2._Addenda_to_FAR_52.212-1_and_52.212-2.docx

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1

THIS SECTION IS FOR SOLICITATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS SECTION WILL BE PHYSICALLY REMOVED FROM ANY RESULTANT AWARD, BUT WILL BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE.

Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 – Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items (Jan 2017)

Notes:

1. Period of acceptance of Offers: The offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm until 28 February 2019.

1.0. General Instructions

1.0. The offeror's proposal must include all data and information requested by addenda to FAR 52.212-1 and FAR 52.212-2 and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. The offer shall be compliant with the requirements of the solicitation, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements as stated in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale in a memorandum attached to their proposal. Non-conformance with the instructions provided in both addenda to FAR 52.212-1 and FAR 52.212-2 may result in the proposals not being evaluated.

1.0.1. The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the government's requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror's proposal.

1.0.2. Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed art work, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

1.0.3. The proposal acceptance period is specified in the notes section of this addendum. The offeror shall make a clear statement in the Executive Summary volume of their proposal that the proposal is valid through this date.

1.0.4. In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.8, Government Contract Files, the Government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals. Unless the offeror requests otherwise, the Government will destroy extra copies of unsuccessful proposals.

1.0.5. All past performance questionnaires and all other proposal documentation are due on 3 October 2018, no later than 1400 CST.

1.1. Point of Contact

1.1.1. The Contracting Officer (CO) is the primary point of contact for this acquisition. Address all questions or concerns you may have to 7CONS.Team.SourceSelection@us.af.mil. Electronic (e-mail format) requests for clarification may be sent to the same e-mail address using the form at attachment 6. Additional contact information:

1.2. Debriefings

1.2.1. The CO will promptly notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range; whereupon, they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505. Offerors excluded from the competitive range may request a pre-award debriefing or they may choose to wait until after the source selection decision to request a post-award debriefing. However, offerors excluded from the competitive range are entitled to no more than one debriefing for each proposal. The CO will notify unsuccessful offerors in the competitive range of the source selection decision in accordance with FAR 15.506. Upon such notification, unsuccessful offerors may request and receive a debriefing. Offerors desiring a debriefing must make their request in accordance with the requirements of FAR 15.505 or 15.506, as applicable.

1.3. Discrepancies

1.3.1. If an offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the CO electronically (email format) with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the offeror is asking the CO to consider as related to the omission or error using the form located at attachment 6. The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion. This reservation includes matters of additional or substitute pages of the initial proposal.

1.4. Electronic Reference Documents

1.4.1. All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website at http://www.fedbizopps.gov. Potential offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real-time email notifications when information has been posted to the website for this solicitation.

1.5. Exchanges with Offerors

1.5.1. Exchanges of source selection information between Government and offerors will be controlled by the CO. Email may be used to transmit such information to offerors only if the email can be sent and received encrypted and includes “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 & 3.104” in the subject line. Otherwise, source selection information will be transmitted via USPS (certified mail), FedEx, UPS, or in-person by a local representative. In order to facilitate the sending and receiving of encrypted emails, offerors must use MS Outlook email configured to support encryption or a different email product that is S/MIME compatible and configured to support encryption. If you intend to submit your source selection information via encrypted email, you will need to contact the Buyer/Contracting Officer indicated on the face page of the solicitation prior to that first submittal in order to exchange certificates used for encryption. To ensure the process is working correctly, send a test encrypted message first (without including any source selection information).

1.6. Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits

1.6.1. The offeror shall prepare the electronic proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table (Table 1.1 below). The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits and with the number of copies as specified in Table 1.1. The contents of each proposal volume are described in the paragraph as noted in the table below:

Table 1.1 – Proposal Organization

Cover Page Master Table of Contents Tab 1: Narrative & Authorized Offer Personnel Tab 2: Proof of Financial Responsibility (attachment 8) Tab 3: 8(a) Certification(s) and Joint Venture Agreement (if necessary) Tab 1: 5 Pages Tab 2: N/A Tab 3: N/A 2 Electronic (1 Original; 1 Redacted*)

Tab 1: Pricing Worksheet (must be submitted on attachment 3) Tab 2: SF 1449 and all amendments Tab 3: Memorandum of Exceptions Taken to Solicitation Requirements

Tab 1: N/A Tab 2: N/A Tab 3: No Limit 2 Electronic (1 Original

Table of Contents Tab 1: Subfactor 1 – Management/ Organizational Structure Tab 2: Subfactor 2 – Technical Approach Tab 3: Subfactor 3 – Quality Control Plan

Table of Contents Tab 1: PP Facts Sheet (must be submitted on attachment 9) Tab 2: Proof of PPQ submittal (must be submitted on attachment 10) 25 pages max (3 pages max per PP Facts Sheet ) 2 Electronic (1 Original; 1 Redacted*)

*A redacted copy constitutes of a copy of your proposal with all company information and logos concealed.

