FA4819-16-R-5001-_Amendment__1 _AFCEC_Ops_re-compete.docx

FA4819-16-R-5001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM 52.212-2

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2—EVALUATION—COMMERCIAL ITEMS (Oct 2014)

A. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: Through the use of FAR 13.5 Simplified Procedures for Certain Commercial Items, the resulting contract from this acquisition will be a Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) contract. In accordance with FAR 13.5 the contracting officers are authorized to use procedural discretion and flexibility, so that commercial item acquisitions in this dollar range may be solicited, offered, evaluated, and awarded in a simplified manner that maximizes efficiency and economy and minimizes burden and administrative costs for both the Government and industry. The Government will make a best value award decision using the Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable evaluation process. Under this is a competitive best value process all factors other than cost/price are evaluated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable basis. Only offerors who are determined technically acceptable considering all technical sub-factors and whose price is determined reasonable are eligible for award. Unless specifically identified in your proposal, by submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors and sub-factors. All technically acceptable proposals shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. Failure to meet any technical requirement will result in a proposal being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

1. Initially, proposals shall be evaluated according to technical acceptability in accordance with guidance provided Section B, Volume II below. Only those technical proposals determined to be acceptable, will be considered for award.

2. The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the services outlined in the PWS. The specific guidance for this evaluation process is defined in Section B, Volume III below. Technically acceptable proposals with acceptable past performance, will be considered for award.

3. Evaluation of the proposed price of all technically acceptable proposals. The total evaluated price (TEP) will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in the SF 1449 by the contractor proposed unit price for each item to confirm the extended amount for each. The Government will determine the offeror’s TEP by adding the Labor FFP CLINs (Basic and Options years) together to calculate the TEP. Transition, Travel and ODC CLINS are pre-established amounts with applicable NTE’s stated in CLIN descriptions. These will be excluded from TEP evaluation; however, the amounts will be added for the purposes of calculating total contract value.

Award Without Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions with respective offerors. Offerors shall submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Proposal Preparation Instructions per the FAR Clause 52.212-1 Addendum. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (e.g., the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Exchanges conducted with regard to adverse past performance or to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions, and the Contracting Officer (CO) reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision. Therefore, each initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. If the Government elects to hold discussions, a competitive range will be established based on FAR 15.306(c) procedures and this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to further limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the lowest priced technically acceptable proposals against the evaluation criteria in the FAR Clause 52.212-2 Addendum. If the CO determines that an offeror’s proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award. Written notice of this decision shall be provided to unsuccessful. Offerors excluded or otherwise eliminated from the competitive range may request a debriefing using guidance from FAR 15.505 or 15.506.

After conclusion of discussions (if held) and receipt of final proposal revisions, the Government will rank all proposals by TEP. If the lowest reasonably priced, technically acceptable proposal--by TEP--is determined responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104, award will be made to that offeror as this represents the best value to the Government. The Contracting Officer will then make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

Solicitation Requirements

By submission of its proposal in accordance with instructions provided in the FAR Clause 52.212-1 Addendum, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors. All technically acceptable proposals shall be treated equally except for the respective prices and performance records. Failure to meet a requirement will result in a proposal being determined un-awardable.

B. EVALUATION FACTORS

Volume II – Technical Capability Factor

The purpose of the Technical Factor is to assess whether the offeror’s proposal will satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. All Technical Capability sub-factors are weighted equally. Each sub-factor within the Technical Capability factor will receive either an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” Technical Capability rating. An unacceptable sub-factor assessment will render the entire proposal un-awardable. The proposals will be evaluated against the following three Technical Capability sub-factors: Experience, Technical Qualifications, Staffing Plan, and Facility Clearance.

Technical Capability Ratings

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Sub-factor 1 – Experience.

The proposal is technically acceptable when the offeror provides an acceptable description of recent (with the last 5 yrs from the date of this solicitation) experience in providing management and labor support services necessary to baseline operations capability, including crosscutting operational functions; maintenance of facilities and assistance in accomplishing Research Development Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) projects and events. Experience can be demonstrated as either a prime contractor or a member of a teaming effort; and either through a single prior or current contract or by a combination of prior/current contracts. Contractor experience information should consist of performance given within the previous 5 years from the issue of this solicitation

Sub-factor 2 - Staffing Plan.

The Staffing Plan shall demonstrate clear understanding and sound approach for meeting minimum experience and qualifications required as outlined in Paragraph 1.2 and Appendix B – Contractor Qualifications & Experience of the PWS. The contractor shall obtain resumes and/or certifications showing that contractor personnel are qualified for the tasks to be performed within 15 days after contract award

The Staffing Plan is acceptable when the offeror’s staffing plan demonstrates a clear understanding and sound approach to staffing all the operations support tasks outlined in of the Staffing section of the PWS (paragraph 4.25) and Paragraph 1.2 and Appendix B. Logical and concise methodology must be presented in the offeror’s proposal as to what staffing techniques will be used to ensure adequate staffing is provided throughout the life of the contract. A rating of unacceptable in one or more of the technical sub-factors will constitute an overall rating of unacceptable for the technical evaluation. The plan shall include as a minimum:

a. The staffing plan of action in order to meet the requirements of paragraphs 1.2, 4.25 and Appendix B of the PWS.

b. Provide Staffing Matrix depicting the proposed labor mix and manning.

