Draft Attch 02 - YR 52.212-2 Addendum 14 Aug 2021.pdf

Attachment 2

14 August 2021 Page 1 of 19

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2, EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

A. This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300, Source Selection - Scope of Subpart, and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3, Source Selection, to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract for Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program Event Planning Services as a result of this solicitation. A decision on the technical acceptability and small business concern utilization acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. Among those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable with acceptable small business concern utilization, tradeoffs may be made between past and present performance and price. Past performance is considered significantly more important than price.

This may result in an award to a higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the superior past and present performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and sub-factors described in this document. While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable with acceptable small business concern utilization, conforms to all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, technical requirements as specified in the performance work statement (PWS), and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation described in paragraph 2.0 below.

B. If the Contracting Officer (CO) determines 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, with the concurrence of the SSA, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range, IAW FAR 15.306(c), Exchanges with Offerors After Receipt of Proposals, Competitive Range, to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals for this Tradeoff source selection. If the CO determines that an offeror’s proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award. Written notice of elimination decision will be provided to unsuccessful offeror(s) IAW FAR 15.503, Notification to Unsuccessful Offerors.

C. The Government intends to evaluate and award a contract without discussions with offerors.

Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical, past performance, and price standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined by the CO to be necessary (see FAR 52.212-1(g), Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items, Contract Award (Not applicable to Invitation to Bids))). Therefore, the offeror’s responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) for Factor 1 (Technical), Factor 2 (Past Performance), Factor 3 (Price), and Factor 4 (Small Business

1138287579C Draft

14 August 2021 Page 2 of 19

Concern Utilization Plan), will be incorporated into the Final Proposal Revision (FPR), and the FPR will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable with a complete, fair and reasonable, and balanced price at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR must be fully explained and substantiated, and are subject to evaluation, which may render the offeror’s proposal unacceptable, unfair, unreasonable, and/or unbalanced, causing the offeror to be ineligible for award.

D. It is the Government’s intent to award one (1) contract for Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program Event Planning Services to the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items (RFP Attch 01) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and sub-factors, to represent the best value to the Government. However, based on quality of the proposals, prices submitted, availability of funds and other considerations, the Government reserves the right to not award a contract.

E. The Government may reject any evaluated proposal that fails to adequately address a significant portion of the requirement or contract terms and conditions. This may include rejection of a proposal that does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of the requirement and/or displays a fundamental lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of the program. The Government may review all volumes of the proposal to ensure adequate resources were proposed to perform the proposed technical approach.

F. During the evaluation process, multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate offerors from the competition. The competitive range determination can be based on Factor 1 – Technical, Factor 2 – Past Performance, Factor 3 – Price, or Factor 4 – Small Business Concern Utilization Plan or any combination of these four (4) factors. A competitive range determination may eliminate offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions, or prior to issuance of the final proposal revision (FPR) request. If offerors are excluded from the competitive range, they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505, Preaward Debriefing of Offerors, or they may choose to wait until after the source selection decision to request a post-award debriefing.

G. Offerors shall provide the information described in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items (RFP Attch 01). Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements as specified in the performance work statement (PWS) (RFP Attch 03 FINAL YRRP Event Planning Services PWS 29 Apr 21), in addition to those identified as factors and sub-factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation 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 in the Contract Documentation Volume. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable, and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

14 August 2021 Page 3 of 19

2.1 Proposal Evaluation

The Government will assess the offeror’s proposal to ensure it meets the requirements and intent of the PWS. The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate proposals.

Factor 1: Technical Sub-factor 1: Technical Approach Sub-factor 2: Program Management and Staffing Approach Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price Factor 4: Small Business Concern Utilization Plan Factor 5: Contract Documentation

Within evaluation Factor 1 Technical, both sub-factors are of equal importance. Evaluation Factor 2 Past Performance, is significantly more important than Factor 3 Price. However, Factor 3 Price, is an important consideration in the best value award decision. It should be noted that Factor 4 Small Business Concern Utilization Plan, will be evaluated strictly on an acceptable/unacceptable basis as discussed below and therefore will not be considered in the tradeoff decision. The offeror must have an acceptable Technical proposal and Small Business Concern Utilization Plan to be considered in the tradeoff decision.

