DRAFT_Addendum_to_FAR_52.212-2.docx

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 – EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed our requirements affordably in a way that will be advantageous to the Government. 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 superiority and/or overall business approach and/or superior past and present performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this provision. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph II below. Contract terms and conditions consistent with customary commercial practices are specified in the solicitation/contract, with otherwise tailored terms and conditions specified in the Addendum to the solicitation/contract.

The Government intends, if it is in its best interest, to incorporate into the resulting contract, all beneficial aspects of the awardee’s proposal and all above threshold (minimum) attributes, performance levels, or capabilities for which evaluation credit was given. If discussions are conducted, incorporation will take place by before or after request for final proposal revision. In the event of contract award without discussions, the Government, if it is in its best interest, reserves the right to incorporate into the resulting contract, any proposed performance or capability exceedances above mandatory threshold (minimum) requirements included in the offeror’s proposal. The Government will use the PWS attachment included with the RFP titled "PWS Attachment 01, Incorporated Performance or Capability Exceedances”

The Government intends to award one firm-fixed price contract as a result of this solicitation. However, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all.

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unreasonable in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions, or staffing 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.

The solicitation issue date of 25 January 2019 and offer due date of 8 February 2019 are specified in blocks 6 and 8 respectively of the solicitation. The offeror shall make a clear statement in Volume IV, Price Proposal, that the proposal is valid through 1 April 2019.

B. Factors, Subfactors and Relative Importance

1. Factors and Subfactors: A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror’s proposal will be performed. The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors and subfactors:

Factor I: Technical/Risk

Subfactor One: Technical Approach

Subfactor Two: Staffing Approach

Factor II. Past Performance

Factor III. Cost/Price

2. Relative Importance: Technical/risk, which includes technical approach and staffing approach, and past performance when combined are significantly more important than cost/price.

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by volume):

A. General

C. Volume II, Technical/Risk Factor

1. General: Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated based on the subfactors below to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail. For each subfactor, the offeror identifies risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach.

2. Technical/Risk Rating: A color and an adjectival rating will be assigned to each subfactor IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures paragraph 3.1.2.2, Table 3, excerpted below, to reflect the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the proposal’s strengths, deficiencies, uncertainties, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and excesses. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical/Risk subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical/Risk Factor. In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive consideration for performance in excess of the mandatory minimum.

Subfactor One: Technical Approach

The Government will evaluate each offeror’s proposed technical approach based on the following measures of merit:

· Provide a plan demonstrating the contractors ability to support HQ AMC in planning (operational, functional and technical) and conducting CPXs and CAXs to train the HQ AMC staff (AFTRANS), 18 AF Staff and the 618 AOC (TACC) (PWS Paragraph 1.3)

· Provide a management plan describing the approach to perform support to HQ AMC/A3Y in the JEP/JNTC program (PWS Section 2)

Subfactor Two: Staffing Approach

Provide a detailed and effective staffing plan, which identifies how the contractor will staff the PWS requirement. The plan shall provide a logical approach, which ensures the contractor understands the requirement and addresses the following:

· Identify Operational and Technical positions which have the required experience, education, clearances, etc. Required specific knowledge of CAMPS, the CAMPS Auto Scheduler, JOPES and the interface to AMC Exercise Global Decision Support System Modernized (G2) and the Exercise Management Console (EMC), or commercial equivalent.

· Identify how the contractor will recruit/retain/replace personnel having knowledge, experience, training, and technical expertise for the JEP and JNTC requirement, as required in the PWS.

Table 3. Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Description

of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

D. Volume III, Past Performance Factor

1. General: The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture members’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. 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. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past three years from the issuance date of this solicitation. The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture members’ present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any predecessor companies, affiliates, other divisions or corporate management even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

2. Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, 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 Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) 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. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

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

c) Key Personnel: The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture members’ present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any key personnel even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement. For offerors/joint venture members that are newly formed entities (in existence less than three years from the issuance date of this solicitation) who either have no prior contracts or do not possess relevant corporate past performance, but have key personnel with relevant past performance while employed by another company, the quality of such key personnel’s performance as verified by the Past Performance Team will be considered if the submitted contract involves the key personnel performing the same role currently being proposed on the instant acquisition and this performance occurred during the past three years from the issuance date of this solicitation.

