Work.

1.3.9 Transition Plan

1.3.9.1 Offerors shall provide a Transition Plan that contains key milestones that illustrates when the offeror intends to manage, staff, equip, and complete all required tasks within 30 days after contract award and to be able to perform in accordance with the Statement of Work on the first day of the performance period without degradation of support from the previous contract.

1.3.10 VOLUME III - PAST PERFORMANCE. The Past Performance Volume is limited to no more than two pages per contract listed. Offerors shall submit contracts for the same or similar requirements described in the Statement of Work.

1.3.10.1 Offerors shall submit past performance information on nor more than five recent and relevant contracts performed for Federal agencies or commercial customers where offerors performed as the prime contractor that demonstrate offerors' ability to successfully perform the scope and breadth of the requirements described in the Statement of Work of this solicitation.

Past performance information submitted in excess of the first five contracts will not be evaluated.

1.3.10.2 Offerors with no same or similar past performance shall include this information in their past performance volume.

1.3.10.3 If a teaming arrangement/Joint Venture is contemplated for this solicitation, offerors shall submit any recent and relevant performance information on previous teaming arrangements/Joint Ventures with the same partner or as the same CAGE in this Solicitation. If this is a first time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide past performance information on no more than five contracts each.

1.3.10.4 Subcontractor Consent. Past Performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor's consent. Offerors shall submit in their Past Performance Volume a signed consent letter from all proposed subcontractors consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor.

1.3.10.5 Offerors shall submit the following information for each contract submitted in their past performance volume:

1.3.10.5.1.1 Company/Division name

1.3.10.5.1.2 Product/Service

1.3.10.5.1.3 Contracting Agency/Customer

1.3.10.5.1.4 Contract Number

1.3.10.5.1.5 Contract Dollar Value

1.3.10.5.1.6 Period of Performance

1.3.10.5.1.7 Verified, up-to-date name, address, e-mail address, telephone number of the

Government evaluator, contracting officer or customer POC responsible for the contract/work performed.

1.3.10.5.1.8 Explanation of how the scope of the referenced contract meets the relevancy definitions in this solicitation. Identify 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).

1.3.10.5.1.9 Comments regarding compliance with contract terms and conditions.

1.3.10.5.1.10 Comments regarding any known performance deem unacceptable by the customer or not in accordance with the contract terms and conditions, the resolution(s) implemented, and results.

1.3.10.5.1.11 If any of the contracts submitted were performed as teaming arrangements or joint venture partners, offerors shall thoroughly explain the relationship of each partner (e.g.

managing partner under the contract submitted) and the duties that each assumed in the submitted contract.

1.3.10.5.1.12 Past Performance Questionnaires, Attachment 2. Offerors shall complete Section

A, General Information and Send the Past Performance Questionnaires to their contract POCs listed in their Past Performance Volume. Past performance questionnaires received in excess to the first five contracts listed in the Past Performance Volume or, if applicable, for each party to the first time joint venture effort, will not be evaluated.

1.3.10.5.1.13 Offerors shall indicate in their past performance information, which POCs past performance questionnaires were sent to and confirm that the questionnaires were submitted.

1.3.10.5.1.14 Questionnaires shall be e-mailed by POCs directly to Destinee Narak, destinee.narak@us.af.mil and Stephanie McCullough, stephanie.mccullough@us.af.mil.

1.3.10.5.1.15 Completed questionnaires received or routed through the offeror, subcontractor or teaming contractor will not be accepted.

1.3.10.5.1.16 Offerors are responsible for sending and tracking the timely completion and submittal of past performance questionnaires. The responsibility to send out the questionnaires rests solely with the offeror and shall not be delegated to any other entity.

1.3.10.5.1.17 Offerors shall ensure questionnaires are submitted to Destinee Narak, destinee.narak@us.af.mil and Stephanie McCullough, stephanie.mccullough@us.af.mil no later than the solicitation closing date and time. Offerors shall also inform POCs of any extensions to the solicitation closing date.

(End)

Section M-52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Items 52.212-2, Evaluation - Commercial Items

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

(1) PRICE

(2) TECHNICAL

(3) PAST PERFORMANCE

mailto:stephanie.mccullough@us.af.mil

Technical and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Price when being evaluated.

