Attachment 6 - Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 14 Dec 2022.docx

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Addendum to 52.212-2 - Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services. (14 Dec 2022, Amendment 0003)

1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD.

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 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. For those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs may be made between past performance and cost/price, with past performance considered significantly more important than 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.

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 Addendums to the solicitation/contract.

2.0 Discussions:

2.1. The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

2.2. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to establish a competitive range and hold discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) 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 submitted to the Government in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may render the Offeror’s proposal ineligible for award. After conclusion of discussions and receipt of FPRs, the Government will make award to the Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government.

2.3. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (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. Exchanges conducted IAW FAR 15.306(a)(1) and FAR 15.306(a)(2) will not constitute discussions.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS / SUBFACTORS FOR AWARD

3.1. Proposals will be evaluated using the three evaluation factors as outlined in Table 1, Evaluation Factors and Subfactors.

Table 1 – Factors and Subfactors

Factor 1

Subfactor 1 Subfactor 2 Subfactor 3 Technical

Transition Plan Technical Approach Staffing Approach

4.0. EVALUATION OF OFFEROR’S PROPOSAL

4.1. Technical Proposal (Factor 1). The technical factor and subfactors listed in Table 1 above will be evaluated using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated 31 March 2016, as shown below in Tables 2. The Offeror’s proposal must demonstrate a clear understanding of the nature and scope of work required. Failure to provide a complete proposal may reflect a lack of capability to perform the work requirements and may result in a determination that the Offeror’s proposal is “Unacceptable.” Detailed instructions are included in the addendum to 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items and Commercial Services, of this solicitation. The Government will assign a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” for the offerors technical proposal. If any Subfactor is determined to be technically unacceptable, then the entire technical proposal will be determined “Unacceptable”.

Table 2 – Technical Ratings

4.1.1. Subfactor 1 – Transition Plan The offerors proposed transition plan will be determined acceptable if it demonstrates, at a minimum, the following:

4.1.1.1. An adequate approach to ensure a sufficient quantity of personnel possess the requisite security clearances to satisfy the requirements IAW PWS paragraph 4.27.1.1.4 during the transition period to allow for successful turnover of the Locksmith and EMCS requirements.

4.1.1.2. An adequate approach to ensure the offeror possesses the requisite Facility Clearance Level (FCL), which is equal to the highest classification stated on the DD254 attached to the solicitation, in advance of the transition period to allow for successful contract turnover.

4.1.1.3. An adequate approach for ensuring that all vehicles required to fulfill all daily operations are in place at Tyndall AFB, FL by the beginning of contract performance. The plan shall include milestones identifying the availability of each type and quantity of vehicles.

4.1.1.4. An adequate approach for ensuring the availability of specialized vehicles/heavy equipment required to fulfill the objectives in PWS paragraphs 1.7.2.6, 4.5.2, 1.8.2.6, 1.7.2.11 within the Priority 1 Emergency Response timeframes identified in the PWS paragraph 1.9.4.1.1.1 by the beginning of contract performance. The plan shall include milestones identifying the availability of each type and quantity of specialized vehicles/heavy equipment.

4.1.1.5. An adequate approach for ensuring that all personnel required to fulfill all daily operations are in place at Tyndall AFB, FL by the beginning of contract performance. The plan shall include milestones identifying the availability of each type and quantity of personnel.

4.1.2. Subfactor 2 – Technical Approach: The Offeror’s proposed Activity Management Plan (AMP), also referred to as lifecycle management, using an HVAC portfolio as an example, will be determined acceptable, if at a minimum, the plan:

4.1.2.1. Demonstrates an adequate understanding of the life cycle management process identified in PWS paragraph 1.3.1.4 and demonstrates a matured capability that integrates AMP plans into daily operational decisions, accomplishes full return on investment (ROI) analysis for most major infrastructure systems and produces a 8-year (FYDP+3) maintenance and replacement plan that at a minimum meets the intent outlined in the CEOE Playbook in Attachment 1N.

4.1.2.2. Demonstrates an adequate approach to addresses each of the following:

(1) The challenges associated with the HVAC requirements and the AMP process

(2) The critical path component, to include major planning milestones such as working groups, meetings, and deliverables necessary to produce the FYDP+3 maintenance and replacement plan and inform the annual integrated priority list (IPL).

(3) The risk component, to include the impacts of facility condition to decision making

(4) The prioritization component, to include how risk affects this approach

(5) The execution method, to include who is responsible for executing the work

5.1.2.3. Demonstrates a data analysis approach that addresses each of the following:

(1). An adequate data acquisition process that includes the use of Air Force required IT Tools and data as well as other methods

(2) An adequate data quality assurance method to ensure data is accurate and relevant prior to analysis

(3) Adequately identifies specific tools, methods, and/or techniques that will be used to make data driven decisions to ensure that asset requirement work is planned and executed in a manner that minimizes lifecycle costs and maximizes return on investment

4.1.2.4. Adequately identifies techniques, tools and/or procedures to fulfill cost estimation requirements that are consistent with industry standards.

4.1.3. Subfactor 3 – Staffing Approach: The Offeror’s proposed staffing approach will be determined technically acceptable, if at a minimum:

4.1.3.1. The Manpower Matrix (Attachment 9) demonstrates an adequate staffing level to fulfill all PWS requirements throughout the base period and each option period, accounting for the annual real property fluctuations presented in Attachment 1B.

4.1.3.2. Sound rationale is provided for how the proposed manpower in the Manpower Matrix (Attachment 9) will be utilized to fulfill all requirements in the PWS.

