Atch_2_-_52_212-2_Addendum_16May19.doc

ADDENDUM to 52.212-2

EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

FA4890-18-R-5035

Basis for Award and Evaluation Factors & Criteria

1.0 Basis for Award. This competitive best value source selection will be conducted using the trade-off source selection process in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items, FAR Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures effective 1 April 2016 and Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 revised 25 May 2018. The Government will utilize trade-off evaluation methodology whereby technical or past performance may be traded off for price. This may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Award Decision Authority determines that the technical superiority or overall technical approach and past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference. The award decision will be based on an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and total overall evaluated price (TOEP). The proposal(s) will be evaluated for price after evaluations for technical acceptability and past performance have been completed. Technically unacceptable proposals or proposals with a Limited or No Confidence past performance rating may not be evaluated for price. Price evaluation will rely on adequate competition and will be conducted IAW paragraph 2.5 of this document. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Subpart 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by this solicitation) and whose proposal is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to be the best value for the government. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the fair opportunity selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.1 Exchanges after Receipt of Proposals. The Government intends to award without discussions IAW 52.212-1, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer (CO) to be necessary. Clarifications, as defined by FAR 15.306(a), will be conducted to clarify certain aspects of proposals (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.

1.1.1 Communications may be conducted to enhance Government understanding of proposals, address adverse past performance information to which an offeror has not had a prior opportunity to respond, allow reasonable interpretation of the proposal, or facilitate the Government’s evaluation process. Such communications shall not be used to cure material omissions, materially alter the technical or cost elements of the proposal, and/or otherwise revise the proposal.

1.1.2 Should the Government determine it is in their best interest to open and conduct discussions, discussion will be held only with those offerors determined to be in the competitive range through the use of Evaluation Notices (ENs). The competitive range will be comprised of the most highly rated proposals. Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be requested from each offeror in the competitive range at the conclusion of discussions. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as “Acceptable” at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the offerors FPRs are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal will be determined “Unacceptable” and ineligible for award.

2.0 Evaluation Methodology and Factors. Proposals will be evaluated using three evaluation factors: (1) Technical, (2) Past Performance, and (3) Price. Technical and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than cost/price, however cost/price will contribute substantially to the award decision. The greater the equality of proposals for factors other than price, the more important price becomes in selecting the best value for the government. The Government intends to award a single contract as a result of this solicitation. Offers received for less than all the work reflected in the PWS will be considered ineligible for award.

2.1 Evaluations Factors.

2.2 Technical. The Government will evaluate technical proposals of all offerors determined responsive to the solicitation. Offers received after the due date for proposals will not be evaluated. The Government will evaluate an offeror’s written technical proposal to determine if the offeror’s proposal meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements of the PWS. An Offeror’s proposal must not contain any Technical criteria rated “Unacceptable” to receive an overall “acceptable” technical rating and be eligible for award. If any criteria receive an “Unacceptable” rating, the Offeror will not be eligible for award. Proposals rated as “Unacceptable” will not be evaluated for past performance or price.

2.2.1 The Offeror’s technical solution will be rated separately from the risk associated with its technical approach. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach to meeting the requirement. Technical Rating Descriptions are referenced in Table 1.

Table 1 – Technical Rating Method

2.2.2 Assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Technical risk shall be rated using the ratings listed in Table 2. For firm-fixed-price contracts, the reference to increased cost may be removed from the risk rating descriptions.

Table 2 – Technical Risk Rating Method

2.2.3 Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, and Deficiencies are defined in Table 3.

Table 3 – Technical Evaluation Descriptors

2.3 Neck and Back Pain Prevention Program. The Technical Proposal shall include a clear and concise description of how the Offeror plans to meet the technical requirements in the PWS and specifically address in adequate detail how the Offeror plans to meet the stated criteria for this factor.

Details the Offeror’s technical approach to:

Criteria 1: Develop and provide a strength and conditioning program for neck and back pain.

Criteria 2: Provide an explanation of the overall fitness program (Reference PWS 4.1 and Physical Training Program (PWS 5.5.4)).

Criteria 3: Discuss the program’s ability to reduce the frequency and severity of neck and back pain injuries, reduce duty time lost, and improve quality of life.

Criteria 4: Discuss the program’s ability to enhance readiness, including support of fighter aircrew retention.

Criteria 5 – Discuss technical approach to develop methods for attaining metrics and data on the effects of a Neck and Back Pain Prevention Program on fighter aircrew (Reference OHWS Program Report (PWS 5.1.11), Data Collection and Analysis Reports (PWS 5.5.1), and Trending Metrics (PWS 5.5.3)).

2.4 Factor 2 – Past Performance.

2.4.1 The Government will evaluate this factor to assess the offeror’s recent and relevant past performance record to determine confidence in the offeror’s probability of successfully performing 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 recency, relevancy and quality of each offerors past performance, which will result in an overall confidence assessment.

2.4.1.1 Recency Determination. A Recency determination will be made for each PPI reference provided and any additional sources found by the Government (PPI/Other Source). Recency is defined as active contract performance (minimum of 6 months) during the last three (3) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation. Contracts that were started prior to this time, but still in effect with active performance (minimum of 6 months) as of three (3) years from the date of this solicitation, will be considered recent. If a PPI reference is determined recent, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s performance record during the entire contract period. NOTE: Referenced contracts determined “Not Recent” will not be evaluated.

2.4.1.2 Relevancy Determination. Offerors shall submit information on contracts deemed relevant in demonstrating the ability to perform the full range of services, IAW PWS requirements, and explain how/why the referenced contracts are relevant IAW the relevancy definitions in Table 4. Offerors are required to explain what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort, and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate. The Government will assess each reference and is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of its performance or relevance.

Table 4: Relevancy Rating Definitions

2.4.1.3 A relevancy determination of the offeror’s recent past performance will be made. The Government will evaluate relevancy as “Very Relevant”, “Relevant”, “Somewhat Relevant” and “Not Relevant” according to the following criteria:

2.4.1.4 Quality Assessment. The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. A separate quality assessment rating is not required.

2.4.1.5 The Government evaluation team will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all performance data obtained to determine how closely the work performed under those efforts relates to this proposed effort. The Government may confirm past and present performance data identified by offerors in the proposals, and may obtain additional performance data from other sources. Past performance information may be obtained through one or more of the following: 1) Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); 2) similar systems of other Government departments and agencies; 3) Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels; 4) completed questionnaires from Program Managers and Contracting Officers; and 5) other sources, including commercial sources.

2.4.1.6 Confidence Assessment. The evaluation of the offeror’s past performance data will result in an overall performance confidence assessment, which is the rating for this Past Performance factor. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the offeror’s ability to perform the full range of services, IAW PWS requirements and other technical factors, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of performance on recent and relevant contracts. Each offeror will receive one overall performance confidence rating as follows:

Table 5: Confidence Rating Definitions

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

2.4.2 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. When a relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any 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. The Government will conduct Communications 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.

2.4.3 Offerors where there is no recent/relevant performance record available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will receive a “Neutral Confidence” rating for this Past Performance factor as depicted in Table 5. In this instance, an offeror’s past performance is unknown, and cannot be rated favorably or unfavorably. However, for this evaluation, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) may determine that a “Substantial Confidence” or Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is of greater value to the Air Force than a “Neutral Confidence.”

2.4.4 Even though the assessment of past performance is separate and distinct from determination of responsibility required by FAR Part 9, past performance information evaluated may be used to support the determination of responsibility for the successful offeror.

2.5 Factor 3 – Price.

2.5.1 Price will be evaluated using techniques established in FAR 15.404-1 to ensure the Government receives a fair, reasonable, and balanced price. This source selection is conducted with the expectation of adequate price competition to ensure the awarded price is fair and reasonable. The Government will evaluate proposed prices to determine whether prices reflect a clear understanding of the requirements. An offeror may be determined unawardable if its proposed price is evaluated as unreasonable or unbalanced. In addition, if an offer is considered unrealistically low, a price realism analysis may be performed

2.5.2 The price of each offeror will be evaluated on the total overall evaluated price (TOEP), which consists of the total proposed price for all Fixed Price CLINS, base contract period, optional CLINs, and all optional contract periods (to include the six-month extension of services IAW FAR 52.217-8). If an offeror does not provide pricing for six-month extension option, the Government will add in 50% of the fourth option year price for evaluation purposes. This analysis in no way limits the Government’s right to award to a higher priced offer, if that offer is determined to represents the best value. The techniques and procedures described under FAR 15.404-1(b) will be the primary means of accomplishing the price analysis, including reasonableness. Price reasonableness will be determined based on a comparison of offerors’ TOEP. The Government has provided pre-established Not to Exceed (NTE) amounts for the Fixed Price Travel CLINs. These pre-established amounts are to be included in the offerors proposal and will be evaluated as part of the total overall evaluated price.

2.5.3 In addition to the analyses as described in FAR 15.404-1(b), 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 board 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 proposals.

2.5.4 There is a reasonable expectation of competition for this requirement; thus offerors are cautioned to present their best price proposal up-front. The Government will evaluate proposed prices to determine whether prices reflect a clear understanding of the requirements and are consistent with the various elements of the offeror’s Technical Proposal. Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent between promised performance/technical approach and price, shall be explained in the proposal. For example, if the intended use of new and innovative techniques is the basis for an abnormally low price, the nature of these techniques and their impact on the cost or price shall be explained. Any significant inconsistency, if unexplained, raises a fundamental issue of the offeror’s understanding of the nature and scope of the work required and its financial ability to perform the contract, and may be grounds for the rejection of the proposal. The burden of proof as to price credibility rests with the offeror.