Attch_3_Addendum_to_FAR_52.212-2,_Evaluation_of_Commercial_Items.docx

FA4452-17-R-0007

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation-Commercial Items

1.0 SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Price. A contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors-Commercial Items, of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award up to one COM-F III IDIQ contract, FA445218R0037 and one Initial GDSS Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Task Order concurrently. The government also anticipates awarding 10 subsequent TO’s in support of COM-F III directly following award of COM-F III IDIQ and Initial GDSS Task Order, however, the government reserves the right to make no award at all.

1.3 Discussions.

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

1.3.1 If the Government determines that, after the initial evaluation of proposals, discussions are necessary, the Government may make a competitive range determination (limited to a restricted number of the highest rated proposals) in order to establish a list of offerors with which it will conduct discussions.

1.3.2 Discussions will be initiated by the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) upon issuance of ENs to the offerors within the competitive range. ENs may be orally briefed to offerors prior to written release to ensure complete understanding by the respective offeror of any discrepancies.

1.3.3 The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government’s requirements and is not considered correctable, or if the amount and complexity of the corrections needed to meet the Government requirement is impractical, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1.3.4 Any offeror excluded at any time during the source selection process will be afforded the opportunity to request either a pre-award or post-award debriefing.

1.4 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers.

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in cost when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. The Government will conduct a price analysis to determine whether or not proposed prices are fair and reasonable. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate the COM-F III IDIQ and the Initial GDSS Task Order:

COM-F III IDIQ

Factor 1: Technical/Risk Subfactor 1: Mission Essential Subfactor 2: Knowledge of AMC C2, ITV, and Business Systems Subfactor 3: Labor Categories and Descriptions Factor 2: Price: ID/IQ Labor Categories

Initial GDSS Task Order Factor 1: Technical/Risk Subfactor 1: Technical Approach Subfactor 2: Staffing Approach Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

COM-F III IDIQ EVALUATION FACTORS

Regarding order of importance, the relative importance of each subfactor is as follows: Within the Technical factor, knowledge of the AMC C2, ITV, and Business Systems and Labor Categories/Descriptions subfactors are considered of equal importance and are significantly more important than Mission Essential.

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Price.

2.2 Factor 1: Technical –Subfactors 1

The technical evaluation for the mission essential subfactor provides for one distinct assessment of “acceptable/unacceptable”.

2.2.1 Technical Rating. A adjectival rating will be assigned to subfactors 1 IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures paragraph C.2.1.1, Table C1 (shown below) to reflect the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. In arriving at a best value decision, the Government will not give evaluation credit/positive consideration, i.e., assign a strength, for performance in excess of this specified threshold minimum requirements as this threshold and objective will only be evaluated on the stated “acceptable/unacceptable” basis.

Table C-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

2.2.2 Subfactor 1- Mission Essential: Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed technical solution based on the following measure of merit:

2.2.2.1- Provide Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan as required by DFARS 252.237-7024 for the tasks identified in PWS paragraph PWS Para 5.10.

2.3 Factor 1: Technical/Risk –Subfactor 2 and 3

The Technical evaluation for the knowledge of AMC C2, ITV, and Business Systems and Labor categories and descriptions subfactors provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Technical Rating and the Risk Rating. These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of each Technical subfactor.

2.3.1 Technical Rating. A color and an adjectival rating will be assigned to each subfactor IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures paragraph 3.1.2.1.1, Table 2A (shown below) to reflect the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. They focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements.

Table 2A. Technical Rating Method

Description

2.3.2 Subfactor 2- Knowledge of AMC C2, ITV, and Business Systems: Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed technical solution based on the following measure of merit:

2.2.3.1- Provide a narratrive which demonstrates your understanding of the Air Mobility Command (AMC) C2, ITV, and Business Systems structure.

2.3.3 Subfactor 3- Labor categories and descriptions: Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed technical approach based on the following measure of merit:

2.3.2.1- Provide labor categories and descriptions required to achieve the requirements of the PWS by completing Attachment 8 columns B and C. Descriptions shall include any associated education, experience, certifications, qualifications, security, and/or special skills of personnel. Attachment 7 – Labor Category Descriptions, which demonstrates the Governments labor categories and functional descriptions, is available to aid the offerors.

2.3.3 Risk Rating.

Assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The Technical Approach and Staffing Approach subfactors will receive one of the Risk ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures paragraph 3.1.2.1.2, Table 2B – Technical Risk Rating Method, excerpted below. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror's proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

Table 2B. Technical Risk Rating Method

2.4 Factor 2: Price: ID/IQ Labor Categories

Each offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated (but not rated) for award purposes. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated, as discussed below, to determine completeness and reasonableness of the proposed labor rates.

2.4.1 Offerors shall provide labor rates by completing Attachment 8 – IDIQ Pricing Worksheet. offeror shall submit pricing for the entire 5 year ordering period of the IDIQ (Columns E through N). The Labor categories and unit prices established for the IDIQ will be used for all future TOs.

2.4.2 The offerors’ proposals will be evaluated to determine completeness and reasonableness, as defined below.

2.4.2.1 Completeness. The proposals will be reviewed to determine the extent to which all the price elements of the offer have been addressed. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to ensure continuity and traceability of prices to the technical proposal and between the initial proposal and any revisions thereto. The review will determine the adequacy of the offeror’s proposal in addressing and fulfilling the solicitation requirements.

2.4.2.2 Reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. In the event that price analysis techniques at FAR15.404 are insufficient to establish a fair and reasonable price determination, other proposal analysis techniques may be used.

