Attachment 10 Addendum to 52.212-2 - Updated 8 Jan 21.pdf

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 52.212-2, Evaluation-Commercial Items

1. EVALUATION STRUCTURE

The resulting contract from this acquisition will be an Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract. The Government will utilize Subjective Tradeoff source selection procedures to conduct a 100% 8(a) small business set-aside competition.

2. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This is a Subjective Tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS). Award will be made to a single offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements, and whose proposal, judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in this solicitation, represents the best value to the Government.

Trade-offs between cost/price and non-cost/price factors are permitted in accordance with FAR 15.101-1. For this source selection, the evaluation factors shall be past performance and price where past performance is more important than price. This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal. Likewise, it may also be the case that the proposal receiving the highest past performance evaluation may not receive the award.

2.1. Number of Contracts to Be Awarded

The Government intends to award a single IDIQ contract as a result of this solicitation. As set forth in FAR 15.306(a), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. In the event that discussions are held, a competitive range determination will be made. 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 may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the acceptable proposals.

2.2. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

By submission of a proposal, an offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. If solicitation amendments are issued, an offer accedes to all amendment requirements. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation and any solicitation amendments may result in the offeror being ineligible for award.

Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions “Unacceptable”.

3. EVALUATION FACTORS and SUBFACTORS The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate a proposal.

3.1. PAST PERFORMANCE

The Past Performance evaluation will assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation and PWS requirements through prior or present performance. Past performance will be evaluated on recency/relevancy as well as confidence rating based on the past performance response.

Recency/relevancy will be determined with the ratings of “Recent and Relevant” or “Not Recent and/or Relevant” based on how recent and relevant the offeror’s past performance is to the PWS requirements. Confidence will be determined with confidence ratings of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, and Unknown (Neutral Confidence) based on the performance records provided with the past performance and the governments’ internal research. Offerors are cautioned that the Government may use data provided in the offeror’s proposal and data obtained from other sources, such as the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or similar systems.

3.1.1. Past Performance Factors

Past Performance will be evaluated base on five Factors with details shown below.

3.1.1.1. Management Effectiveness

Management effectiveness refers to the effectiveness of the contractors’ management team. This includes providing experienced and qualified supervisors and managers for contractor employees.

Management effectiveness is met when offeror demonstrates through its past performance the following:

- Ability to provide experienced managers and supervisors with technical and administrative abilities to meet contract requirements.

- Ability to maintain appropriate staffing levels (number/qualifications)

- Ability to maintain overall management effectiveness

3.1.1.2. Quality of Service and Workmanship

Quality of service and workmanship refers to the quality of contractor personnel employed under the contract to include retaining quality employees. Additionally, this would cover the willingness of the contractor to ensure that services are exceptional without direction from the Government.

Evaluation Category Factor

3.1. Past Performance 3.1.1.1. Factor 1. Management Effectiveness

3.1.1.2. Factor 2. Quality of Service and Workmanship

3.1.1.3. Factor 3. Manpower Efficiencies

3.1.1.4. Factor 4. Quality Control

3.1.1.5. Factor 5. Customer Satisfaction

3.2. Price 3.2.1. Reasonableness

3.2.2. Unbalanced Pricing

3.2.3. Completeness

Quality of services and workmanship is met when offeror demonstrates through its past performance the following:

- Ability to provide professional staff and maintain/retain quality of staff

- Willingness to produce exceptional results

- Acceptable overall quality of service provided throughout life of contract

3.1.1.3. Manpower Efficiencies

Manpower efficiencies refers to the contractor ability to provide staff on time throughout the entire contracts. This also refers to the contractors’ ability to terminate an underperforming employee with minimal disruption to the other staff. Lastly, this section is where the ability to manage a large workforce should be captured.

Manpower efficiencies is met when offeror demonstrates through its past performance the following:

- Ability provide new hires in timely manner

- Ability to adequately recruit qualified candidates for open positions

- Ability to retain fully qualified individual throughout duration of contract

- Provides adequate notification of employee’s terminating position

- Capability to manage a multi-disciplined workforce. Multi-disciplined workforce is defined as at least three (3) medical disciplines with at least one (1) being a credentialed discipline.

3.1.1.4. Quality Control

Quality control indicates that how the contractor planned for quality control and fully utilized that plan to control the quality of service. This section should detail any adverse performance that was identified and how the contractor correct the adverse action and ensured it was not repeated.

Quality control is met when offeror demonstrates through its past performance the following:

- Ability to provide an adequate quality control plan and adhere to the plan

- Ability to properly execute and document its quality control checks/corrective actions

- Adequate overall quality control

3.1.1.5. Customer Satisfaction

Customer satisfaction refers to maintaining a professional relationship between the contractor and organizations. It should cover how the contractor worked to resolve any valid customer complaints.

Management effectiveness is met when offeror demonstrates through its past performance the following:

- Maintain a professional working relationship

- Ability to resolve valid customer complaints

3.1.2. Overall Ratings

As a result of the recency, relevancy, and quality assessments of the past performance evaluated, offerors will receive one overall past performance evaluation rating. The Past Performance evaluation rating is shown in Table 2 – Performance Confidence Assessments.

Table 2. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

3.1.3. Evaluation Process

The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated past and present work record that is recent and relevant to this acquisition to assess the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements as proposed. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s present and recent past performance.

In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s proposal and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, such as, but not limited to:

- CPARS

- Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); or other databases

- Interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, Contracting Officers or other government personnel; and commercial sources

The past performance narratives and past performance questionnaires will both receive their own individual confidence rating. Taking all information into account (past performance narrative confidence rating, past performance questionnaire confidence rating, and other information found (as detailed in 3.1.3.)) the Government will provide one overall past performance rating for each offeror.

3.1.4. Recency/Relevancy Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent and relevant. To be recent, the current effort must be ongoing or must have been performed for a minimum of six (6) months during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. To be relevant past performance must be similar in scope and complexity and for similar positions. Any past performance information submitted that does not meet recency and/or relevancy will not be evaluated.

3.1.5. Performance Confidence Assessment

Any past performance that is determined recent and relevant will be evaluated for governments’ confidence. Utilizing contractor provided information, responses from questionnaires, and other government performance evaluation sources the government will assign a rating to each contractor representing the governments’ confidence in the contractors’ ability to perform the contract based on past performance. See Table 2 – Performance Confidence Assessments for ratings and description.

3.1.6. Joint Ventures.

In a joint venture, past performance for both businesses will be evaluated equally.

3.1.7. Teaming Arrangements.

Teaming Arrangements are characterized by two or more business entities that are working together under the representation of one of the existing business entities for the duration of the contract. A teaming arrangement is not a formal merger of two or more business entities. The Government recognizes the validity and integrity of teaming arrangements as detailed in FAR Subpart 9.6. All offerors are encouraged to review FAR Subpart 9.6, to acquaint themselves with its details. Since the Government can only determine the responsibility of the prime contractor, per FAR 9.604(b), in accordance with FAR 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, offerors must identify in their offer any teaming arrangement to be considered and completely identify the relationships/responsibilities of the teaming members.

3.2. PRICE

Price will be evaluated on reasonableness, balance, and completeness as detailed in this section.

Additionally, the professional compensation plan will be evaluated in accordance with 52.222-46.

Note all offerors may not be evaluated for price based on the criteria detailed in paragraph 4, Order of Evaluation.

The Government will only evaluate proposals that receive a past performance confidence rating of Substantial or Satisfactory confidence for price. All prices that meet this criteria will be evaluated for reasonableness, balance, and completeness. Note all offerors may not be evaluated based on the criteria detailed in paragraph 4, Order of Evaluation.

3.2.1. Reasonableness

Price reasonableness is expected to be determined through adequate price competition of the Offeror’s total evaluated price but may also be compared to the independent Government estimate and through price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). For additional information see

FAR 31.201-3.

3.2.2. Unbalanced Pricing

The Government may determine a proposal “Unacceptable” should the proposed unit prices in the

Position Description Pricing Worksheet, be significantly unbalanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance presents an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3.2.3. Completeness

Price is considered complete when the offeror has proposed a Firm-Fixed Price for all applicable items in the Position Description Pricing Worksheet and Baseline Order Pricing Worksheet. Price will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror provided complete data. Complete data means the offeror provided a proposal that contains a fully completed Position Description Pricing Worksheet and completed Baseline Order Pricing Worksheet. Incomplete offers may be deemed non-responsive and will be determined to be “Unacceptable”.

3.2.4. Total Evaluated Price

The pricing submitted on the Position Description Pricing Worksheet and the Baseline Order Pricing Worksheet will be reviewed and validated by the Government. The price calculated in the Baseline Order Worksheet will be the offeror’s Total Evaluated Price. This price will be utilized to determine whether an offeror’s price fair and reasonable. The offeror’s Position Description Pricing Worksheet will be utilized to ensure unbalanced pricing does not exist and the proposal is complete.

3.2.5. Professional Compensation Plan

The submitted professional compensation plan will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 52.222- 46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees. The Professional Compensation Plan will be evaluated on an acceptable unacceptable basis. Any offeror receiving an unacceptable rating in the professional compensation plan will receive and overall unacceptable rating in price.

4. Order of Evaluation

The Government will review all proposals to determine the total evaluated price (TEP) for each offeror. The proposal with the lowest TEP will then be evaluated for completeness. If the proposal is complete, the Government will review the proposal’s past performance information. If the past performance evaluation results in a “Substantial Confidence” rating, the Government will conclude its evaluation and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will make an award to that offeror because no trade off could produce a better value. If, however, the lowest TEP proposal receives less than a “Substantial Confidence” past performance rating, the Government will continue evaluating proposals based on the next lowest TEP until either (a) a proposal receives a “Substantial Confidence” rating; or (b) all proposals have been evaluated. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will then assess all of the evaluated proposals to determine the best value to the Government.

At any point in this process the Government reserves the right to open discussions if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government.