2.2 Evaluation Methodology

Proposal evaluation is an assessment of the proposal and the offeror’s ability to perform the prospective contract successfully. The Government will evaluate competitive proposals and then assess their relative qualities solely on the factors and sub-factors specified in the solicitation.

2.2.1 The Government’s process to select an offeror will be based on the following evaluation steps:

1) Calculate the total evaluated price (TEP) for each offeror.

2) Determine the Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating for each offeror.

3) Determine if the technical proposal is acceptable or unacceptable in accordance with the evaluation criteria.

4) Complete a price analysis on each offeror for completeness, fairness, reasonableness, and balance.

5) Determine if the Small Business Concern Utilization Plan is acceptable or unacceptable in accordance with the evaluation criteria.

6) Award to the offeror determined to be the best value to the Government.

3.0 FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL (VOLUME I)

3.1 General

Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the sub-factors below, to determine if the technical proposal provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the

14 August 2021 Page 4 of 19 requirements of the PWS, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The evaluation will assess the offeror’s identified risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and the actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach.

The technical rating reflects the evaluation of acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. The technical risk associated with the offeror’s proposed technical approach will also be considered as part of the technical acceptability decision.

Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degraded performance, the need for increased government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation shall address the offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation (if applicable) and document why that is or is not acceptable. The Government may independently identify risk(s) not identified by the offeror and assess its impact to the successful performance of the contract. Should the Government determine that any risks identified by either the offeror or the Government poses too great a risk to the program and no suitable mitigation is provided, the Government may consider the proposal technically unacceptable. The offeror’s technical proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether it is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below, Table 1: Technical Ratings. One technical rating will be assigned to each technical sub-factor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “Acceptable” rating in every sub-factor. Only those proposals determined to be technically “Acceptable”, either initially or as a result of discussions (if opened), will be considered for award.

Table 1: Technical Ratings

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation

3.2 Sub-factor 1: Technical Approach

This sub-factor assesses the offeror’s over-arching strategy that demonstrates a clear understanding of the PWS requirements for Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program (YRRP) Event Planning Services (EPS). Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors – Commercial Items (RFP Attch 01). To be acceptable, the offeror’s proposal must demonstrate an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provide convincing rationale that its approach will meet the requirement:

14 August 2021 Page 5 of 19

The evaluation will address the offeror’s response as outlined in the right-hand column (the “Instructions to Offerors” column on the left is verbatim from the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items (RFP Attch 01) and provided here for reference only):

Sub-factor 1: Technical Approach

Instructions to Offerors Evaluation Criteria

2.5.1 Technical Approach: The offeror shall

propose a technical approach. The approach shall explain how the offeror intends to accomplish the required work to be performed and employ properly trained employees to accomplish all requirements within the provided performance work statement. At a minimum, the proposed approach shall address:

2.6 Technical Approach: The offeror proposed a

technical approach that explained how the offeror intends to accomplish the required work to be performed and employ properly trained employees to accomplish all requirements within the provided performance work statement. This standard is met when the offeror’s proposal meets all of the following:

a) The offeror’s knowledge and abilities of In- Person Event or Hybrid event planning (PWS 1.4-1.4.1), virtual event planning (PWS 1.5), business understanding, technology planning, and Yellow Ribbon event planning (if any).

a) The approach demonstrated the offeror’s knowledge and abilities of In- Person Event or Hybrid event planning (PWS 1.4-1.4.1), virtual event planning (PWS 1.5), business understanding, technology planning, and Yellow Ribbon event planning (if any).

b) The offeror shall provide a defined process and risk assessment demonstrating the capability to find event venue for 1000 attendee event that meet the requirements. (PWS 1.4.1.2, 1.4.2-