Sub-factor 3 – Facility Security Clearances.

The Security Clearances sub-factor is acceptable when the offeror’s security clearance plan demonstrates the offeror’s ability to ensure qualified personnel with the required security clearances are available to satisfy the contract security requirements by the contract start date (PWS 4.1.3). A rating of unacceptable in one or more of the technical sub-factors will constitute an overall rating of unacceptable for the technical evaluation. The proposal shall include as a minimum:

a. Offeror’s must possess or have the ability to obtain a Facility Security Clearance (SECRET). Facility Security Clearance must be in place NO LATER THAN 60 days following the contract award date. If the successful offeror fails to obtain the Facility Security Clearance (SECRET) within the 60 days, then the contract will be subject to termination.

b. All inquiries should be sent to:

DSS Knowledge Ctr

(888) 282-7682 DSS.FCB@mail.mil

Volume III – Past Performance Factor

The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements. Past performance should be initially evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s present/past performance is recent, and relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired. Past performance will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis using the ratings in table below. The proposal shall include as a minimum:

1. Past Performance References - The evaluation for the past performance section will ensure the offeror provided a record of relevant and recent past performance on no more than three (3) previous/current contracts. The evaluation will ensure that past performance information is provided for each teaming partner.

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 13.106-2). 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.”

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.

Recency

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, a current effort or completed effort must have been performed during the past five (5) years with at least six (6) months of that effort in the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. The past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

Relevancy

Relevancy includes performance of efforts involving requirements that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity than the effort described in the solicitation. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts most closely resemble the scope, magnitude, and complexity of this solicitation. Scope considers the range of service categories provided. Complexity considers the contract type. Magnitude considers the overall dollar value of the effort. Consideration will be given to the business relationships between the offeror and teaming partners.

Sources

Past performance information will be obtained from the references requested above and other sources will be used to establish the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. The other sources are as follows:

• Past performance information may be obtained from questionnaires (Attachment 6) tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition.

• Past performance information may be obtained from established systems such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and may be obtained from other sources available to the Government, such as the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials.

Volume IV –

Price Factor

1. Price Reasonableness. For all technically acceptable offerors, the Government will evaluate the price information submitted in each offeror’s Price Proposal, as required by the FAR Clause 52.212-1 Addendum, to determine if proposed prices are fair and reasonable using one or more of the proposal analysis techniques IAW with FAR 13.106-2, which may include, but not limited to, one or more of the following techniques listed below. Any other information provided by the offeror not required by the FAR Clause 52.212-1 Addendum will not be considered or evaluated. A contract will not be awarded to an offeror whose price is not determined to be fair and reasonable.

a. The Government may use any of the following price analysis techniques to determine price reasonableness: 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.

b. In addition, proposed unit prices may be evaluated for unbalanced pricing (reference FAR 15.404-1(g)). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items or sub line items appears to be significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices are significantly unbalanced.

c. If the proposal analysis techniques above are insufficient to make a determination of price reasonableness, the CO may request data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, and/or may use other proposal analysis techniques to make a determination of price reasonableness.

2. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): A TEP will be calculated for each offeror and presented for award decision purposes. The TEP will be calculated as follows:

a. The FFP unit prices for each Labor CLIN will be multiplied by the corresponding quantity for that line item to calculate a total estimated amount for each. The sum of the total estimated amounts will calculate the TEP for the Basic and all Option Periods. Transition, Travel and ODC CLINS are pre-established amounts with applicable NTE’s stated in CLIN descriptions. These will be excluded from TEP evaluation; however, the amounts will be added for the purposes of calculating total contract value.

b. FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, is included in the RFP and will be incorporated into the resultant contract; upon exercise, the clause will extend the terms and conditions of the contract period (Option Year 4) being extended at the rates specified in the contract, the evaluation of which will be considered and included in the initial evaluation of which will be included in the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of the proposal (to include the base period plus all option periods) as demonstrated herein. Proposed pricing for the 6-month extension will be based on fifty percent (50%) of Option Year 4 where the 6-month extension may be used to cover the option to extend services IAW clause 52.217-8. Offerors shall not include pricing in their proposals for this clause as pricing will be based on the monthly rate of Option Year 4 in which FAR 52.217-8 may be exercised. Evaluation of options and FAR 52.217-8 will not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

[END OF ADDENDUM]

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf