MPF_RFP_Section_7 _Addendum_to_52.212-2.pdf

SECTION 7, ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (Jan 1999)

1. GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1. This competitive best value source selection will be conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, DoD Source Selection Procedures effective 1 Jul 2011 and Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5315.3 for Source Selection as revised 4 May 2011 using the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection process. In accordance with FAR 52.212-1, the Government reserves the right to award without discussions, but may conduct discussions if the Government determines it is necessary.

1.2. Past performance (Volume I) will be assessed on a rating of "Acceptable" or "Unacceptable" at the factor level IAW Table A-2 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures effective 1 July 2011. If the Government elects to open discussions, the competitive range may or may not include proposals rated as “Unacceptable” at the sole discretion of the Government. To be eligible for award, an offeror must receive an “Acceptable” rating for the past performance factor.

1.3. Technical proposals (Volume II) will be assessed on a rating of "Acceptable" or "Unacceptable" at the subfactor level IAW Table A-1 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures effective 1 July 2011. If the Government elects to open discussions, the competitive range may or may not include proposals rated as “Unacceptable” at the sole discretion of the Government. To be eligible for award, an offeror must receive an “Acceptable” rating for all technical subfactors. Proposals that exceed the evaluation criteria will not receive higher ratings. The Government may incorporate into this contract, by reference or full text, portions of the successful offeror’s proposal submitted in response to this solicitation as revised and supplemented through the final proposal revision.

1.4. An offeror’s proposed Price (Volume III) must be determined fair, reasonable and balanced to be rated eligible for award. Offerors should submit their best price proposal with the original submission of Volume III, in the case that the Government decides to award without discussions. If it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to open discussions we could address/resolve any pricing concerns at that time.

1.5. In order to be eligible for award, offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions; representations and certifications; evaluation factor requirements; and be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9. If an offeror fails to meet all solicitation requirements, the Government may not make an award to that offeror.

1.6. The Government intends to select one contractor for this acquisition. However, for the ease of administration, two firm-fixed-price (FFP) contracts, one for ACC and one for AFGSC, shall be awarded. Award will be made on an all or none basis. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of proposal(s) submitted and the availability of funds.

1.7. The following CLINs will be used in each awarded contract:

Contract A: Air Combat Command (ACC) will be CLIN series 0X00 – 0X11 Contract B: Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC) will be CLIN series 0X50 – 0X54

2. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY:

2.1. Proposals will be evaluated using three evaluation factors: (1) Past Performance, (2) Technical, and (3) Price.

Proposals will be evaluated for acceptability using the non-price factors/subfactors. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every non-price factor/subfactor. For this acquisition the non-price factors are technical and past performance. The Technical factor is comprised of the following three subfactors: (A) Management Approach and Manning Workload Analysis, (B) Quality Control Plan, and (C) Transition Plan.

2.2. The Government will limit its initial evaluation to the five (5) lowest priced proposals; however, reserves the right to evaluate additional proposals. The process will be conducted as follows:

2.2.1. All Price (Volume III) proposals will be evaluated and ranked by the total evaluated price. The total evaluated price of each proposal will be calculated by adding the total proposed price for all CLINs including transition, basic period, option periods and fifty percent (50%) of the offeror’s Option Year 4 price (the price for the optional extension of services IAW FAR 52.217-8).

2.2.2. The five (5) lowest priced proposals will then be evaluated for acceptability on all non-price factors.

2.3. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions in accordance with FAR 52.212-1 and make an award based on acceptable initial proposals. Accordingly, offerors are advised to submit proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable without additional information.

2.4. Should the Government find it in their best interest to open discussions and set a competitive range, the competitive range will be limited to the most highly rated proposals. The most highly rated proposals are defined as the lowest priced proposals that are rated acceptable on all the non-price factors or are considered to be easily correctable to be made acceptable on all the non-price factors.

2.4.1. If the Government holds discussions, the Government may issue evaluation notices to offerors in the competitive range. Responses will be requested from applicable offerors and discussions will be opened.

Formal responses to evaluation notices (if applicable), discussion items, and final proposal revisions will be considered in making the award decision.

2.4.2. Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) will be requested from each offeror in the competitive range at the conclusion of discussions. 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.

2.5. The award will be made to the offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitations requirements, has the lowest total overall evaluated price and receives "Acceptable" ratings for Past Performance (Volume I) and Technical Subfactors (Volume II). The LPTA source selection process does not permit tradeoffs between price and non-price factors.

3. EVALUATION FACTORS

3.1. Factor 1 - Past Performance.

3.1.1. Past Performance will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis at the overall factor level using the ratings shown below as outlined in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table A-2.

Table A-2: Past Performance Evaluation Ratings Rating Definition

Acceptable

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

Unacceptable

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

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.

In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

3.1.2. The Government will evaluate each offeror's recent and relevant present and past performance to assess whether there is a reasonable expectation that an offeror can successfully perform as proposed. For purposes of this evaluation, the “offeror” includes any joint ventures, subcontractors and/or teaming partners proposed as part of the Prime Contractor’s team under this effort. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying services that meet contract requirements including PWS requirements, price and schedule.

3.1.3. A recency determination will be made for each contract reference. Recent past performance is defined as active work/services (minimum of 12 months) that was/were performed during the three (3) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation. This includes contracts that were started prior to this time period, but still in effect with active performance (minimum of 12 months) as of three (3) years from the date of this solicitation. The Government will not consider performance that concluded more than three (3) years prior to the date of issuance of this solicitation.

3.1.4. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s present and past performance will be made. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy.

3.1.4.1. Relevancy will be assigned a rating of “Relevant” or “Not Relevant” for each Past Performance Information (PPI) contract reference. The Government will validate the relevancy information contained in the contractor provided PPI contract reference. Relevant present/past performance effort involves similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. For each individual PPI contract reference to be considered relevant, it must meet one of the following criteria:

1. Managed the operations of a DoD personnel program contract at one or more locations.

2. Performed contract services involving any of the following personnel systems or similar personnel systems: Military Personnel Data Systems (MILPDS), Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS), Real-Time Personnel Identification System (RAPIDS), and/or Automatic Records Management System (ARMS).

3.1.5. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to determine whether the offeror’s performance information is recent and relevant to the effort to be acquired (this acquisition). The second aspect is to determine how well the offeror performed on those contracts or, the quality of product or service provided. Past performance shall be evaluated and assessed based on the whole record and not solely on the number of records submitted. Past performance will be evaluated as “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” by examining references determined by the Government to be recent and relevant in relation to this requirement and the assigned NAICS code 561110 – Office Administrative Services.

3.1.6. For each recent and relevant contract, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s performance.

3.1.6.1. The Government will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all performance data obtained to determine relevancy of the work performed under those efforts as it relates to the proposed effort. The Government will, as deemed necessary, confirm past and present performance data identified by offerors in their proposals and obtain additional past and present performance data, if available from other sources. Past performance information may be obtained through one or more of the following: 1) the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); 2) similar systems of other Government departments and agencies; 3) questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition; 4) DCMA channels; 5) interviews with program managers and COs; and, 6) other sources known to the Government, including commercial sources. The evaluation will consider the recency, relevancy, and quality of each performance reference as it relates to this acquisition when assigning the past performance rating. The main purpose of the past performance evaluation is to appropriately consider each offeror’s demonstrated record of contract compliance by supplying services that meet users’ needs, including business relations, management, schedule and performance quality constraints.

3.1.7. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation aspect or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. When relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any actual corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness. In accordance with FAR 15.306(b), communications must be held with any offeror who will be excluded from competition because of adverse past performance information, unless the offeror has previously had the opportunity to comment on such information.

3.2. Factor 2 – Technical.

3.2.1. Offerors’ proposals shall demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the nature and scope of work required. The Government will not search for data to cure problems or address inconsistencies in an offeror’s proposal. Each subfactor will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis and assigned a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” based on whether the proposal meets the basic PWS requirements and standards, and satisfactorily addresses the subfactor evaluation criteria identified below for each subfactor.

To be eligible for award, offerors are required to receive an “Acceptable” rating in each technical subfactor.

Proposals that exceed the evaluation criteria will not receive higher ratings.

Table A-1: Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

3.2.2. Subfactor A: Management Approach and Manning Workload Analysis. The subfactor is acceptable when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates the following:

Aspect 1: Management Approach.

1. Effective organizational structure detailing line(s) of authority, to include subcontractors and teaming partner.

2. Clearly define functional relationships to include their roles and responsibilities and how this will ensure effective communications, both within the company and the government, to effectively execute the PWS requirements.

3. Approach to provide responsive, accurate, and effective Customer Service/Assistance capability to eligible customers.

Aspect 2: Manning Workload Analysis.

1. Sufficient labor categories, skill level, number of personnel for both full and part time positions to effectively meet PWS requirements.

2. Non-direct and ancillary work hours are supported by the offeror’s workload manning analysis and will effectively meet PWS requirements.

3.2.3. Subfactor B: Quality Control Plan.

1. Plan complies and effectively meets the requirements of PWS paragraph 1.7, to ensure quality, schedule, cost and performance.

2. Effective integration of quality control procedures throughout the overall management structure resulting in timely and accurate deliverables and processes.

3. Effective plan for notifying Government of issues affecting contract performance, contract impact, and proposed mitigation.

3.2.4. Subfactor C: Transition Plan.

1. Proposed milestones that emphasize a seamless transition with the existing contractor along with phased timelines to ensure transition is completed to support the objective of an on time, fully executed contract.

2. Effective procedures to hire, train and certify non-incumbent personnel in the event that hiring goals are not met to ensure uninterrupted service.

3.3. Factor 3 – Price

3.3.1. Price will be evaluated using techniques established in FAR 15.404-1 to ensure the Government receives a fair, reasonable, and balanced price.

3.3.1.1. In addition to the price analysis as described at FAR 15.404-1(b), price proposals will be analyzed to identify any potential unbalanced pricing (See FAR 15.404-1(g)). If the Government sees a wide variation in proposed contract line item prices, the technical evaluation team will be informed as soon as possible during the initial evaluation of proposals so the appropriate personnel may seek clarity through offeror exchanges. Absent any issues related to the stated requirement, unbalanced pricing may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal.

3.3.1.2. There is a great expectation of competition for this requirement; thus offerors are cautioned to present their best price proposal up-front. The offeror’s price proposal shall represent the offeror’s best effort to respond to the solicitation. As an LPTA source selection, the Government reserves the right to, but is not required to conduct analysis on offers that appear to be exceptionally low and not supported by the offeror’s technical approach. In instances where an offeror receives acceptable technical and past performance ratings, yet proposed prices appear exceptionally low, offerors may be requested to address this disparity, providing evidence of their capability and/or experience providing similar service(s) at similar price(s). An exceptionally or unrealistically low offer may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal.

3.3.1.3. Price will be evaluated on the total overall price. The total evaluated price consists of the total proposed price for all the firm fixed price and cost-reimbursable (CR) Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) for the Transition period and basic contract period plus all option periods. The Government has provided Not to Exceed (NTE) estimates for the cost-reimbursable CLINs. The offeror’s proposed burden/handling rate for the cost-reimbursable CLINs shall be applied to the estimated amount provided by the Government for each applicable CR CLIN to arrive at the total extended amount. The New Mexico Gross Receipts Tax (NMGRT) associated with each period of performance (e.g. Transition, Base Period and all Option Periods) shall be included in the unit price and extended price proposed for the Holloman AFB CLIN(s). The resulting total (estimated amount plus applicable burdens) shall be included in the total overall evaluated price. This amount will be evaluated at the time of award as part of the overall price.

3.3.1.4. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all CLINS including transition, basic period, and option periods. Both the solicitation and resultant contract shall contain FAR clause 52.217-8 entitled “Option to Extend Services,” which states the Government may require continued performance of any services within the limits and at the rates specified in the contract, up to an additional 6 month period. Accordingly, for evaluation purposes, the Government will add fifty percent (50%) of the offeror’s Option Year 4 price as the price for the optional extension of services. This amount will be included in the Government’s overall evaluation of the lowest-priced proposal.

NOTE: Evaluation of the option periods shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.