Atch_2_-_52_212-2_Addendum.pdf

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 and 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 rating may not be evaluated for price. Price evaluation will rely on adequate competition and will be conducted IAW paragraph 4.2 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 Source 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(g), 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. The Government may make a final determination as to whether the offeror’s proposal is the best value solely on the basis of the initial proposal as submitted. Accordingly, offerors will be advised to submit initial proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable without additional information.

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.

Should the Government determine it is in their best interest to open and conduct discussions, discussions will be held only with those offerors determined to be in the competitive range. This competitive range will be established only after each proposal has been evaluated in accordance with the procedures outlined in FAR Clause 52.212-2 of this proposal. The competitive range will be comprised of the most highly rated proposals. The Government reserves the right to limit the number of offerors within the competitive range further if the number of highly rated proposals otherwise included in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted. If the Government holds discussions, the Government may issue evaluation notices (ENs) to offerors in the competitive range. Formal responses to ENs and final proposal revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the source selection decision for award.

1.1.2 Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) 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 will not be subject to further discussion or negotiation. 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. 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.

2.0 Evaluation Methodology and Factors. Proposals will be evaluated using three evaluation factors: (1) Technical, (2) Past Performance, and (3) Price. Technical and Past Performance are equally important, but 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.

2.1.1 Combined Technical/ Risk Rating. 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 proposed approach performance or capability requirements meet all elements of the PWS. Risk will be assessed within each technical proposals Technical Rating Descriptions are referenced in Table 1. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

2.1.2 Table 1 – Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

2.1.3 Table 2 illustrates the descriptors the Government will utilize when evaluating an offeror’s proposal for the combined technical/risk rating.

2.1.4 Table 2 – Technical Evaluation Descriptors

Strength Description

Strength Aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness Flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness

A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

2.2 Factor 1 –Technical. 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 illustrated below:

2.2.1 Criteria 1: Using the information requested in FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 5.5, the Government will evaluate whether the offeror’s proposal demonstrates a sound understanding and knowledge of neck and back pain injuries, mitigation and prevention. This evaluation will include the extent to which the offeror’s fitness program adequately addresses training preparation, strength development, and cardiovascular health of fighter aircrew affected with neck and back pain. Additionally, the Government will evaluate the demonstrated knowledge and adequacy of the offeror’s plan to address and reduce injuries; as well as how the offeror’s plan will help prevent future injuries related to neck and back pain from occurring. Finally, the Government will evaluate how the offeror plans to collect and analyze data from fighter aircrew to meet requirements of PWS paragraphs 5.5.1, 5.5.3, and 5.5.4.

2.2.2 Criteria 2: Using the information requested in FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 5.5, the Government will evaluate how the offeror’s plan outlined in Criteria 1 provides a sound methodology for assessing and addressing neck and back pain and how it may lead to improvements in aircrew quality of life and retention. The Government will evaluate how the offeror’s plan will strive to achieve a reduction in both the frequency and severity of neck and back pain injuries, reduction in duty time lost for those injuries, and improve quality of life for affected aircrew. Additionally, the Government will evaluate how the offeror’s plan will strive to enhance fighter squadron readiness and lead to a higher aircrew retention. Finally, the Government will evaluate how the offeror plans to utilize the data collected throughout the program to determine and continually enhance program effectiveness.

2.3 Factor 2 – Past Performance.

2.3.1 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.

2.3.1.1 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.

2.3.1.2 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.

2.3.1.3 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:

Table 4: Relevancy Rating Definitions

RATING DEFINITION

Very Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2.3.1.4 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.

2.3.1.5 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.

2.3.1.6 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

RATING DEFINITION

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 an 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.

3.0 The Government would generally expect that in order for an offeror to obtain a Substantial Confidence rating that at least 50% of the past performance references evaluated by the Government (to include those provided by the offeror, as well as, those found and determined at least relevant by the Government) be Very Relevant and contain all quality ratings equivalent to “very good” to “exceptional” CPARs ratings.

4.0 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. However, for this evaluation, the Source Selection

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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.”

4.1.1 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.”

4.1.2 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.

4.2 Factor 3 – Price.

4.2.1 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. In instances where an Offeror’s proposed prices appear unrealistically 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 unrealistically low offer may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an Offeror’s proposal. The optional pricing attachment referenced in paragraph 7.3 of FAR Clause 52.212-1 of this proposal may be used by the government to substantiate price realism.

4.2.2 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 optional 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. If required travel exceeds the fixed priced amount, the awardee will be authorized to submit a request for equitable adjustment for the increase in travel.

4.2.3 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.

4.2.4 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.