Atch 3 - Addendum to RFO 52.212-2, Evaluation.pdf

RFP No. FA5641-26-R-0001 Attachment 3

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 – Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 Basis of Contract Award.

The Government will award a single contract to the responsible offeror who submits the proposal that is technically acceptable, has an acceptable past performance rating, and represents the lowest evaluated price. This constitutes a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection in accordance with RFO 15.103-2. The Government intends to award without competitive negotiations but reserves the right to conduct them if determined necessary by the Contracting Officer. The evaluation factors are:

The Evaluation Factors are:

Factor 1 – Price

Factor 2 – Technical

• Subfactor 1 – Past (Technical) Experience

• Subfactor 2 – Management Approach

• Subfactor 3 – Quality Control Plan

Factor 3 – Past Performance

To be considered for award, a proposal must receive a rating of "Acceptable" for all subfactors under the Technical Factor and a rating of "Acceptable" for the Past Performance factor.

Notice to Offerors: Funds are not presently available for this effort. No award will be made under this solicitation until funds are available. The Government reserves the right to cancel this solicitation, either before or after the closing date. In the event the Government cancels this solicitation, the Government has no obligation to reimburse an offeror for any costs.

1.2 Factor 1 – Price.

The Government will evaluate the Price factor for reasonableness, completeness, and balance. To be considered for award, a proposal's total evaluated price must be determined to be fair and reasonable. All proposed prices shall be submitted in Euros (€), extended to no more than two decimal places. Offerors are required to input pricing into the attached GAMT Pricing Spreadsheet to ensure all pricing is uniform and the contract line items (CLINs) sum to the total price accurately.

The price evaluation will be conducted as follows:

1.2.1 Step 1: Proposal Completeness and Arithmetic Verification.

A. Completeness: The Government will first verify that the offeror has submitted a price for all CLINs. If an Offeror fails to propose a price for any CLIN, the Government will determine the proposal to be unacceptable and exclude it from the competition.

B. Arithmetic Verification: The Government will then check for and resolve any arithmetic discrepancies using the following rules:

a. Obviously misplaced decimal points will be corrected

b. In the event of a discrepancy between the unit price and the extended price, the unit price shall govern;

c. Apparent errors in extension of unit prices (Unit Price x Quantity) will be corrected by the Government;

d. Apparent errors in totaling the extended prices for the TEP will be corrected by the Government.

For the purpose of the proposal evaluation, the Government will proceed with the assumption that the offeror intends its proposal to be evaluated based on the stated unit prices. The totals arrived by resolution of arithmetic discrepancies listed above will be reflected in the abstract of proposals. These procedures are intended to resolve clear mathematical errors; they will not be used to resolve fundamental ambiguities regarding the offered price.

1.2.2 Step 2: Calculation of Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

The Government will calculate a TEP for each offeror for evaluation purposes. The TEP is the sum of the offeror's proposed prices for all contract line items across the base period, all four option periods, and the six-month extension of services under RFO 52.217-8. The Government's evaluation of options does not obligate the Government to exercise any option.

The specific quantities to be used for the TEP calculation are as follows:

Period CLINS

(incl. TEP) Unit Price (€) Quantity Unit of Issue Extended

Total (€) Phase-in Period

0001 Provided by offeror

X 2 Mo =

Base 0002 Provided by offeror

X 10 Mo =

0003 Provided by offeror

X 50,000 Kg =

0004 Not separately priced

LOT

Option 1 1002 Provided by offeror

X 12 Mo =

1003 Provided by offeror

X 50,000 Kg =

1004 Not separately priced

LOT

Option 2 2002 Provided by offeror

X 12 Mo =

2003 Provided by offeror

X 50,000 Kg =

2004 Not separately priced

LOT

Option 3 3002 Provided by offeror

X 12 Mo =

3003 Provided by offeror

X 50,000 Kg =

3004 Not separately priced

LOT

Option 4 4002 Provided by offeror

X 12 Mo =

4003 Provided by offeror

X 50,000 Kg =

4004 Not separately priced

LOT

*RFO

52.217-8

4002 Provided by offeror

X 6 Mo =

*RFO

52.217-8

4003 Provided by offeror

X 25,000 Kg =

*RFO

52.217-8

4004 Not separately priced

LOT

Total Evaluated Price

Sum of all above

*For evaluation purposes only.

