Attachment 2 - Addendum to 52.212-2 (Revised Finalized).pdf

Attachment 2

Addendum to 52.212-2 - Evaluation Factors for Award

The significant evaluation factors are (i) price; (ii) technical and; (iii) past performance

1.0 Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the tradeoff source selection procedures wherein all evaluation factors other than price, are equal to price in accordance with (IAW) FAR 15.101-1 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS

215.300 and the DAFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. The Government intends to award two (2) contracts under this multiple award IDIQ. Offers will be ordered for evaluation by Total Evaluated Price (TEP); evaluations will begin with the lowest TEP offer. A decision on the technical acceptability, beginnings with the two lowest offeror’s proposal will be made. Among those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable and have a minimum of neutral past performance rating utilizing the Confidence rating method. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. The Government will select two offerors whose proposals conform to the following solicitation requirements: considered technically acceptable, substantial confidence regarding past performance (a neutral confidence rating can be selected for award if substantial and satisfactory confidence cannot be determined), is the lowest price, conforms to all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications and provides the best overall value to the Government based on the results of the overall evaluation described below.

2.0 Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR

15.306. The Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Services Acquisition Decision Authority (SADA), may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical and price standpoint.

3.0 Evaluation Process

Volume I – Contract Information (Verification)

3.1 Each offeror’s completed SF 1449 will be verified to ensure required fill-ins are properly completed and to verify the offer is valid for 180 days from the closing date of the solicitation. Evaluators will also ensure no exceptions were taken to the terms and conditions of the solicitation.

3.2 Each offeror will be checked for NIST SP 800-171 compliance and supplier risk within the Supplier

Performance Risk System (SPRS) in accordance with DFARS 252.204-7012 and DFARS 252.204- 7024.

Volume II – Technical Factor

3.3 Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactor below, to determine if the offeror demonstrates an acceptable submission that meets the requirements listed below. The technical proposal addresses the following subfactor in sufficient detail.

Subfactor 1: Certifications of Key Personnel

Program Manager:

• Honeywell Vindicator Certified to Operate and Maintain Vindicator

• Hirsch Velocity Certified

• PSG VICADS Certified

• Resume

Cybersecurity Personnel:

• Honeywell Vindicator Certified to Operate and Maintain Vindicator

• Hirsch Velocity Certified

• PSG VICADS Certified

• Resume

(Αt a minimum, all three certifications must be possessed by the team that is on site. Whether one key personnel has all three certifications or the certifications are split between the personnel. All three certifications are not required for both positions.)

Facility Security Officer:

• U.S. Citizen employed by a U.S. company

• Resume

3.4 The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical submission for meeting the Government’s requirement. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One technical rating will be assigned to the technical subfactor. To be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating for this subfactor.

Offerors shall provide copies of the above certifications for the key personnel identified. The Government prefers that offerors provide certifications with their proposals however, if at time of submission the certifications are not held, the offeror shall provide a detailed plan to disclose the method to obtain the required certifications within 60 days of contract award. An offerors’ proposal will not be deemed unacceptable if certifications are not provided at time of submission. Failure to provide either the certifications listed above or the detailed method to obtain the certifications may deem a proposal as unacceptable and eliminate that offer from competition.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Table M1

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

3.4.1 Offerors shall provide a signed statement asserting that they will adhere to the Non-Nuclear

Configuration Management Database (CMD) Equipment Approval Memorandum, Attachment #3.

The Offeror shall provide a statement to ensure that all deliverables to be supplied over the period of performance of the IDIQ contract will be compliant with the CMD Equipment Approval Memorandum. The Offeror must also provide a statement that, if the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC) updates, corrects, changes, or adds to the CMD Equipment Approval Memorandum, the offeror intends to comply with all regulations therein.

Volume III – Past Performance

3.5 General: This factor will address the offeror’s records regarding its quality of work, management, schedule, cost control and regulatory compliance. The offeror's past performance must have a minimum overall rating of "Neutral" to be accepted.

The Government will consider Present/Past Performance Information (PPPI) and Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. PPPI for customers where the Offeror performed as the prime contractor and/or subcontractor will be considered. PPPI as the prime contractor may be considered more relevant than performance as a subcontractor.

3.5.1 Past Performance Assessment: In assessing PPPI and PPQs, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

a) Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume. Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s System for Award Management and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources.

b) Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror 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.

3.5.2 Recency Definitions:

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be during the past six (6) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation and at least 50% complete or completed. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained.

A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent PPPI efforts submitted. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy.

3.5.3 Quality Assessment All recent past performance that is determined to be relevant will be reviewed to determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance. The Government may contact the people identified in the offeror’s Submitted PPQ attachments to obtain assessments of the quality of the offeror’s performance of the effort, including the number and severity of any identified problems and the effectiveness of any corrective actions taken.

3.5.4 Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method Table 5: As a result of the recency, relevancy of the contracts evaluated, one of the following ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor.

Adjectival Rating Description

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.

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.

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 past 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 no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Volume IV – Price

3.6 Total Evaluated Price (TEP): Proposals will be organized from lowest to highest TEP. The TEP will be utilized for establishing the evaluation order purpose. The TEP will encompass the overall price proposed for the initial task order. The offered price must be determined fair and reasonable and must be determined responsible IAW FAR 9.104-1. If two proposals are found to meet all the evaluation criteria, then the SADA may determine that proposals represent the best value and direct award be made to offerors without evaluating higher priced proposals or conducting discussions with previously evaluated, lower priced offerors.

4.0 Summary:

Selection Process: Proposals will be organized from lowest to highest Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP will be utilized to determine the order of evaluation.

Once the order of proposals is established the two proposals with the lowest TEPs will be submitted to the Technical Evaluation team for evaluation of Factor 2. If both receive "Acceptable" ratings for technical factors, they will then be evaluated for past performance under Factor 3. If both proposals receive "Substantial Confidence" ratings for Factor 3, they will be selected as the awardees and the source selection will stop and no further evaluations will take place.

If one only one proposal receives a "Substantial Confidence" past performance rating the next proposal with the next lowest TEP will then be evaluated for technical acceptability then past performance, continuing this process until two awardees meet the following minimum criteria:

1. "Acceptable" rating for technical sub-factor under Factor 2.

2. Obtain a "Substantial Confidence" rating for Factor 3 (If fewer than two proposals receive "Substantial Confidence" ratings, the Government may proceed with awarding to the next lowest TEP proposal with an "Acceptable" rating for Factor 2 and a "Satisfactory Confidence" rating for Factor 3.) If no offeror receives a "Satisfactory Confidence" rating under Factor 3, the Government will award to the two lowest TEP proposals with "Acceptable" ratings for Factor 2, and "Neutral Confidence" ratings under Factor 3.

Initial Task Order Selection Process: Immediately following the above outlined selection process for the two IDIQ awardees, the initial task order will be awarded to the lowest TEP proposal with the highest rating. The other awardee will be awarded the Post-Award Conference value outlined in the solicitation.

The offered price must be determined fair and reasonable, and the offeror must be determined responsible IAW FAR 9.104-1. If such proposal is found, then the SADA may determine that proposal represents the best value, and an award will be made to the two proposals the meet all requirement outlined in this source selection.