1.7. Page Limitations

1.7.1 Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal and excess electronic copies will be returned to the offeror as soon as practicable. Page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs). The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the offerors. Each page shall be counted except the following: 1) Cover Pages, 2) Tables of Content, or 3) List of Appendices.

1.8. Page Size and Format

1.8.1. A page is defined as each face of a sheet of paper containing information. Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches. Pages shall be single-spaced. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be no less than 12 point. Tracking, kerning, and leading values shall not be changed from the default values of the word processing or page layout software. Use at least 1 inch margins on the top and bottom and 1 inch side margins. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. The page size and format restrictions shall apply to responses to ENs. These limitations shall apply to the mandatory electronic copies.

1.8.2. Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed 11 by 14 inches in size. For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 12. These limitations shall apply to the mandatory electronic proposals.

1.9. Pricing Related Data

1.9.1. Offerors are required to fill out the pricing worksheet in order to meet the requirements outlined in addendum to FAR 52.212-2. The pricing worksheet shall be filled out on the provided attachment excel spreadsheet to reduce administrative burden (attachment 3)

1.10. Cross-Referencing

1.10.1. To the greatest extent possible, each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with a minimum of cross referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation which is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal. Cross-referencing within a proposal volume is permitted where its use would conserve space without impairing clarity.

1.11. Indexing

1.11.1. Each volume shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections.

1.12. Labeling

1.12.1. Each volume of the proposal should be separated into its own attachment or respective disk. Be sure to apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(e), Restriction on disclosure and use of data, and FAR 3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Price or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information. Each page containing proprietary information should be so marked. Each page should contain the following legend at the bottom of each sheet “SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION—SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104”.

1.13. Electronic Offers

1.13.1. If an offeror chooses to submit a proposal via email, confirmation of receipt by the Government will be provided by the source selection team in one business day. If offeror submits their proposal as multiple emails, this should be included within the e-mail subject (ex. 1 of 3, 2 of 3, 3 of 3). Responsibility for ensuring proposals were received by the Government remains with the offeror. For electronic copies, indicate on each CD the volume number and title. Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including subfactors, exhibits, annexes, and attachments, if any. Each volume shall be in a different directory on a CD.

1.13.2. Otherwise, source selection information will be transmitted via direct mailing or AMRDEC SAFE at https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/. When submitting source selection information via email, file suppression utilities, to include but not limited to zip files, will not be accepted. The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office Word 10, MS Office Excel 10, MS Office Project 10, and MS Office Power Point 10, as applicable.

1.14. Distribution

1.14.1. The "original" proposal shall be identified. Proposals shall be emailed, mailed, or hand carried (Disk ONLY) to:

Attn: 7CONS.Team.SourceSelection@us.af.mil

Be sure to include in the email title “For Official Use Only” and “Source Selection Information—See FAR 2.101 and 3.104”.

Or

Attn: Mrs. Erika Thornton or SrA Elvia Arellano 7th Contracting Squadron 381 Third St, Bldg. 7238 Dyess AFB, TX 79607

Be sure to clearly mark the package "For Official Use Only" and "Source Selection Information-- IAW FAR 2.101 and FAR 3.104".

Use of AMRDEC is also acceptable and encouraged. Additional information is located at https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/.

HANDCARRIED PROPOSALS MUST BE RECEIVED AND DATE STAMPED BY A MEMBER OF THE 7th CONTRACTING SQUADRON NO LATER THAN 1400 Central Daylight Time, 3 October 2018.