4.1.3.3. An adequate approach for ensuring all personnel are trained, certified, and qualified as required to fulfill all requirements identified in the PWS throughout the life of the contract.

4.2 Past Performance Proposal (Factor 2).

4.2.1. The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability, which includes, if applicable, the extent of its critical subcontractor involvement, to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming contractor) other than the offeror itself, that will perform a minimum of 25% of the total proposed effort based on the total program price. The past performance evaluation will be accomplished through a performance confidence assessment rating based on the Offeror’s demonstrated record of recent, relevant, and overall quality of past performance information that pertains to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements. The source of past performance 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, 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, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume, and information obtained from other sources available to the Government to include, but not limited to: the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Document Access (EDA), or other databases; and interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

4.2.2. Recency is defined as at least 12 months of the effort’s period of performance must have been performed during the past five years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. The entire contract will be evaluated if there are 12-months of performance within the five-year recency window. Performance efforts that do not meet the recency criteria will not be evaluated for relevancy or performance quality.

4.2.3. Relevant performance measures the extent of similarity in scope, magnitude, and complexity of the Offeror’s past performance and the solicitation requirements. For each Past Performance effort, relevancy will be determined by the similarity to the scope, magnitude of effort and complexity of the Offerors’ performance. Relevancy will be assigned a rating outlined in Table 3, IAW the DoD Source Selection Procedures. Performance efforts that are determined to be Not Relevant will not be further evaluated. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy.

4.2.4. The Government will use the past performance relevancy ratings and descriptions as outlined in Table 3 below:

Table 3 – Relevancy Ratings

4.2.5. Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality (how well the contractor performed on the contracts) of recent, relevant efforts. The quality assessment may include adverse information. Adverse is defined as past performance that supports an unsatisfactory or marginal rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment. 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 resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. IAW FAR 15.306, Offerors may be given the opportunity to address adverse past performance information to which they have not had a prior opportunity to respond.

Note: Self-identifying adverse information and corrective actions on PPI Worksheets constitutes an opportunity to respond.

4.2.6. Past Performance Evaluation Confidence Ratings: The Government will evaluate past performance and assign an overall confidence rating outlined in Table 4 below IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevance and quality of products or services assessments. Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating at the factor level.

4.2.7. Key Personnel: For offerors/joint venture members or critical subcontractors that are newly formed entities in existence less than 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, the quality of such key personnel’s performance as verified by the Past Performance Team will be considered if the submitted contract involves the key personnel performing the same role currently being proposed on the instant acquisition and this performance occurred during the past five years from the issuance date of this solicitation. Any such key personnel must already be employed by the offeror/joint venture member, or in the case of a critical subcontractor, must already be employed by the critical subcontractor. Offerors are reminded that a letter of intent to hire does not constitute employment.

Table 4 – Past Performance Confidence Ratings

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 past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral”. A “Substantial” or “Satisfactory” confidence rating may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

4.3. Price Proposal (Factor 3)

4.3.1. The Government will evaluate the price information submitted in each Offeror’s price proposal (Volume IV) in accordance with the addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Products and Commercial Services, and as described below.

4.3.2. The Government will rank all offers proposed pricing from lowest to highest based upon the offerors Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

4.3.3. The sum of FFP CLINs X001-X0013, for the Base Period and each Option Period, and CLIN 0018 (Transition), will form the Offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The Not-To-Exceed CLINs X014-X017 for the base period and each option period will not be evaluated for award decision purposes, and therefore, are not included in the TEP.

4.3.4. The contract will include FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, with the potential to extend the contract for a period not to exceed six (6) months beyond the date the Option to Extend Services is exercised. In the event the Government requires continued performance under the Option to Extend Services, the Government’s evaluation of prices proposed (specifically for the period preceding the exercise of the Option to Extend Services) will be considered fair and reasonable as applied to the Option to Extend Services. The Option to Extend Services option rates will only be adjusted as the result of revisions to the applicable prevailing wage rates of the Department of Labor Wage Determination or Collective Bargaining Agreement.

4.3.5. The contract will include FAR Clause 52.217-9, Option to Extend the Term of the Contract, with the potential to extend the contract for a period up to five years (base year plus four 1-year option periods). In the event the Government requires continued performance under the Option to Extend the Term of the Contract, the Government’s evaluation of price outlined herein will apply to all Options. The Option rates may only be adjusted as the result of revisions to the applicable prevailing wage rates of the Department of Labor Wage Determination or Collective Bargaining Agreement.

4.3.6. Price Reasonableness: The price information submitted in each Offeror’s price proposal, as required by 52.212-1, will be evaluated to determine if proposed prices are fair and reasonable IAW the proposal analysis techniques described at FAR 15.404-1 based on each Offeror’s proposed approach. A contract will not be awarded to an Offeror whose price is not determined to be fair and reasonable. The price proposed shall correspond to the requirements of the PWS. If the proposal analysis techniques IAW FAR 15.404-1(b) are insufficient to make a determination of price reasonableness or, if after receipt of a proposal, the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition does not exist and a determination is made that none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1(b) apply, the Offeror may be requested to provide certified cost or pricing data IAW FAR 15.403 or data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, in order to make a determination of price reasonableness.

4.3.7. Unbalanced Pricing: In addition, proposed unit prices will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing IAW 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 item(s) appear to be significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. Each Offeror’s price proposal should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate prices are not unbalanced.

(End of Addendum)