1.4.13 and PWS Attachment 3)

b) The approach demonstrated the capability to find event venue for 1000 attendee event that meet the requirements detailed in the PWS 1.4.1.2, 1.4.2-

1.4.13 and PWS Attachment 3.

c) The offeror shall provide a defined process and risk assessment demonstrating the capability to plan and execute multiple events that occur on the same dates in separate locations. (PWS 1.4-1.4.1,

1.4.1.4 and PWS Attachment 3)

c) The approach demonstrated the capability to plan and execute multiple events that occur on the same dates in separate locations. (PWS 1.4-1.4.1, 1.4.1.4 and PWS Attachment 3)

d) The offeror shall provide a defined process and risk assessment that includes live streaming room setup diagrams, equipment and personnel support demonstrating the capability to live stream from three (3) live sessions, (one (1) main General Session room and two (2) Hybrid Breakout Rooms), concurrently from a hybrid event to reach a maximum of 1000 online participants that meets requirements. (PWS 1.4.2, 1.4.2.1, 1.4.8.4.3)

d) The approach included a live streaming room setup diagrams, equipment and personnel support that demonstrated the capability to live stream three

(3) live sessions, (one (1) main General Session room and two (2) Hybrid Breakout Rooms), concurrently from a hybrid event to a maximum of 1000 online participants that meets requirements detailed in the PWS 1.4.2, 1.4.2.1 and 1.4.8.4.3.

e) The offeror shall provide an adult and children meal and refreshment menu that includes all meals and refreshments to be served during an In- Person Event or Hybrid event that demonstrates

e) The approach included an adult and children meal and refreshment menu that includes all meals and refreshments to be served during an In- Person Event or Hybrid event that demonstrates understanding of

14 August 2021 Page 6 of 19

Sub-factor 1: Technical Approach understanding of the food and beverage requirements. (PWS 1.4.4- 1.4.4.4, Appendix A, Appendix 01 and 02, Appendix B, CDRL A008 and PWS Attachment 1) the food and beverage requirements. (PWS 1.4.4- 1.4.4.4, Appendix A, Appendix 01 and 02, Appendix B, CDRL A008 and PWS Attachment 1)

f) The offeror shall provide a defined process and risk assessment demonstrating the capability to plan and execute a virtual event for 1000 participants that meets the requirements. (PWS 1.5-1.5.3)

f) The approach demonstrated the capability to plan and execute a virtual event for 1000 participants that meets the requirements. (PWS 1.5-1.5.3)

3.3 Sub-factor 2: Program Management and Staffing Approach

This sub-factor assesses the offeror’s approach to management that shall ensure all requirements of the PWS are met. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors (ITO) – Commercial Items (RFP Attch 01). To be acceptable, the offeror’s proposal must demonstrate a clear understanding of roles and qualifications required to meet the PWS requirements. The management approach must clearly indicate a complete understanding of the required actions, anticipated workload, labor needs by type, projected travel, as well as other requirements to satisfy the requirements of the PWS.

The evaluation will address the offerors response as outlined in the right-hand column (the “Instructions to Offerors” column on the left is verbatim from the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial (RFP Attch 01), and is provided here for reference only):

Sub-factor 2: Program Management and Staffing Approach

Instructions to Offerors Evaluation Criteria

2.6.1 The offeror shall provide an approach that

demonstrates a thorough understanding of roles and qualifications required to meet PWS requirements.

Provides offeror’s proposed staffing for the basic contract period and all option periods. The proposal shall demonstrate an organizational structure that the company will employ while performing this effort. The proposal shall provide rationale used to develop the organizational structure. At a minimum, the proposed approach shall address:

2.7 The offeror provided an approach that

demonstrates a thorough understanding of roles and qualifications required to meet PWS requirements. Provided offeror’s proposed staffing for the basic contract period and all option periods.