3. Ordering Type Contracts Submission: In an ordering type contractual vehicle, performance is demonstrated at the order level (i.e. a delivery/task order). Therefore, in accordance with Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instruction to Offerors – Commercial Items, if the contract you are submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, including but not limited to an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), the offeror should have submitted an individual delivery/task order (or series of orders) for evaluation, in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. The Government shall use the information submitted for each order (or series of orders) to evaluate the effort’s recency, relevancy, and quality.

3.1 Series of Orders: If a series of orders was submitted for evaluation, in lieu of the basic ordering contract, the offeror should have provided the total dollar value, total period of performance, and type and complexity of data deliverables for each order in the series.

The Total Dollar Value, Total Period of Performance, and Overall Type and Complexity of Data Deliverables, for the series of orders, will be used to evaluate the submitted effort’s programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, as described in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Paragraph II.D.4 Note. As explained in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Paragraph II.D.4 Note, the technical complexities along with the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort and complexities will be evaluated to arrive at a Relevancy Rating for the effort. The more orders in the series of orders, the higher the potential programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort could be.

Caution: All orders, within the series of orders being submitted should contain the same continuous technical scope. These orders, within the series of orders should demonstrate relevance to the instant acquisition. The Government reserves the right to request additional information from the offeror of Points of Contact provided, in order to verify that the series of orders is for the same continuous technical scope.

4. Relevancy Definitions: 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 four submitted contracts. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s Volume III of its proposal:

· VERY RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

· RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

· SOMEWHAT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

· NOT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Programmatic/Logistical Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities: Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the above definitions not only includes the technical complexities identified for each effort, but also the programmatic and logistical considerations including but not limited to quantity produced, length of effort, dollar values, type and complexity of data deliverables, etc. When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical complexities, and the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort as separate aspects. If both of these aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract effort, the overall relevancy rating assigned to that contract will be affected. For example, if the submitted contract meets essentially the same technical complexities, but involves only some of the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, a lesser relevancy rating will be assigned.

The Programmatic/Logistical Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities to be used in the relevancy evaluation are based on expected magnitude of work and complexities for the instant acquisition, Joint Exercise Program (JEP). They are as follows:

5. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, 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 past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral”. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance and the quality of supplying services that meet the requirements of the contract. Performance confidence will be rated 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 taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, para I.|B.2. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition 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 Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS), the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), and other databases; interviews with program managers, contracting officers, Past Performance Questionnaires, and commercial sources.

Recency. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be active 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.

Relevancy. The government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price factor, including their relative order of importance Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, para I.|B.2. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to the scope and complexity of effort and the contractor’s ability to provide functional, technical, analytical, and management support expertise. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s). Each team member’s (prime and subcontractors) 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 degree of relevancy of past performance. The government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent contracts:

F. Cost/Price Proposal Factor Each offeror’s Price Proposal will be evaluated but not rated. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to determine completeness, reasonableness, and whether it is unbalanced, as defined below.

Completeness. The proposals will be reviewed to determine the extent to which cost elements of the offer have been addressed. The offeror’s price proposal and other information 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 contractor’s proposal in addressing and fulfilling the solicitation requirements.

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.

Unbalanced pricing. Offerors are cautioned against submitting a materially unbalanced offer. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices or separately priced line items. Unbalanced pricing exists when the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected.

Each offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated (but not rated) for award purposes. The total evaluated price (TEP) will be calculated as the sum of the offeror’s proposed prices for the base period, and all options. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the government to exercise such options. TEP 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 defined in FAR 15.404. The Government anticipates using the price analysis techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i), (ii), and (v) to determine prices fair and reasonable.

In the event these techniques are insufficient to establish a fair and reasonable price determination, other proposal analysis techniques may be used. Also included in the TEP calculated shall be any ODCs and Travel CLINs provided to the Government. The TEP supports a contract total price based on the basic requirements and all options.

6. 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. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, 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 among the most highly rated proposals.