If an Offeror fails to propose a price for any CLIN, the Government will determine the proposal to be unacceptable and exclude it from the competition

1.2.3 Step 3: Unbalanced Pricing Analysis.

In accordance with RFO 15.404-5, the Government will conduct a mandatory analysis to determine if a proposal's prices are materially unbalanced. This analysis will include, but is not limited to, an assessment of the per-kilogram unit price for the Contingency Surge CLINs in relation to the prices for the baseline service CLINs, as well as a review of option period pricing. A proposal may be determined unacceptable if its pricing is found to be materially unbalanced and poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

1.2.4 Step 4: Price Reasonableness Determination.

Finally, the Government will determine if the TEP of the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal is fair and reasonable. Price reasonableness will be established utilizing the price analysis techniques described in RFO 15.404-1(b) primarily through comparison of proposed prices received in response to the RFP. If the proposal analysis techniques listed above are insufficient to make a determination of price reasonableness or, if the CO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, the CO may request submission of data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, and/or may use other proposal analysis techniques as described in RFO 15.404, to the extent necessary, in order to make a determination of price reasonableness

1.2.5 The six-month extension of services authorized by RFO 52.217-8 will be utilized only if the Contracting Officer determines it is necessary to meet the requirements of the Government. Inclusion of the aforementioned clause in the TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. The six-month extension of services is not to be considered part of option four. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

1.3 Factor 2 – Technical.

The Government will evaluate the technical proposal to determine if it meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation. The proposal will be rated on an "Acceptable" or "Unacceptable" basis. To receive an overall "Acceptable" rating for the Technical factor, a proposal must receive a rating of "Acceptable" for all three subfactors listed below.

Rating Definition Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

1.3.1 Subfactor 1 – Past (Technical) Experience.

Evaluation Process: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s prior corporate experience (prime contractor and/or major subcontractors) to determine if the submitted reference meets the minimum requirements for service type, recency, duration, and magnitude as described in the PWS.

Exclusion of Key Personnel: In accordance with the instructions in the Addendum to RFO 52.212-1, the Government will evaluate only corporate-level experience. The experience and qualifications of individual key personnel will not be considered or evaluated under this subfactor.

Major Subcontractors: Experience of a major subcontractor will be considered. For this evaluation, a "major subcontractor" is defined as any entity anticipated to perform 25% or more of the total contract effort or work determined to be critical to overall successful performance.

Rating Criteria: This subfactor will be rated on an "Acceptable/Unacceptable" basis. To be rated "Acceptable," the proposal must demonstrate at least one (1) contract reference that meets all of the following minimum requirements:

• Service Type: The reference demonstrates experience in providing mail handling services, parcel processing, or similar high-volume logistics/distribution services similar in scope to the requirements described in Attachment 1 (PWS) of the solicitation.

• Recency: Performance occurred within the last three (3) years from the date of this solicitation's issuance.

• Duration: The reference demonstrates at least twelve (12) consecutive months of performance.

• Magnitude: The reference demonstrates that the offeror processed mail volume of at least 8,000,000 kilograms of mail/parcels annually.

A proposal that fails to clearly demonstrate all of the minimum requirements above will be rated “Unacceptable”.

1.3.2 Subfactor 2 – Management Approach.

To be rated "Acceptable" for this subfactor, the offeror’s Management Approach must clearly address and provide a feasible plan for all of the following elements:

A. Facility Plan: A plan identifying a specific proposed facility at Frankfurt International Airport (FRA) that includes evidence demonstrating a clear path to securing the facility for the period of performance (e.g., letter of intent, option to lease, or documentation of ongoing negotiations). The plan must explain how the offeror will provide and manage a delivery point to support USPS-contracted airline operations (offload and upload) in a manner that prevents disruptions from German customs requirements, ensures total facility and asset security, maintains mail integrity and accountability, and complies with all applicable airport and aviation security regulations per PWS Section 14.

B. Mail Processing Plan: A plan explaining the offeror’s methodology for satisfying the processing of all Prograde and Retrograde Mail in accordance with PWS Section 5.

C. Communication Plan: A plan that clearly identifies the offeror’s lines of communication and describes the procedures for interfacing with the COR and other Government personnel to manage STMR schedules and meet all timelines in accordance with PWS Sections 4 and 5.

D. Mission Essential Plan: The offeror's Mission Essential Plan will be evaluated on its credibility, feasibility, and the degree to which it provides a reasonable assurance of continued performance during a crisis. To be found "Acceptable," the plan must clearly address all four core elements by demonstrating the following:

• Essential Services Identification and Key Personnel: A clear understanding of the essential services defined in PWS Paragraph 13, and a sound approach for identifying and preparing the key personnel necessary to execute them.

• Continuity Strategies: A credible and executable strategy for ensuring continuity of operations for up to 30 days, which specifically addresses the challenges of extended events (e.g., pandemics) and the time required to mobilize necessary resources.

• Communication Protocols: A logical and thorough approach for alerting, notifying, and communicating roles and responsibilities to all essential contractor and subcontractor personnel during a crisis.

• Subcontractor Management: A clear and feasible plan for managing and ensuring performance from essential subcontractors during a service disruption.

1.3.3 Subfactor 3 – Quality Control Plan.

To be rated "Acceptable" for this subfactor, the offeror's submitted QCP must provide a comprehensive approach that clearly details the following:

A. A process for ensuring direct communication with the COR regarding the GAMT processes of mail handling and processing, and Mail Control Activity staff for mail movement concerns to and from the Air Carriers, and Airline Ground Handlers IAW PWS paragraphs 4 & 5.

B. An organizational structure that defines accountability of the work to be performed, for all prime and subcontractor personnel.

C. A process for identifying and correcting deficiencies to prevent their recurrence.

D. A process. to meet critical entry/exit timelines and STMR dispatch schedule.

E. A process for ensuring the total security, safety, and integrity and accountability of all mail and equipment at all times within the Mail Handling Facility.

1.4 Factor 3 – Past Performance.

1.4.1 Evaluation Process.

The Government will evaluate the demonstrated record of past performance of the lowest priced technical acceptable offer to assess the likelihood of successful contract performance. The Government will use information submitted by the Offeror and other sources such as other Federal Government offices and commercial sources, to assess past performance. The Government will not consider information that pertains to key personnel past performance.

The evaluation will consider three elements, applied sequentially:

A. Recency – Whether the past performance is recent enough to be meaningful (see paragraph 1.4.2).

B. Relevancy – Whether the recent past performance involved work similar in scope and magnitude to this requirement (see paragraph 1.4.3).

C. Performance Quality – How well the offeror performed on contracts determined to be both recent and relevant (see paragraph 1.4.4).

The Government will evaluate Performance Quality only on contracts determined to be both recent and relevant.

Information Sources:

The Government reserves the right to use any or all of the following sources to evaluate past performance:

• Information provided in the offeror's Past Performance proposal (Volume III)

• Past and Present Performance Questionnaires (Attachment 4)

• Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) reports

• Information from other Federal Government offices

• Information from commercial sources

• Any other sources available to the Government

The Government may contact references other than those identified by the offeror.

Subcontractor and Teaming Partner Performance:

The Government will also evaluate the past performance of any subcontractor, teaming partner, or joint venture partner anticipated to perform 25 percent or greater of the effort, or who will perform efforts critical to overall successful performance. When evaluating team member past performance, the Government will consider only the specific effort or portion of work consistent with that proposed by the prime contractor, subcontractor, or teaming partner.

The lowest priced, technically acceptable offeror must receive an overall Acceptable Past Performance rating to be eligible for award.

1.4.2 Recency Assessment.

The Government will assess whether each past performance reference is recent enough to be a meaningful indicator of current capability.

To be considered recent, a contract must demonstrate a minimum of twelve (12) consecutive months of mail handling and distribution services within the last five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

Past performance information that does not meet this recency threshold will not be further evaluated for relevancy or performance quality.

Past Performance Recency Rating

Recent Past performance demonstrates a minimum of twelve (12) consecutive months of mail handling and distribution services within the last five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. .

Not Recent Past performance does not demonstrate a minimum of twelve (12) consecutive months of mail handling and distribution services within the last five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

1.4.3 Relevancy Assessment.

The Government will evaluate all past performance information determined to be recent (per paragraph 1.4.2) to assess the relevancy of the services performed.

Relevancy will be determined based on two criteria applied together:

A. Similar Scope – The services performed were similar in scope to those described in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

B. Similar Magnitude – The contract involved the processing of 8,000,000 kilograms or more of mail annually.

Both criteria must be met for a contract to be rated "Relevant."

The Past and Present Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 4) and information obtained from other sources will be used to assess relevancy.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Relevant Past performance involved both:

A. A similar scope as that identified in the PWS, AND B. A magnitude greater than or equal to 8,000,000 kilograms of mail processed annually.

Not Relevant Past performance did not involve both:

A. A similar scope as that identified in the PWS, AND B. A magnitude greater than or equal to 8,000,000 kilograms of mail processed annually.

1.4.4 Performance Quality Assessment.

The Government will evaluate how well the offeror performed on contracts determined to be both recent and relevant. Based on an integrated assessment of all available performance information, the Government will assign an overall rating of "Acceptable" or "Unacceptable."

Past Performance Quality Ratings:

Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Rating Description 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 quality of the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: Unknown Past Performance: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom past performance information is not available or so sparse that no meaningful rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Such an offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of this evaluation, "Unknown" shall be considered "Acceptable."

Adverse Past Performance:

The performance quality assessment may reveal adverse past performance information. Adverse past performance is defined as:

• A less-than-satisfactory rating on any evaluation element, OR

• Unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system

Multiple less-than-satisfactory ratings in CPARS and/or Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) may result in an overall performance quality rating of "Unacceptable."

Opportunity to Respond:

In accordance with RFO 15.202(2)(ii), offerors will be given an opportunity to respond to adverse past performance information for which they have not previously had an opportunity to address.

1.5 Award Process

The Government intends to award a contract to the responsible offeror who submits the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal with an acceptable past performance rating without entering into competitive negotiations. However, the Government reserves the right to hold competitive negotiations if necessary to make an award decision. The evaluation will proceed as described below.

1.5.1 Evaluation Process for Award

a. Ranking by Price: First, all proposals will be ranked from lowest to highest based on their Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

b. Sequential Evaluation to Establish a Competitive Set: The Government will evaluate proposals sequentially in order of price, starting with the lowest-priced proposal. The evaluation of technical and past performance factors will continue until at least two proposals have been found to be technically acceptable with an acceptable past performance rating.

c. Award Selection: Once at least two proposals are found to be acceptable, the Government will consider adequate price competition to exist. The award will then be made to the offeror within that acceptable set that has the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

d. Insufficient Acceptable Proposals: If, after evaluating all submitted proposals, only one is found to be technically acceptable, the Government will determine that adequate price competition does not exist. In this case, the Government may choose to conduct further analysis of the single acceptable proposal (if one exists) in accordance with R-DFARS 215.202-71.

1.5.2. Government's Right to Conduct Competitive negotiations:

If the Contracting Officer determines competitive negotiations are in the Government’s best interest, the evaluation process will be modified as follows:

a. Competitive Range Determination: The Government will first complete the initial evaluation of all proposals received. Based on this complete evaluation, the Government will establish a competitive range comprised of the group of evaluated proposals that the contracting officer determines are best suited for further negotiation in accordance with RFO 15.204. In an LPTA source selection, this means the competitive range will include all proposals that are (1) technically acceptable or (2) reasonably susceptible to being made technically acceptable through competitive negotiations and (3) offer a reasonable price. A proposal may be excluded if its price is so high as to have no realistic chance of being selected for award, making competitive negotiations inefficient.

b. Competitive Negotiations and Award: Only those Offerors whose proposals are included in the competitive range will participate in competitive negotiations. Following competitive negotiations and the receipt of Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs), the award will be made to the responsible offeror within the competitive range who submits the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal with an acceptable past performance rating. Offerors whose proposals are not included in the competitive range will be notified in accordance with RFO 15.205-1(a).

1.5.3 Fair and Reasonable Price Determination

The Government will make a fair and reasonable price determination for the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal with an acceptable past performance rating.

The Government may use any of the price analysis techniques described in RFO 15.404-1(b) to determine price reasonableness. If adequate price competition no longer exists, the Contracting Officer may request submission of data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, to support a determination of fair and reasonable pricing.

2.0 AWARD

The Government will issue a written notice of award or acceptance of a proposal to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the proposal. This notice shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party.

Acceptance of Proposals:

The Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer) at any time before the proposal’s specified expiration date, whether or not competitive negotiations have occurred after receipt of the proposal.

However, if a written notice of withdrawal is received from the offeror before award, the Government will not proceed with acceptance of the withdrawn proposal.