The proposal demonstrated an organizational structure that the company will employ while performing this effort. The proposal provided rationale used to develop the organizational structure. This standard is met when the offeror’s proposal meets all of the following:

a) Provide appropriate certifications and experience where applicable for various functions including, but not limited to, Certified Meeting Professional

a) The offeror provided appropriate certifications and experience where applicable for various functions including, but not limited to, Certified

14 August 2021 Page 7 of 19

Sub-factor 2: Program Management and Staffing Approach

(CMP) or Certified Government Meeting Professional (CGMP), child care certification, A/V (PWS 1.4.1.6, 1.4.2 and 1.4.5.1) and plan for back up or reach back capabilities.

Meeting Professional CMP) or Certified Government Meeting Professional (CGMP), child care certification s, A/V (PWS 1.4.1.6, 1.4.2 and 1.4.5.1) and plan for back up or reach back capabilities.

b) Provide a plan for facilitating Government- Contractor communications. (PWS 1.4.1.5, 1.4.1.8)

b) The offeror provided a plan for facilitating Government-Contractor Communication. (PWS 1.4.1.5, 1.4.1.8)

c) Provide a staffing plan showing the proper training/certification (Child Care Provider, A/V provider/plan, event management plan) in accordance with the PWS 1.4, 1.4.1.4, 1.4.2 and 1.4.5.

c) The offeror provided a staffing plan showing the proper training/certification (Child Care Provider, A/V provider/plan, event management plan) in accordance with the PWS.1.4, 1.4.1.4, 1.4.2 and 1.4.5.

d) Provide offeror’s subcontracting strategy as follows:

i. Subcontracting strategy includes how the offeror intends to manage its subcontracted efforts.

ii. If significant subcontractors are proposed, the approach clearly identifies the management strategies and approach to ensure the subcontractor performance meets the requirements of the PWS.

iii. Subcontracting strategy places particular emphasis on the performance accountability techniques and measures that will be used by the offeror.

d) The offeror provided their subcontracting strategy as follows:

i. Subcontracting strategy includes how the offeror intends to manage its subcontracted efforts.

ii. If significant subcontractors are proposed, the approach clearly identifies the management strategies and approach to ensure the subcontractor performance meets the requirements of the PWS.

iii. Subcontracting strategy places particular emphasis on the performance accountability techniques and measures that will be used by the offeror.

4.0 FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE (VOLUME II)

4.1 The past performance assessment will assess the confidence in the offeror’s, teaming partners’ (if any), and significant subcontractors(s)’ (if any) ability, to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s, teaming partner’s, and/or significant subcontractor(s)’ demonstrated present and past work record. A significant subcontractor is defined as an entity other than the offeror or teaming partners, that will be responsible for childcare services, audio and visual (AV) services, or other services that the offeror or team partners will be relying on to perform the technical requirements of the PWS. Failure of the offeror or teaming partner(s) to submit past performance information for significant subcontractors will result in a determination of non-compliance with the requirements of this solicitation and the offeror’s proposal will be removed from further consideration and determined ineligible for award. In the event that a significant subcontractor’s past performance is unknown as described in paragraph 4.4 of this document, the offeror or teaming partner(s) will remain eligible for award.

14 August 2021 Page 8 of 19

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s, teaming partner(s)’ and significant subcontractor(s)’, demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying the products and services that meet the contracted effort users’ needs, including cost and schedule.

The offeror, each teaming partner, and each significant subcontractor shall submit past performance for no more than three (3) recent offeror contract efforts. Recent is defined as an active or completed contract effort performed within three (3) years from the issuance date of this RFP and having at least a one (1) year of performance history.

Relevancy is based on how similar efforts (contracts, or task orders) are to the scope and magnitude of the efforts and complexities in this proposed effort. Tables 2 and 3 below will be used to determine an offeror’s Relevancy Rating when evaluating EACH present/past performance contract effort of the offeror. Table 3 (which expound the ratings set forth in Table 2) refers to common aspects of relevancy. The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the past performance data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the three (3) recent contract efforts submitted by the offeror, each teaming partner and each significant subcontractors. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s, teaming partners’ or significant subcontractor(s)’ opinion of relevancy.