2.0. Volume I – Executive Summary

2.0.1. In the executive summary volume, the offeror shall provide the following information:

2.1. Cover Page

2.1.1. To include the following information:

· Solicitation number

· Solicitation date and time specified for receipt of offers

· Company name

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

· Company point of contact (s)

· Company point of contact (s) e-mail address (es)

· Company point of contact (s) telephone numbers

· SAM registration expiration date

· CAGE code

· DUNS number

· Offer acceptance period

2.2. Executive Summary and Miscellaneous Data:

2.2.1. Narrative & Authorized Offeror Personnel (limited to five pages): The Offeror’s narrative summary of the entire proposal should be concise, to include addressing the significant risks, and highlighting any key or unique features, excluding price. The salient features should correspond with FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation Factors/Sub Factors. Also identify authorized Offeror personnel and individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government. Provide the name, title, CAGE, DUNS and telephone number of the company/division point of contact regarding decisions made with respect to the Offeror’s proposal and who can obligate the company contractually. Any summary material presented here shall not be considered as meeting the requirements for any portions of other volumes of the proposal. If none proposed, submit a clear Affirmation of no Exceptions, Deviations, or Waivers within the body of the summary narrative.

2.2.2. Proof of Financial Responsibility. The Offeror shall include Proof of Financial Responsibility (attachment 8) to be used as acceptable evidence to the CO that the Offeror has sufficient financial resources to cover startup expenses for this acquisition IAW FAR 9.104-3(a).

2.2.3. Proof of 8(a) Certification or if the Offeror is part of an 8(a) Joint Venture, the Offeror, shall provide a copy of the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) approved 8(a) Joint Venture certification documentation. The Joint Venture Agreement must be received by SBA prior to proposal due date and approved before award of any resulting contract. If you are contemplating a joint venture on this project, you must advise your assigned SBA Business Opportunity Specialist (BOS) as soon as possible. It is also recommended that the agreement be submitted as soon as practicable to ensure compliance with established regulations. Any corrections and/or changes needed can be made only when your BOS has adequate time for a thorough review before the proposal due date. NO CORRECTIONS AND/OR CHANGES ARE ALLOWED AFTER TIME OF SUBMISSION OF OFFERS. TEAMING ARRANGEMENTS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.

2.2.3.1. If a Joint Venture is contemplated, offerors shall provide the following information not later than the date and time proposals are due:

2.2.3.2. Include all requirements at 13 C.F.R. Part 124.513, including size concern information;

2.2.3.3. Include a statement confirming that the 8(a) firm will comply with FAR Clause 52.219-14(c)(1); and

2.2.3.4. Joint Venture registration in SAM with NAICS code of 561730 on representations and certifications.

3.0. VOLUME II – Price

3.0.1. Proposals shall be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their price reasonableness, completeness, and balance. The Government may not award a contract based on a proposal with unbalanced pricing. Compliance with these instructions is mandatory and failure to comply may render your proposal ineligible for award. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed prices rests with the offeror.

3.1. General Instructions

3.1.1. Complete Attachment 3 excel pricing worksheet.

3.1.1.1. The offeror shall insert all proposed ground maintenance service unit prices in the pricing worksheet. The offeror shall ensure that the sum of the total prices proposed for each period of performance on the pricing worksheet is equal to the total price provided for each corresponding.

3.1.2. Complete SF 1449 and amendments (if applicable).

3.1.2.1. Complete blocks 12, 17a, and 30a, b, and c of the SF1449. In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the SOLICITATION, with attachments. The SOLICITATION constitutes the model contract. Signature by the offeror on the proposal constitutes an offer, which the Government may accept.

3.1.2.2. All unit prices shall be rounded to no more than two places after the decimal point. The extended amounts shall equal the unit price multiplied by the quantity for each unit.

3.1.2.3. The proposal prices must be submitted for all Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) for the base year and all four (4) option periods within the SF1449 and pricing worksheet. FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, is included in the RFP and will be incorporated into the resultant contract; IF exercised, the clause will extend the terms and conditions of the contract period being extended at the rates specified in the contract, the evaluation of which will be considered and included in the initial evaluation report of the proposal (to include the base period plus all option periods) as demonstrated herein. The 6-month extension will be based on fifty percent (50%) of Option Year 4 pricing where the 6-month extension may be used to cover the option to extend services IAW clause 52.217-8. Evaluation of options and FAR 52.217-8 will not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

3.1.2.4. Complete the necessary fill-ins and certifications in provisions. The provision at FAR 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications – Commercial Items, shall be returned along with the proposal if not already filled out in the System for Award Management

3.1.2.5. The offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the solicitation (and attachments). The solicitation constitutes the model contract. Offerors shall clearly identify any exceptions to the solicitation and provide accompanying rational.