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the

Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

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

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

1.1. This is a Subjective Tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Parts 12 and 15, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation

Supplement (DFARS), and Air Force FAR Supplement (AFFARS). Award will be made based on the Best Value, meaning 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 chosen for this acquisition will be Subjective Tradeoff, where technical and past performance, when combined, are significantly more important than price. No contract award shall be made unless the contracting officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility in accordance with FAR 9.104.

1.2. By submission of its offer, 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 Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR), as supplemented, whose offer conforms to solicitation requirements including all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the solicitation and is judged, based on the evaluation criteria, to represent the best value to the

Government.

1.3. The Government intends to evaluate offers and make an award without discussions. 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 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). Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a technical, past performance and price standpoint.

1.4 Although discussions are not intended, if at any time during the evaluation process it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to open and hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the selection decision.

1.4.1 Any revision or non-concurrence to contract terms and conditions submitted in the FPR may not be subject to further discussion or negotiation, and may render the offer unacceptable to the Government. This provision is not intended to restrict the offeror's opportunity to revise figures (e.g., prices, discounts, percentages, rates, etc.), rather it is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government, which could result if new or revised terms and conditions are submitted in the FPR that have not been fully disclosed, discussed, and understood during discussions or negotiations. Hence, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the FPR, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

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

2. SYNOPSIS OF EVALUATION:

The first step of the evaluation process is to review the cover page and if applicable, any proposed Team Arrangements/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 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.

2.1 The second step of the evaluation process is to evaluate prices and rank all responsive proposals by overall total evaluated price (TEP) from lowest to highest. The TEP shall be the sum of: (1) The total price of Solicitation Attachment K - Common COCESS Items Price List, this includes the base requirement and options to include FAR Clause 52.217-8, 6 month extension of services.

2.2. The evaluation team will then proceed to the third step. In the third step, the first five (5) of the lowest priced, responsive proposals shall be evaluated for technical acceptability and past performance. In the event that the first five (5) evaluated proposals do not yield at least two (2) offers with an acceptable technical rating and one (1) offeror with a Substantial Confidence past performance rating, the evaluation process will continue until these conditions are met or until all proposals are evaluated. The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment to render the best value award decision. The Source Selection Authority may also make the determination it is in the best interest of the Government to evaluate all offerors for technical acceptability and past performance prior to rendering the best value award decision.

3. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY:

Proposals will be evaluated using three evaluation factors, which are (I) Price (II) Technical, and

(III) Past Performance. All offeror cover pages and (if applicable) teaming arrangements will be reviewed for completeness in accordance with the requirements stated in Addendum to FAR

52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Items to determine the offeror responsive or non- responsive. Only those offers determined complete and responsive will be considered for further evaluation.

3.1 FACTOR 1: PRICE

Offers conforming to all requirements of the solicitation will be ordered from lowest to highest according to Total Evaluated Price (TEP). TEP will be calculated as follows:

3.1.1. TEP = Total Evaluated Price of Attachment K, Common COCESS Items Price List with the Attachment Y, Pricing Discount Coefficient discounts reflected.

3.1.2. Attachment K, Common COCESS Items Price List shall be completed utilizing the discount coefficient percentages proposed in Attachment Y, Pricing Discount Coefficient Table.

Discrepancies in prices between Attachment K, Common COCESS Items Price List and

Attachment Y, Pricing Discount Coefficient Table may render an offer as unacceptable.

3.1.2.1 If an offeror chooses to propose different discount percentages in Attachment Y, Database Pricing Discount for option years, a separate Attachment K must be completed for each option year. The separate option year lists may be included on the same spreadsheet utilizing different tabs or "sheets". If the offeror does not complete separate pricing dicounts for option years, it will be assumed the proposed pricing discounts in Attachment Y will extend to all available option years and will be evaluated accordingly. Prices will be evaluated for the base plus option year pricing, to include the 52.217-8, six (6) month extension of services. The six (6) month extension of service prices will be prices utilized during the option year in which the

52.217-8 clause is executed.

3.1.3. Attachment K, Common COCESS Items Price List is for evaluation purposes only and will not be awarded as an attachment to the resulting contract. However, Attachment Y, Pricing

Discount Coefficient Table will be placed on the awarded offeror's contract and will be strictly enforced to determine not-to-exceed prices for corresponding items (see SOW para 1.4.2).

3.1.4. Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze each offer to determine whether item prices are unbalanced with respect to prices proposed for similar items. An offer may be rejected if the Source Selection Authority determines prices are significantly unbalanced or if the unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3.2. FACTOR 2: TECHNIAL

Technical evaluations will start with the first five (5) of the lowest priced, responsive proposals.

If at least two (2) of the first five lowest priced offers are not determined technically acceptable, the technical evaluation will continue until two (2) offerors are found technically acceptable or until all offers are evaluated or the Source Selection Authority opens discussions if determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

3.2.1. The rating assigned to this technical evaluation factor will be based on the offeror's proposed technical volume. The validity and thoroughness of the offeror's technical volume 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 technical subfactor will render the entire technical volume of an offeror as unacceptable.

3.2.2 Evaluators will assign a rating as outlined below in Table C-1.

Table C-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.

3.2.3. Technical Subfactor 1: Store Management Plan

Offerors shall submit a Store Management Plan that clearly demonstrates offerors understanding of the management and staffing requirements of the SOW. The Store Management Plan will be rated acceptable if it meets the following minimum requirements:

3.2.3.1. Offeror shall submit a Store Management Plan that:

a. Identifies workforce composition (to include seasonal hiring if proposed) showing labor category, experience, contractor manning equivalents (CMEs), and associated number of hours for each functional area to meet all COCESS SOW requirements for the base period and all option years.

b. Includes an organizational chart that identifies key personnel such as the on-site contract manager, alternate contract manager(s), and all other personnel offerors propose to manage and staff this requirement.

c. Offeror submits a staffing plan that details how the offeror intends to recruit, retain, and replace sufficient personnel who have the knowledge, experience, and skills to perform as required in the COCESS SOW.

d. Identify how the offeror intends to continue uninterrupted services during personnel absences, such as sickness, vacations, etc. without any degradation in services provided.

3.2.4. Technical Subfactor 2: Transition Plan

Offerors shall submit a Transition Plan that clearly demonstrates a reasonable approach to how the offeror intends to manage, staff, schedule, and complete all required tasks within thirty (30) days of contract award so that the contractor will be able to perform IAW the SOW on the first day of the performance period without degradation in services from the previous contract.

3.2.4.1. Offeror shall submit a Transition Plan that:

a. Identifies plan for obtaining base and Common Access Card (CAC) access for personnel.

b. Identifies plan to stock the COCESS store with recommended store stock items.

3.3 FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

Offers evaluated for technical acceptability will also be evaluated for past performance. The

Government will evaluate the recency, relevancy, and quality of the offeror's past performance by analyzing offeror provided past performance information, past performance questionnaires received, and other past performance information data independently obtained from Government and/or commercial sources which may include, but not limited to: the Past Performance Information Retrieval

System (PPIRS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); or other databases.

3.3.1. Past Performance will first be evaluated for recency. Recent past performance information includes contracts performed and/or being performed for any customer within the last three (3) years prior to the issuance date of the solicitation. Recency will be evaluated as "meets" or "does not meet."

3.3.2. Past Performance will then be evaluated for relevancy. The offeror shall identify 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. Relevant past performance requires performance of COCESS contracts similar in scope, magnitude (dollar value), and complexity to the requirements defined in this solicitation.

3.3.3. Finally, Past Performance will be evaluated for quality and assigned a performance confidence assessment rating. Performance confidence assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood that the offeror will successfully perform the solicitation's requirements based upon the offeror's past performance information. Performance confidence will be assessed as one of the following rating categories:

Table C-2. Past Performance Confidence Ratings

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offerors recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offerors recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

**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. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of performance.

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.

No 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.

**NOTE: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, 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 (or "neutral") past performance.

3.3.4. 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.

3.3.5 Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information in the format specified in the proposal preparation instructions to permit a meaningful assessment of past performance.

Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond.

Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory confidence rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

3.3.6. At a minimum, the first five (5) lowest priced offers will be evaluated for technical acceptability and past performance. Evaluations will continue as necessary until at least two (2) offers are determined technically acceptable and one (1) offeror is determined to have a

Substantial Confidence Past Performance rating or until all offers are evaluated. The Source

Selection Authority will then make an integrated assessment to render the best value award decision, or may open discussions if determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

(End of provision)