The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each contract effort submitted in the Past Performance Volume of the offeror’s proposal.

The Government will consider the performance quality (how well the offeror performed on the contract effort) of recent, relevant efforts. The performance quality assessment consist of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available to determine the offeror’s ability to supply the services that met the contract efforts requirements.

Table 2: Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant

Present/past performance contract efforts involved the logistical and programmatic scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this proposed effort requires as specified in Table 2 NOTE and Table 3 below.

Specifically, duration of time, total dollar value, and quantity of events managed.

14 August 2021 Page 9 of 19

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Relevant

Present/past performance contract efforts involved the logistical and programmatic scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this proposed effort requires as specified in Table 2 NOTE and Table 3 below.

Specifically, duration of time, total dollar value, and quantity of events managed.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance contract efforts involved the logistical and programmatic scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this proposed effort requires as specified in Table 2 NOTE and Table 3 below.

Not Relevant

Present/past performance contract efforts involved the logistical and programmatic scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this proposed effort requires as specified in Table 2 NOTE and Table 3 below.

Table 2 NOTE: The relevancy evaluation criteria of scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as used in the above relevancy descriptions not only includes the technical features and characteristics identified in the above descriptions, but also the logistical and programmatic scope including the duration of the effort, total dollar value of the effort, and the total quantity of events managed in the effort. When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical features and characteristics as a separate aspect, and the logistical and programmatic scope and magnitude of the effort as a separate aspect. If both of these aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract effort, the overall relevancy rating assigned to that contract will be affected. For example, if the submitted contract effort meets essentially the same technical features and characteristics in the descriptions above, but involves only some of the logistical and programmatic scope and magnitude of effort, a lesser relevancy rating may be assigned.

The logistical and programmatic scope and magnitude of effort, and complexities to be used in the relevancy evaluation are based on the expected magnitude of work and complexities for the proposed effort, which are as follows:

Duration of Time: Five (5) years Estimated Total Dollar Value: The Government’s estimated acquisition value is not releasable; however, the offeror’s efforts will be evaluated against the Independent Government Estimate

Total Quantity of Events Managed: Up to 20 In-Person and/or Hybrid Events per year and no more than 15 Virtual Events

Table 3: Relevancy Definitions

14 August 2021 Page 10 of 19

Assessment Area

Very Relevant Relevant Somewhat Relevant

Not Relevant

Scope The present/past performance contract efforts must have included the following technical features and characteristics:

Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program event planning services and venue, food and beverage services, childcare services, audio and visual (AV) services, and live streaming services. The effort may have included the technical feature and characteristics of virtual meeting capabilities.

The present/past performance contract efforts must have included the following technical features and characteristics:

event planning services and venue, food and beverage services, and audio and visual (AV) services. The effort may have included the following technical features and characteristics:

childcare services, live streaming services, and/or virtual meeting capabilities.

The present/past performance contract efforts included one or more of the following technical features and characteristics:

event planning services and venue, food and beverage services, childcare services, audio and visual (AV) services, live streaming services, and/or virtual meeting capabilities.

The present/past performance contract efforts did not include any of the following technical features and characteristics:

event planning services and venue, food and beverage services, childcare services, audio and visual (AV) services, live streaming services, and/or virtual meeting capabilities.

Complexity The present/past performance contract efforts reflect breadth and scale of areas identified in the PWS and ability to work with multiple partners on contracts or task orders concurrently or consecutively as a Prime contractor or teaming partner.

The present/past performance contract efforts reflect breadth and scale of areas identified in the PWS and ability to work with multiple partners on contracts or task orders concurrently or consecutively.

The present/past performance contract efforts reflect breadth and scale of areas identified in the PWS on contracts or task orders concurrently or consecutively.

The present/past performance contract efforts does not reflect breadth and scale of areas identified in the PWS on contracts or task orders concurrently or consecutively.

14 August 2021 Page 11 of 19

Magnitude/ Dollar Value

The present/past performance contract efforts reflect performance as a Prime Contractor or teaming partner on contracts or task orders concurrently or consecutively with a combined value of at least $2.5M within a 12 month period.

The present/past performance contract efforts reflect performance as a teaming partner on contracts or task orders concurrently or consecutively with a combined value of at least $1.75M within a 12 month period.

The present/past performance contract efforts reflect performance on contracts or task orders concurrently or consecutively with a combined value of at least $1M within a 12 month period.

The present/past performance contract efforts reflect performance on contracts or task orders concurrently or consecutively with a combined value of less than $1M within a 12 month period.

Quantity of Events Managed

The present/past performance contract efforts reflect performance as a Prime Contractor or teaming partner on at least 15 In- Person and/or Hybrid Events contracts or task orders concurrently or consecutively within a 12 month period.

The present/past performance contract efforts reflect performance as a teaming partner on at least 15 In- Person Event contracts or task orders concurrently or consecutively within a 12 month period.

The present/past performance contract efforts reflect performance on at least 15 In- Person Event contracts or task orders concurrently or consecutively within a 12 month period.

The present/past performance contract efforts reflect performance on less than15 In-Person Event contracts or task orders concurrently or consecutively within a 12 month period.

4.2 In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

Past performance information provided by the offeror as required by Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items (RFP Attch 01);

Past performance information obtained from Past Performance Questionnaires (RFP Attch 18);

Past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance

14 August 2021 Page 12 of 19

Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), the System for Award Management (SAM), the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), the Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases. The Government reserves the right to use past performance information from other sources such as the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA); and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant;

Offerors/teaming partners and significant subcontractor(s) shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, teaming partner, and/or significant subcontractor(s) has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contract efforts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The confidence assessment will consider issues including, but not limited to, the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends; and

The present and past performance evaluation of the offeror, teaming partner(s), and significant subcontractor(s) WILL NOT include the present or past performance of any key personnel, such as a Certified Meeting Professional (CMP) or Certified Government Meeting Professional (CGMP), Childcare Provider, or Audio and Visual (AV) Provider, even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

4.3 In an ordering type contractual vehicle, performance is demonstrated at the order level (i.e. a delivery order/task order). Therefore, in accordance with FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items, if the contract effort submitted for past performance evaluation is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, including, but not limited to, an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5, Indefinite-Delivery Contracts), the offeror shall submit an individual delivery/task order (or series of orders) for evaluation, in lieu of the basic ordering contract itself. The Government shall use the information submitted for each order (or series of orders) to evaluate the effort’s recency, relevancy, and performance quality.

If a series of orders was submitted for evaluation, in lieu of the basic ordering contract, the offeror shall provide the total dollar value, the total period of performance, and the total quantity of events managed for each order for each order in the series.

The Government will add up all total dollar values in the series of orders (total order quantity managed) to arrive at a Total Dollar Value for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

14 August 2021 Page 13 of 19

The Government will add up the period of performance of each order to calculate the Total Period of Performance for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

The Government will add up the total quantity of events managed for each order to calculate the Total Quantity of Events Managed for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

The total dollar value, total period of performance, and total quantity of events managed for the series of orders, will be used to evaluate the submitted contact effort’s logistical and programmatic scope and magnitude of effort and complexities. The technical complexities along with the logistical and programmatic scope and magnitude of effort, and complexities will be evaluated to arrive at a relevancy rating for the effort. The more orders in the series of orders, the higher the potential programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort could be.

CAUTION: All orders, within the series of orders being submitted, should contain the same continuous technical scope. These orders, within the series of orders should demonstrate relevance to the proposed effort. The Government reserves the right to request additional information from the offeror of Points of Contact provided, in order to verify that the series of orders is for the same continuous technical scope.

4.4 As a result of the recency, relevancy, and performance quality assessments of the contract efforts evaluated, one confidence assessment rating as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor.

Only those proposals with a confidence assessment rating of “Substantial Confidence,” either initially or as a result of discussions (if opened), will be considered for award. The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted from the DoD Source Selection Procedures below in Table 4:

Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings.

Table 4: Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

Past Performance Confidence Assessments

Adjectival 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

14 August 2021 Page 14 of 19

Past Performance Confidence Assessments 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 successfully perform the required effort.

Offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available due to changes in the organization of the offeror’s company, to include the offeror being acquired by, otherwise merged with other companies, and/or reorganized divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc., the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance IAW FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), Proposal Evaluation.) In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral Confidence”.

Such organizational changes must have taken place during the time of performance of relevant past contract efforts or between the conclusion of recent past contact efforts and this proposed effort. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to determine what past performance is relevant to this proposed effort. To facilitate this relevancy determination:

Include in the Past Performance Volume a ‘roadmap’ describing all such changes in the organization of the offeror’s company, for example, a pamphlet, or other commercial document. The ‘roadmap’ should be both specifically applicable to the contract effort(s) submitted for past performance evaluation/past performance confidence assessment and general enough to apply to contract effort(s) on which the Government receives past performance information from other sources.

Show how these changes in the organization of the offeror’s company impact the relevance of any contract efforts submitted for past performance evaluation/past performance confidence assessment.

4.5 Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), Proposal Evaluation, Past Performance Evaluation, the assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated the offeror’s, teaming partner(s)’, and significant subcontractor(s)’ compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, when these clauses were contained in the submitted contract efforts. That is, in the three (3) contract efforts submitted for evaluation by the offeror, each teaming partner(s), and each significant subcontractor(s), when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the offeror, 14 August 2021 Page 15 of 19 teaming partner(s), and significant subcontractor award subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. Please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL offerors, whereas FAR 52.219-9 only applies to large businesses. If none of the contract efforts submitted by the offeror, teaming partner(s) or significant subcontractor included these clauses, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror, teaming partner(s) and significant subcontractor’s policy to utilize small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

5.0 FACTOR 3 - PRICE (VOLUME III)

Offeror’s price proposals will be evaluated for 1) completeness, 2) fairness and reasonableness, 3) balance, and 4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, not fair and unreasonable, or unbalanced may be considered ineligible for award. An incomplete, unfair and unreasonable, and/or unbalanced proposed pricing, initially or subsequently (if discussions are conducted), may cause the offeror to be ineligible for award.

5.1 CLIN Schedule Review

Compliance with instructions regarding rounding will be verified during evaluation.

Evaluation of completeness, fair and reasonableness, and balance will be performed as described below.

The Government will evaluate the price data submitted IAW Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items (RFP Attch 01), in the Price Volume using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, Proposal Analysis, in order to determine the price is complete, fair and reasonable, and balanced. The proposed prices shall be based on the offeror’s own technical approach submitted in the Technical Proposal (Volume I) and the Government’s PWS requirements. The offeror’s Price Proposal will be evaluated for completeness, fair and reasonableness, and balance. See paragraphs 5.1.1, Completeness; 5.1.2, Fair and Reasonableness; and 5.1.3, Balance, below. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated in accordance with paragraph 5.1.4, Total Evaluated Price, below.

5.1.1 Completeness

14 August 2021 Page 16 of 19

For completeness, offerors, must provide all unit prices and extended prices for each CLIN that requires proposed pricing in the CLIN Pricing Schedule (RFP Attch 08). Incomplete proposals (without required prices) may render an offeror’s proposal ineligible for award.

5.1.2 Fair and Reasonableness

The offeror’s proposed price will be evaluated to ensure the final, agreed-to price is fair and reasonable. Price reasonableness is normally established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques in FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.4, Contract Pricing, may be required to support the proposed price.

5.1.3 Balance

Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for balance IAW FAR 15.404-1(g), Proposal Analysis Techniques, Unbalanced Pricing. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items (including the Basic and Option periods) is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of proposal analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced, separately priced line items or sub-line items. Prices submitted will be compared and evaluated to assure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each offeror’s response to the pricing structure in the schedule of the solicitation. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the evaluation determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

5.1.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Evaluation of proposed pricing will be based on review of all prices provided in the CLIN Pricing Schedule, Attachment 08. The offeror’s price proposal will be reviewed for compliance with the instructions provided in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items (RFP Attch 01).

TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE (TEP)

The Government will utilize the following methodology to determine the TEP of each proposal. The TEP will be calculated for evaluation purposes only. It will be calculated by adding together the evaluated prices of each CLIN as outlined below for both the Basic and Options I-V. The sum of the evaluated prices of all of the CLINs will represent the TEP. Offerors are advised that the evaluation of options

14 August 2021 Page 17 of 19 shall not obligate the Government to exercise the options. The CLIN prices will be calculated as explained and illustrated below:

(a) The extended prices (unit prices x quantity) for CLINs *001 and *004, for the basic period and each optional period will be totaled. These CLINs will be a quantity of 12 months.

(b) The extended prices (unit prices x quantity) for CLINs *002, *003, *005, *006, *008, *009, *012, *013, *014 and *023, for the basic period and each optional period will be totaled. These CLINs will be a quantity of 1 lot.

(c) The extended prices (unit prices x quantity) for CLIN *007 for the basic period and each optional period will be totaled. This CLIN will include an assigned quantity of nine (9) sessions for evaluation purposes only.

(d) The extended prices (unit price x quantity) for CLINs *010 and *011, for the basic period and each optional period will be totaled. These CLINs will include an assigned quantity of 240 children for evaluation purposes only.

(e) The extended price (unit price x quantity) for CLIN *015 for the basic period and each optional period will be totaled. This CLIN will include an assigned quantity of four (4) rooms for evaluation purposes only.

(f) The extended price (unit price x quantity) for CLIN *016 for the basic period and each optional period will be totaled. This CLIN will include an assigned quantity of 16 rooms for evaluation purposes only.

(g) The extended price (unit price x quantity) for CLIN *017 for the basic period and each optional period will be totaled. This CLIN will include an assigned quantity of six (6) rooms for evaluation purposes only.

(h) The extended price (unit price x quantity) for CLIN *018 for the basic period and each optional period will be totaled. This CLIN will include an assigned quantity of two (2) rooms for evaluation purposes only.

(i) The extended price (unit price x quantity) for CLIN *019 for the basic period and each optional period will be totaled. This CLIN will include an assigned quantity of seven (7) rooms for evaluation purposes only.

(j) The extended prices (unit price x quantity) for CLINs *020, *021, and *022 for the basic period and each optional period will be totaled. These CLINs will include an assigned quantity of 750 attendees for evaluation purposes only.

(k) The contract will include FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, with the potential to extend the contract up to an additional six (6) months beyond the awarded contract period of performance. This provisional option, CLINS 500X are

14 August 2021 Page 18 of 19 included for evaluation. Should an extension of services be required, it may be exercised at the end of any period of performance, at the prevailing rates for that performance period. The contractor shall complete (it shall be calculated) the FAR 52.217-8 Option in the same manner as stated in paragraphs (a) through (j) above.

(l) The sums derived from Paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j) and

(k) above will be added together to develop each offerors' TEP.

Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

6.0 FACTOR 4 – SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN UTILIZATION PLAN (VOLUME IV)

6.1 General

The Small Business Concern Utilization Plan will be applicable for only work conducted CONUS. A rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” shall be assigned to this factor utilizing the ratings and descriptions identified below in Table 5: Small Business Concern Utilization Rating. The description of the subcontracted work to be performed by proposed Small Businesses (SB), to include service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and woman-owned small business concerns, along with the associated goals expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned subcontracted dollars shall be identified. The evaluation will consider the extent to which:

1) An adequate description of the extent of participation of proposed Small Businesses, to include service-disabled, veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns, when subcontracting possibilities exist is provided; and

2) An adequate description of the subcontracted work to be performed by Small Businesses, to include service-disabled, veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns, the company name/CAGE codes and the…