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

3.2. Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements

3.2.1. 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 evaluation factors or subfactors. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale in an attached memorandum (attachment 6). Each exception shall be specifically related to each paragraph and/or specific part of the solicitation to which the exception is taken. Provide rationale in support of the exception and fully explain its impact, if any, on the performance, schedule, price and specific requirements of the solicitation. This information shall be provided in the format and content of Table 1-2.

Table 1-2. Solicitation Exceptions

PWS, SOW, SPEC,

Sample Project, etc.

can/will not be met

4.0. VOLUME III – Technical

4.1. Volume Organization

4.1.1. The Technical volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

(1) Cover page

(2) Table of Contents

(3) Courses of Action

4.2. Courses of Action and Technical Documentation

4.2.1. The Technical Volume shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. Your responses will be evaluated against the technical evaluation criteria defined in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-2. 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 PWS (including referenced publications, technical data, etc.); paraphrasing the PWS 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. The Technical Volume shall address the proposed approach to meeting the minimum requirements of the below listed sub-factors. For each subfactor, the offeror shall identify 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.

(1) Tab 1: Subfactor 1 – Management/Organizational Structure in accordance with Addendum to FAR 52.212-2

(2) Tab 2: Subfactor 2 – Technical Approach in accordance with Addendum to FAR 52.212-2

(3) Tab 3: Subfactor 3 – Quality Control Plan in accordance with Addendum to FAR 52.212-2

5.0. VOLUME IV – Past Performance

5.1. General

5.1.1. The offeror shall submit Present and Past Performance Information (see addendum 52.212-2 for recency and relevancy criteria) for themselves and any joint venture member in accordance with the format contained in the “FACTS Sheet” (attachment 9) and the following paragraphs. The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture member’s present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any subcontractor, even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

5.1.2. The requested present and past performance information shall be provided in a volume labeled "Volume IV - Past Performance". A summary page shall be provided for this acquisition, describing the proposed role of the offeror and any joint venture member. Each offeror shall complete a separate FACTS Sheet for three active or completed contracts (with at least one year of performance history) in the past three (3) years from the issuance date of the RFP, that the offeror considers relevant in demonstrating its ability to perform the proposed effort. If the offeror is a Joint Venture, at least one FACTS Sheet has to be completed per offeror. A Joint Venture effort must still submit a total of three FACTS Sheets that meet the conditions previously stated for single offerors. The offeror's/joint venture member’s present and past performance information may include data on efforts performed by other predecessor companies, affiliates, other divisions or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the instant proposed effort. The FACTS Sheet shall clearly indicate the division or corporate organization that performed or is presently performing the contract. Contracts listed may include those with the Federal Government, state and local governments or their agencies, and commercial customers.

5.2. Key Personnel

5.2.1. Offerors or joint venture members that are newly formed entities (in existence less than three (3) 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, may demonstrate the performance of such key personnel by submitting FACTS Sheets for three of their most recent and relevant contracts under which such key personnel performed the same role currently being proposed on the instant acquisition and this performance occurred during the past three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. Note however, that the quality of the key personnel’s performance under the submitted contract must be able to be verified by the Past Performance Team in order to be considered in the assessment of confidence. Any such key personnel must already be employed by the offeror /joint venture member, a letter of intent to hire does not constitute employment.

5.3. FACTS Sheet

5.3.1. The offeror or joint venture member, if applicable, shall focus its FACTS Sheet responses so that they clearly correlate present and past performance with the requirements of this RFP. The FACTS Sheet responses must clearly describe the relevance of the effort to the work proposed. The answering space on the FACTS Sheet may be expanded so that the filled-in FACTS Sheet for each relevant contract covers no more than both sides of three (3) 8 ½ x 11 inch pages (i.e., no more than six (6) pages. Provide the most current information for the Points of Contact (POCs) identified on the FACTS Sheets. At least two of the following (in descending order of availability) should be identified as current POCs on the FACTS Sheets:

1. Procuring Contracting Officer/Contract Negotiator or equivalent

1. Program/Project Manager, or equivalent

1. Administrative Contracting Officer/Contract Administrator or equivalent

1. Other (As specified in your FACTS Sheet)

5.3.2. If problems were encountered during the performance of the identified contracts, provide evidence of the ability to isolate the root causes of problems and include in the FACTS Sheet a description of programs or actions taken to resolve those causes. Problems not addressed in the FACTS Sheet, but found by the Government during the evaluation of the information in this volume, will be assumed to still exist. Note: In the case of Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS), if your input has already been provided and the rationale/circumstances have not changed, DO NOT repeat them here.

Offerors with no recent or relevant past performance shall state this fact in their past performance volume.

5.4. Past Performance Questionnaire:

5.4.1. The Present/Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (attachment 10) will be one means used by the Government to obtain present/past performance information. The Government reserves the right to change, alter, and/or supplement the questionnaire without further notice to the offeror(s). The responsibility to send out and track the completion of the PPQs rests solely with the offeror - i.e., it shall not be delegated to any other entity. PPQs shall be submitted directly to the Government not later than the date established in the RFP for receipt of proposals. The government requires the offeror to send out a PPQ to each of the Points-of-Contact (POCs) identified in their Past Performance volume. Questionnaires shall be e-mailed by POCs directly to ATTN: Mrs. Erika Thornton or SrA Elvia Arellano at 7CONS.Team.SourceSelection@us.af.mil. The POCs shall forward their completed questionnaires directly to the Government – NOT BACK TO THE OFFEROR. Completed questionnaires received or routed through the offeror, subcontractor or teaming contractor will not be accepted.

5.4.2. Once the PPQs are completed by your POCs, the information contained therein shall be considered source selection sensitive and shall not be released to you, the offeror. Therefore, any exchange/contact between the offeror/joint venture member and its own POCs in regards to comments made on the questionnaire is not permitted.

6.0. Additional Information

6.0.2. Addendum to FAR 52.212-1(f), Late submissions, modifications, revisions, and withdrawal of offers. This paragraph is tailored to read as follows: Offerors are responsible for submitting electronic and paper 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).

6.1. Discrepancies

6.1.1. If an Offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the Offeror shall immediately notify the CO in writing with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the Offeror is asking the CO to consider as related to the perceived omission or error. The Offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions in accordance with FAR 52.212-1(g).

6.2. Site Visit

6.2.1. A site visit will be held on Tuesday, 28 August 2018 from 0900-1100. Responses to questions asked during the site visit as well as a list of all attendees at the site visit will be posted to the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website at http://www.fbo.gov (as an Amendment to the solicitation within 5 business days after the site visit). The contractor shall complete the Request for Site Visit Pass attached (Attachment 7) to this solicitation. The request shall be e-mailed to 7CONS.Team.SourceSelection@us.af.mil NLT five (5) business days prior to the site visit. Once the request is received the contractor will be provided the location to meet for the site visit.

6.3. Inquiries by Offerors

Mrs. Erika Thornton (Contracting Officer) or SrA Elvia Arellano (Contract Administrator) are the sole points of contacts for this acquisition. All questions or concerns regarding this request for proposal must be directed IN WRITING via e-mail (preferred method) to 7CONS.Team.SourceSelection@us.af.mil. Questions will not be accepted past Wednesday, 26 September 2018 at 1200 CST.

(End of Addendum to FAR 52.212-1)

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

THIS SECTION IS FOR SOLICITATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS SECTION WILL BE PHYSICALLY REMOVED FROM ANY RESULTANT AWARD, BUT WILL BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE.

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

1.0. Basis for Contract Award

1.1. Source Selection Methodology

1.1.1. 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. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. Offerors will be ranked from lowest to highest based on the TEP for each offeror. A decision on the technical acceptability of the five lowest priced offeror’s proposal will be made. For those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs may be made between past performance and price, with past performance considered significantly more important, than cost/price. 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 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.

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

2.1. Discussions

2.1.1. The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. 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.

2.1.2. 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. Discussions will be conducted IAW AFFARS MP5315.3, Source Selection; however, the Government reserves the right to award without discussions.

2.1.3. 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.

2.2. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

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

Subfactor 2: Technical Approach Subfactor 3: Quality Control Plan

2.2.1.2. Factor 2: Past Performance

2.2.1.3. Factor 3: Price

2.2.2. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Past performance is significantly more important than technical and price. Within the technical factor, the subfactors are of equal importance.

2.3. Synopsis of Evaluation

The first step of the evaluation process is to review the cover page of Volume 1 and if applicable, any proposed Joint Venture documentation for completeness. TEAMING ARRANGEMENTS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. Joint Ventures 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 Joint Venture documentation will render the offerors proposal non-responsive and no further evaluation will be conducted.

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: contract line item numbers (CLINS) 0001-4036 (this includes the base year and all option years), and 50% of the proposed pricing for option year 4. The 50% of the proposed pricing for option year 4 is included in the TEP to account for the extension period(s) (maximum of 6 months) possible under FAR clause 52.217-8 Extension of Services.

The evaluation team will then proceed to the third step. In this step, the team will evaluate proposals for technical acceptability on an acceptable or unacceptable basis. The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the five lowest offers, assigning a rating of Acceptable/Unacceptable. If any of these offers are determined to be unacceptable, the technical evaluators will proceed to evaluate the next lowest responsive offer for technical acceptability. This process will continue until there are five technically acceptable offers or until all offers are evaluated.

The fourth step is to evaluate past performance of the offerors with the five lowest TEP and who are determined technically acceptable. The contracting officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information from all offerors based on (1) the present/past references provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources. If the none of the five lowest priced offerors is judged to have an acceptable performance confidence assessment, further offers will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror has been determined to provide the best value to the Government.

2.3.1. Price Factor

Offers conforming to all requirements of this solicitation will be ordered from lowest to highest according to TEP. TEP will be calculated as follows: TEP = Base Period + Option Period 1 + Option Period 2 + Option Period 3 + Option Period 4 + Option to Extend Services IAW FAR 52.217-8 per the pricing worksheet (attachment 3). Quantities identified will be multiplied by the unit price to confirm the extended price and then the extended price for all CLINS will be added together for a total for that specific period. Unit prices shall be used in the event that extended prices are calculated incorrectly. It is important for offerors to verify their extended pricing is accurate and to have complete unit prices and exact total amounts. Prices shall be rounded off to two decimal points.

FAR clause 52.217-8 (Extension of Services) is included in this RFP and will be incorporated into the resultant contract. Upon exercise, the clause will extend the terms and conditions of the contract period being extended at the rates specified in the contract. The CO may exercise this clause during the life of the contract at any option period to extend services for up to 6-months.

Pricing for FAR 52.217-8 will be evaluated during the initial evaluation via inclusion in the TEP of the offerors proposal (to include the base period plus all option periods) as demonstrated herein. Offerors shall not include pricing for FAR 52.217-8 in their proposals.

Prices will be evaluated for completeness, fair and reasonableness, and unbalanced pricing. Offers whose price is determined to be incomplete or unreasonable will not be considered for award. Additionally, an offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the pricing to be unbalanced.

Reasonableness: The Government will use the following various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price: comparison of proposed prices received (adequate price competition), comparison of previously proposed prices and previous Government contract prices, use of parametric estimating/rough yardsticks, comparison with competitive published price lists or market prices, comparison with Independent Government cost estimates, comparison with market research, and/or analysis of pricing information provided by the offeror.

Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze each offer to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices proposed on different CLINs for the same or similar services in the same or similar quantities with respect to option pricing. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the prices are significantly unbalanced or if the unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Offerors are cautioned against submitting an unbalanced offer. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite a reasonable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to price. An example of an unbalanced offer would be proposed contract line items that are significantly less than or significantly overstated in relation to the other proposed contracted line items (either of the offeror’s proposal or the same contract line items as proposed by other offerors). The Government may also consider an offer unbalanced if there is a significant difference between proposed contract line items in the same contract line items category between option periods or the proposed prices from year to year or above what would be considered a reasonable adjustment for inflation. An offer may be rejected if the CO determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

The Government has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. However, IAW FAR 15.403-1(b) and FAR 15.403-3(a), data other than certified cost or pricing data may be required to support a determination of price reasonableness. If, after receipt of proposals, the CO determines that there is insufficient information available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1 apply, the offeror may be required to submit other than certified cost or pricing data. All information relating to the proposed price including all required supporting documentation must be included in the Price Volume.

2.3.2. Technical Factor

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. The government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings in Table C-1 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures for each subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. 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 discussions.

Technical evaluation will start with the lowest priced responsive offeror. If the lowest priced offeror receives a technical rating of acceptable, proposal evaluations will continue until a minimum of five (5) technically acceptable proposals have been evaluated. Only those offerors determined to be technically acceptable will be considered for evaluation of past performance.

To be determined technically acceptable at the factor level, the offeror must be rated acceptable in each subfactor. A subfactor will be rated acceptable when all the corresponding elements of the subfactor are met. Risk will not receive a separate rating; rather, it will be inherent within the subfactor ratings.

2.3.2.1. Technical Subfactor 1 – Management/Organizational Structure

The management plan is acceptable when it successfully meets the following criteria: The offeror provides a management staffing approach that adequately provides personnel qualified to meet the requirements of the PWS. This includes retention of personnel, organization structure, and staffing plan including key personnel, and related commercial and/or government experience supporting Grounds Maintenance services. The offeror shall also submit a realistic approach to their hiring and retention process that enables contract performance at Dyess AFB, TX. The offeror provide an organizational chart identifying key personnel with a description of their work experience and all required certifications/licenses required to perform these services. The staffing plan addresses the labor mix between the growing season and non-growing seasons.

2.3.2.2. Technical Subfactor 2 – Technical Approach

The offeror shall submit a Technical Approach that addresses all requirements of the PWS. The technical approach is acceptable when it successfully meets the following criteria:

· Example of a draft mowing schedule and draft rock beds cleaning schedule based on the provided maps.

· List of the quantity and equipment type, brand, and salient characteristics which the contractor determines as a reasonable equipment inventory sufficient to perform the required grounds maintenance services. Furthermore, the plan addresses how the contractor plans to obtain and maintain this equipment throughout the life of the contract.

· Plan to conform to EPA standard in the handling of chemicals, and certifying personnel.

· Approach to mitigating rapidly growing weeds (to include those in ditches).

2.3.2.3. Technical Subfactor 3 – Quality Control Plan

Offerors shall provide a Quality Control Plan (QCP) describing their Quality Management System (QMS). In order to meet the government’s quality requirements and be determined acceptable, a contractor’s QMS should be robust enough and resourced adequately to execute four key quality functions: 1) Detection of quality program problems and defects; 2) Identification of root causes for quality related problems/defects; 3) Correction of root causes related to detected problems/defects; and, 4) Follow-up to ensure quality related problems/defects do not recur. Furthermore, a mature QMS requires the contractor be the proactive party on quality. The goal is to obtain performance reflective of continuous improvement with no reliance on COR’s surveillance to detect problems/defects, determine root causes, or ensure quality related problems/defects do not recur. The plan further includes how the contractor will limit the impact of inclement weather and how the grounds will remain in compliance after a weather event.

Only technically acceptable proposals will move on to the past performance phase of the evaluation.

2.3.3. PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

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.

The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

Evaluation. Past performance will be evaluated on recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. The five lowest priced offers will receive an integrated overall performance confidence assessment rating. If an offeror within the five lowest priced proposals evaluated is judged to provide the best value for the Government, the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers. If the none of the five lowest priced offerors is judged to have an acceptable performance confidence assessment, further offers will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror has been determined to provide the best value to the Government. Tradeoffs may be made between past performance and price, with past performance considered significantly more important, than price. Past performance will be evaluated as a measure of the government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform based on previous and current contract efforts.

Sources of Past Performance Information (PPI). The Government will use past performance information submitted by the offerors’ references, other sources such as other Federal Government offices, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)/Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS), and private and commercial sources. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. Relevancy is defined below. Consideration will be given to whether the past performance information is applicable to the prime contractor and/or joint venture actually performing that part of the requirement.

Recency. For the purpose of this evaluation, “recent” is defined as performance occurring within three (3) years from the date of issuance of the RFP.

Relevancy. Relevant contracts include grounds maintenance projects of similar magnitude and scope. Similar magnitude will be considered as a contract priced at a minimum of $500,000.00 per year. Similar scope will be considered a contract to service improved grounds of more than 350 acres.

The following relevancy ratings as outlined in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4, apply to each citation reviewed:

Performance Problems. Where the relevant past and present performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and…