INITIAL GDSS TASK ORDER EVALUATION FACTORS

Regarding order of importance, the relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Technical and Past Performance are of equal importance. Within the Technical Factor, the Technical Approach and Staffing Approach subfactor are considered of equal importance

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

2.5 Factor 1: Technical/Risk

The Technical evaluation for the Technical Approach and Staffing Approach subfactors provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Technical Rating and the Risk Rating. These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of each Technical subfactor.

2.5.1 Technical Rating. A color and an adjectival rating will be assigned to each subfactor IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures paragraph 3.1.2.1.1, Table 2A (shown below) to reflect the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. They focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical Factor.

Table 2A – Technical Rating Method

Description

2.5.2 Subfactor 1: Technical Approach - Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed technical approach based on the following measures of merit.

2.5.2.1- Provide your approach for System Administration services for the GDSS hardware, software and related infrastructure for the following specific functions: provisioning; installation; configuration; operation; maintenance; and system monitoring. (PWS section 2.2.2.)

2.5.2.2- Provides your approach for Network Administration services for the GDSS hardware, software and related infrastructure for the following specific functions: provisioning; installation; configuration; security; operation; maintenance; and network monitoring. (PWS section 2.2.3).

2.5.2.3- Provide your approach for Database Administration services for the GDSS hardware, software, and related infrastructure for the following specific functions: troubleshooting and resolving database system malfunctions, resolving issues by detecting and isolating faults, taking corrective action to restore fully operational status, and database monitoring. (PWS section 2.2.4)

2.5.2.4- Provide your approach for Configuration Management for the GDSS production environment (PWS sections 2.2.6.1 through 2.2.6.12)

2.5.3 Subfactor 2: Staffing Approach Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed staffing approach based on the following measures of merit:

2.5.3.1- Provide a 24/7/365 staffing matrix, by completing Attachment 6 that correlates the proposed functional labor categories for the prime contractor and subcontractors to the PWS tasks and subtasks.

2.5.3.2- Provide a phase-in plan for transitioning services that includes specific details of the timelines needed to meet PWS requirements. The plan must provide an explanation for start-up, mobilization, and transition depicting the chronological sequence of events which will be accomplished starting at contract award in order to meet requirements of the PWS.

2.5.4 Technical Risk Rating. Assessment of technical risk considers the risk associated with the technical approach to meeting the requirement which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses. It considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The Technical Approach and Staffing Approach subfactors will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures paragraph 3.1.2.1.2 Table 2B. – Technical Risk Rating Method, excerpted below. For any weakness or significant weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror's proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

Table 2B. Technical Risk Rating Method

2.6 Factor 2: Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation results is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

2.6.1 Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method, excerpted below.

Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

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

2.6.2 Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance, as well as the quality of that performance, in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Price factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered) taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in Section M 3.0. The Government will consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to an individual contract basis. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. In conducting the past performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s past performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, 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; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and commercial sources. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

2.6.2.1- Recency. An evaluation of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated further.

2.6.2.2- Relevance. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price factor, including their relative order of importance (reference Section M paragraph 2). For each recent past performance contract reviewed, the relevance of the work performed, to include scope and magnitude, will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). Each team member’s past performance will be evaluated in the aggregate with all contracts submitted being of equal importance. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information sheets (PPIS) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. Past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts (DoD Source Selection Procedures, Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method, and Table 4):

Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

2.6.2.3- Quality of Products or Services. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment (section M paragraph 3.2.1). A separate quality assessment rating will not be assigned; rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

2.6.3 Assigning Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevance and quality of products or services assessments. Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating at the factor level (see Table 5 above). Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of offeror’s performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent or relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment rating than less recent effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

2.7 Factor 3: Price

Each offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated (but not rated) for award purposes. Total price will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is fair and reasonable. Normally, price reasonableness is established through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. In the event these techniques are insufficient to establish a fair and reasonable price, other proposal analysis techniques may be used. Overall evaluated price for the TO will be used in the integrated assessment.

Attachment 14–TO Pricing Template should be utilized when submitting the price proposal for the Initial GDSS TO and future TO’s. Attachment 5 -- Workload Estimate and Program Metrics is available to the offerors to aid in establishing the level of effort for this requirement.

2.7.1 The Initial Total Evaluated Price (I-TEP) will be calculated as the sum of the contractor’s proposed prices for phase-in period and all option periods (to include the six month option to extend services). After any discussions or proposal revisions (if needed) the Government will evaluate the Final Total Evaluated Price (F-TEP) for completeness, reasonableness, and balance.

2.7.1.1 The 6-month extension of services is IAW FAR 52.217-8, “Option to Extend Services” will only be utilized if necessary. The 6-month extension of services is not to be considered part of option period four and will be a separate option exercised if it is utilized. Offerors are not required to submit pricing for a six-month extension of services. The Government will develop a total evaluated price which will include this pricing, based on the offeror’s proposed option period four pricing.

2.7.2 Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

2.7.3 The offerors proposal and F-TEP will be evaluated to determine completeness, reasonableness, and balance as defined below

2.7.3.1 Completeness. The proposals will be reviewed to determine the extent to which all the price elements of the offer have been addressed. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to ensure continuity and traceability of prices to the technical proposal and between the initial proposal and any revisions thereto. The review will determine the adequacy of the offeror’s proposal in addressing and fulfilling the solicitation requirements.

2.7.3.2 Reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. As stated above, price reasonableness is usually established through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. In the event that price analysis techniques at FAR 15.404 are insufficient to establish a fair and reasonable price determination, other proposal analysis techniques may be used.

2.7.3.3 Unbalanced Pricing. The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to COM-F III IDIQ prices, variable quantity matrix factors, and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Future TOs issued under the IDIQ contracts will be awarded in accordance with FAR 16.5 Ordering Procedures, as supplemented by the DFARS, and the AFFARS. These regulations are available electronically at the AFFAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. An ordering guide will be developed for decentralized ordering procedures.

3.0 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.