FA4600-15-R-0022_Draft_52_212-2.pdf

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

(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:

(i) Price

(ii) Technical

(iii) Past Performance

Price, Technical, and Past Performance are all considered equal. Award will be made to the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal that is determined to have an acceptable past performance rating.

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all CLINs for all options to the total price for the basic period including the transition CLIN. 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:

1.0 Basis For Contract Award

The Government will select a responsible contractor who is deemed the best overall Offeror, ultimately based upon an integrated assessment of Price proposal, Technical proposal, and Past Performance proposal. This is a Lowest

Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) with Acceptable Past Performance source selection conducted in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement

(DFARS) Part 212, the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Part 5312, DOD Source

Selection Procedures dated March 31, 2016, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures (MP5315.3). The contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable with acceptable past performance proposal. The Government reserves the right to not award a contract depending on the quality of proposals submitted and availability of funds.

Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Price

Factor 2: Technical

Subfactor 1: Data Requirements

Subfactor 2: Network and Data Availability

Subfactor 3: Data Format and Content

Subfactor 4: Help Desk

Subfactor 5: Contractor Preparation Period

Subfactor 6: Global Coverage

Factor 3: Past Performance

This is a competitive selection in which competing offerors’ price, technical and past performance will be evaluated.

Proposals will be evaluated for acceptability, but not ranked using the non-price factors. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every non-price factor/subfactor, any proposal with a a Technical

Factor ranked as UNACCEPTABLE is ineligible for award. The Government will award a contract to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government whose price is balanced, fair, and reasonable that received an acceptable technical and past performance rating.

1.1 Discussions.

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.

1.2 Award Without Discussions.

The Government reserves the right to award without discussions IAW FAR 52.215-1. Therefore, offerors are advised to submit proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable as a standalone document without additional information. If award will be made without conducting discussions, offerors may only be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of proposals (e.g., the relevance of an offeror’s past performance information and adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor or clerical errors.

1.3 Competitive Range/Discussions.

The Government reserves the right to open and conduct discussions if it deems them to be necessary. Discussions will be held only with those offerors determined to be in the competitive range. Offerors whose proposals are not included in the competitive range will be notified as soon as practicable. Discussions will include issuance of evaluation notices. An offeror initially included in the competitive range may be eliminated from consideration for award during discussions. At the conclusion of discussions, each offeror still within the competitive range shall be given an opportunity to submit a Final Proposal Revision (FPR). Only Offerors deemed “Acceptable” in all

Technical sub-factors with acceptable past performance are eligible for award.

1.4 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. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

2.0 Factor 1 – Price.

An offeror’s proposed total evaluated price will be inclusive of all Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs), for the base period, all option periods (in accordance with FAR 52.217-9 Option to Extend the Term of the Contract) and six month extension (in accordance with FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services). The total evaluated price will be used to determine the most advantageous offer. The offeror’s price proposal will be assessed for fairness and reasonableness using one or more of the techniquest defined in FAR 15.404. A “resaonable” price is a price that a prudent and competent buyer would be willing to pay, given data on competition, supply and demand, and general economic conditions. The Government may determine that an offer is unreasonable if the CLIN pricing between years is significantly unbalanced. Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable or unbalanced may not be considered for award.

3.0 Factor 2 – Technical.

The Government will evaluate the technical proposal(s) and assign ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign each subfactor a rating as shown in the Table below. All elements under each subfactor must be met for a subfactor to be acceptable. A rating of unacceptable in one or more technical subfactors will constitute an overall rating of unacceptable for the technical evaluation. All technical proposal(s) should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity and coherence are very important. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

The proposals shall be evaluated agains the following Technical subfactors:

3.1 Subfactor 1: Data Requirements

The offeror shall demonstrate its ability to provide cloud-to-ground (CG) and cloud-to-cloud (CF) global lightning data in accordance with the specifications in tables 2-4 of the PWS, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. The offeror shall also provide its statistical information on the Offeror’s CG lightning data product by submitting Attachment 3, tables 1-3 filled in with what the offeror’s data actually is to show it can meet the Government’s requirements. In accordance with 1.0, the offeror shall not copy tables 2-4 from the PWS for this information and shall provide sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. Copying information from tables 2-4 from the PWS shall cause the offeror to be considered nonresponsive and technically unacceptable.

