Atch_3_Addena_to_52.212-2.pdf

ADDENDA TO 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors -- Commercial Items (Jul 2013)

1. BASIS FOR AWARD:

Award will be made using the Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable (LPTA) procedure. The award will be made to the lowest priced responsive quote that meets both technical and past performance standards.

All quotes received prior to the established suspense date and time will be ranked by overall total evaluated price (TEP) and evaluated for technical acceptability starting with the lowest priced quote. The

TEP will be derived by adding the total price for the base year and each option year. The lowest priced quote will then be evaluated for technical acceptability. Once a technically acceptable quote is found the selection process will move to the past performance; if the past performance is rated as “acceptable” the evaluation process will end and an award will be made. If the technical and/or past performance rating is

“unacceptable”, the technical team will review the next lowest TEP quote and the process will restart until a technically acceptable quote with a past performance rating of “acceptable” is found. If one technical factor is determined unacceptable, the entire quote is determined to be technically unacceptable. If a quote is found technically unacceptable, it will be eliminated from further evaluation. The Government reserves the right to enter into discussions if all quotes are determined to be unacceptable.

2. EVALUATION FACTOR1:

2.1 Price. The price evaluation will document the reasonableness and affordability of the quoted total price offered by the contractor. For the purpose of evaluation, and to establish reasonableness and affordability, the Government may compare the offerors quoted price against the Independent Government Cost Estimate

(IGCE), and historical data from previous similar efforts. There is no page limit for this section; all offerors must complete and submit Attachment 1 CLIN Structure rounded to the nearest whole cent. All Offerors are required to submit quotes via e-mail to mandy.omalley.2@us.af.mil and barbara.squitieri@us.af.mil.

Quotes must include the following price criteria:

2.1.1 Quoted prices shall be fully burdened inclusive of all direct and indirect costs (e.g., profit, fringe benefits, salary, indirect rates). The total of all CLINs will be evaluated for completeness and accuracy, and used for total evaluated price. Round all prices up to the nearest penny.

2.1.2 Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. 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).

3. EVALUATION FACTOR 2:

3.1 Technical Approach. The Government will evaluate the Offeror on its entire proposed technical approach for compliance with the Statement of Work (SOW). Offerors are required to submit documentation stating the location of the proposed training site, a detailed description of the facilities at the training site, and a sample Program of Instruction (POI) for the baseline requirement. All of which must meet the minimum requirement of the Statement of Work. Offeror not submitting all information in this paragraph will be deemed non-responsive. (The sample Program of

Instruction (POI) cannot be more than 20 one-sided pages; and the entire technical approach submitted cannot be more than 30 one-sided pages. All documents submitted must be 12pt Font, Times

New Roman)

Attachment 3 mailto:mandy.omalley.2@us.af.mil mailto:barbara.squitieri@us.af.mil

4. EVALUATION FACTOR 3:

4.1 Past Performance. The Government will evaluate the Offeror on its entire Past Performance history. Offerors are required to submit the following as part of their Past Performance:

4.1.1 Questionnaires. The Contractor shall submit the questionnaires to three (3) references for completion to be returned to the Government POC identified within the RFQ. The Offeror is responsible for ensuring that the questionnaire is completed and returned no later than the closing date of this RFQ. Greater consideration will be given to Offeror’s who submit three “recent”

(within 5 years) and “relevant” questionnaires. (cannot be more than 3 one-sided pages; must be

12pt Font, Times New Roman)

4.1.2 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 questionnaire 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; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting

Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

4.1.3 The currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data and general trends in contractor’s performance will be evaluated as part of past performance.

In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFQ.

4.1.3.1 If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent past/present performance information on previous teaming arrangements with same partner. Each party to the arrangement must provide a list of three (3) past and present relevant contracts.

4.1.3.2 Subcontractor and Joint Venture Consent: Past Performance information pertaining to a subcontractor or Joint Venture cannot be disclosed to the prime Offeror without consent. Provide with the quote a letter from all subcontractors or Joint Ventures that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor.

4.1.3.3 The relevant and recent past performance of the Subcontractor or Teaming

Partner is considered as important as the past performance of the prime contractor.

5. EVALUATION PROCESS:

5.1 Step 1: The Government shall rank all offers by price (including options) from lowest to highest.

5.2 Step 2: Evaluate lowest priced Offeror for technical acceptability. The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical approach on an acceptable/unacceptable basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable. If the lowest priced Offeror is determined “Technically

Acceptable”, the evaluation team will proceed to rate the lowest priced Offerors past performance.

Should the lowest priced Offeror be rated “Technically Unacceptable”, evaluation of the next

Offeror in order by price will continue until technical acceptability can be determined at that point the evaluation team will proceed to rate the lowest priced technically acceptable Offerors’ past performance. All evaluated Offerors technical approaches shall be rated in accordance with the following:

5.2.1 Approach for Evaluation under the Technical Approach Factor. The Technical Approach evaluation provides an assessment of the Offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s requirements. The Technical Approach criteria will receive one of the ratings described in Table

1 – Technical Approach Ratings, excerpted below. The ratings depict how well the Offeror’s approach meets the Technical Approach criteria.

Table 1 – Technical Approach Rating

Technical Ratings Acceptable Quote clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Quote does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

5.3 Step 3 - Evaluate lowest priced technically acceptable Offeror’s past performance. If the lowest priced technically acceptable Offeror receives a past performance rating of “Acceptable”, evaluation is complete and award will be made to that Offeror. If the lowest priced technically acceptable Offeror’s past performance does not receive an “Acceptable” rating, evaluation of the next lowest price Offeror, with an acceptable technical approach, will be accomplished. This process will continue until acceptable confidence can be determined; and award will then be made to that Offeror. Past performance will be evaluated in accordance with the following:

5.3.1 Relevancy Assessment – 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 Approach factors and Price factor. Consideration will be given to service similarity, complexity, type of effort, contract scope and performance period. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s (including subcontractor/teaming partner(s)) past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. 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 questionnaires, and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The

Government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

Table 2 – Past Performance Relevancy Rating

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

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.

5.3.2 Recency Assessment: An assessment of 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 5 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

Table 2 – Past Performance Recency Rating

PAST PERFORMANCE RECENCY RATINGS

RECENT Recent is defined as performance occurring within the last 5 years.

NOT RECENT Not Recent is defined as performance occurring more than 5 years from the date of the issuance of the RFP.

5.3.3 Assigning Ratings. “Acceptable/Unacceptable” As a result of the relevancy/recency assessments, offerors will receive an “Acceptable or Unacceptable” rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is recent and relevant to the technical approach, the resulting “Acceptable or Unacceptable” rating represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. 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. 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.”

Table 2 – Overall Past Performance Rating

OVERALL PAST PERFORMANCE RATING

ACCEPTABLE During the contract period, there is reasonable expectation that the contractor performance is meeting (or has met) contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

UNACCEPTABLE 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.