3.2 Subfactor 2: Network and Data Availability

The offeror shall demonstrate its abililty to maintain network and data availability to 98% (IAW PWS 3.9) monthly or higher with no more than 12 hours of down time during any month based on an average of 28 day month.

3.3 Subfactor 3: Data Format and Content

The offeror shall demonstrate its ability to deliver the data in accordance with the delivery specifications in section 3 of the PWS. (Para 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7)

3.4 Subfactor 4: Help Desk

The offeror shall demonstrate its ability to provide Help Desk Support 24 hours a day, seven days a week in accordance with Section 3, paragraph 3.10.2 of the PWS. The offeror shall acknowledge calls 24/7/365 with initial response within 10 hours after receiving service call.

3.5 Subfactor 5: Contractor Preparation Period

In accordance with paragraph 3.4.3 of the PWS, the offeror shall demonstrate its ability to integrate the offeror’s data feed with 557 Weather Wing’s software within a 30 day period after start of contract performance.

3.6 Subfactor 6: Global Coverage

The offeror shall demonstrate its ability to provide global coverage for location accuracy and detection efficiency.

The offeror shall indicate their actual coverage they can provide on the coverage maps for areas defined IAW PWS

Appendix A: Coverage Area Maps.

4.0 Factor 3 – Past Performance

Proposals will then be evaluated for past performance acceptability. The Government will evaluate past performance and assign a final rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable for this factor, as shown in Table 2.0 below.

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

Table 1.0, Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

TABLE 2.0, Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Rating Description

4.1 Evaluation Process.

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), CPARS, or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management

Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the solicitation’s requirements. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation-recency, relevancy, and quality of the offeror’s present/past performance. The criteria for recency, relevancy, and quality assessments are shown below:

4.1.1 Recency Assessment.

An assessment 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 seven (7) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated for relevancy or quality.

4.1.2 Past Performance Relevancy Assessment.

The determination of relevancy is contingent on an assessment of the types of tasks performed, contract type, dollar value, complexity, and other similarities on the contract being reviewed to those of the Global Lightning Data requirements. In conjunction with the definitions below, relevance will be determined considering the criteria listed below.

i. The offeror sucessfully provided global lightning STROKE data in ASCII or XML format

ii. The offeror effectively provided encrypted data feeds via the internet

iii. The offeror successfully provided help desk services for global lightning data 24 hours a day 7 days a week

iv. The offeror was responsible for global lightning data network and data availability

v. The offeror provided the following data fields in the global lightning data feeds: date-time (UTC) to thousands of a second, latitude (deg) and longitude (deg) (to thousandths), signal strength (ka), polarity, multiplicity (#strokes/flash), and the number of sensors used to collect the data.

NOTE: For purposes of past performancy relevancy evaluation only, global can be interpreted as a subset of the earth’s surface.

Past performance information that does not show experience in all items will not be evaluated for quality. Past

Performance relevancy will be rated as relevant or not relevant in accordance with Table 2.1 below. The

Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFP.

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to 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 or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a “neutral” rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm

Table 2.1, Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar 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.

4.1.3 Performance Quality Assessment.

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the offeror performed on the contracts). For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the areas identified in the Past Performance Questionnaire. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports an unsatisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Table 2.2 – Past Performance Quality Assessment

Quality Assessment Description

SATISFACTORY (S) During the contract period, contractor performance is substantially meeting (or substantially met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, offeror took effective corrective action.

UNSATISFACTORY (U) During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

NOT AVAILABLE (N) Quality and/or performance information is not available.

4.1.4 Overall Ratings.

As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated overall past performance rating at the factor level (see Table 2.0).

4.1.5 Confidentiality of Sources.

Past performance information, including questionnaires and past performance sources are confidential and are not to be released to anyone outside the Government source selection process. Offerors are cautioned that contacting or seeking out the source(s) of past performance information is strictly prohibited. Any attempts to contact individuals concerning the past performance information will be perceived negatively and could impact your performance rating. Any questions regarding source selection information should be addressed directly to the source selection

Contracting Officer only and not to any other individuals. Offerors are responsible for ensuring its subcontractors and teaming partners are aware of this information and are in compliance. Disclosure of past performance information to non-Government advisors is strictly prohibited.

(End of provision)