Attachment 11 - Addendum to FAR 52.212-2.pdf

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2

EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. For those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs may be made between past performance and price, with past performance considered significantly more important than price. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph II below. Contract terms and conditions consistent with customary commercial practices are specified in the solicitation/contract, with otherwise tailored terms and conditions specified in the Addendum to the solicitation/contract.

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by volume):

A. General

1. Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines that 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 Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. General: Each proposal will be reviewed for consistency, conformance and completeness to instructions provided in instructions to offeror’s. This Volume is not rated and is not considered in the integrated assessment for determination of best value; however, an incomplete proposal may disqualify an offeror from further participation in the competition. In addition, each offeror’s registration and data in the System for Award Management (SAM at www.sam.gov will be reviewed for compliance with the requirements with FAR Part 4. Offeror’s must have a current registration in SAM to be eligible for award.

2. Teaming Arrangement: If any sort of teaming arrangement exists for this solicitation, the teaming arrangement letter will be reviewed for conformance and completeness to instructions provided in Section L and to verify the prime offeror’s compliance with FAR Subpart 9.6, Contractor Team Arrangements. Offeror will not be eligible for award when teaming arrangement documentation is found to be noncompliant.

3. Cross Referencing: Each section shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with no cross-referencing to other sections of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation that is not found in its designated section will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal.

C. Volume II, Technical Factor

DRAFT

1. General: Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the PWS and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail.

Subfactor One: Obtaining and retaining qualified personnel - This subfactor is met when the offeror adequately demonstrates effective procedures for building and maintaining a qualified team to meet the scope and scale required to meet the requirements of the PWS. These procedures should also include approaches to manage any subcontractor or other teaming arrangements

Subfactor Two: Use of current relevant methods and technologies – This subfactor is met when offeror describes an adequate approach that is based on its ability to apply reasonable IT industry methods and techniques to accomplish the full range of tasks in the entire PWS. This description should include key technologies/tools/systems required within AFRC IT environment.

Subfactor Three: Initial Task Order – This subfactor is met when the offeror demonstrates an adequate mix of labor categories, hours, and skills to accomplish the requirements of the initial task order.

Subfactor Four: Mission Essential Services Continuation Plan – This subfactor is met when offereor adequately describes a plan to continue the mission essential services described in section II.C.2 below.

2. Mission Essential Services: Mission-essential services under this contract/order include Infrastructure and Engineering Field Support (2.1.1.), Cyber Transport (2.1.2.2.), Mobile Applications Infrastructure Support (2.1.3.), Virtualization Engineering and Management Support (2.1.4.), Enterprise File/Storage Support (2.1.9.), AFRC Wide Area/I-COOP File Server Storage Support (2.1.10.), Enterprise MS SharePoint Architecture and Server Support (2.1.16.1.), and IT Service Desk (2.2.) In accordance with DFARS 237.7602 and DFARS PGI 207.105(b)(20)(C)(3), offeror must submit a written plan for providing the continuity of essential services and the sufficiency of the offeror’s plan will be considered and evaluated by the government in conjunction with the technical evaluation of offers.

3. Technical Rating: The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below.

PCO Note: If you identified specific key requirements in Section L and had no technical subfactors, include this next sentence: One technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every subfactor.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

D. Volume III, Past Performance Factor

1. General: The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability (which includes, if applicable, the extent of its critical subcontractors’ involvement) to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming contractor), other than the offeror itself, that will provide services in any of the following: virtualization engineering and management, mobile application infrastructure support, enterprise file storage, cyber transport support, enterprise architecture, help desk, Sharepoint, VTC, or program management. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture members’ and if applicable, the critical subcontractors’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed for at least six (6) months within the past three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

2. Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

a) Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume.

Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

b) Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation 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.

3. Ordering Type Contracts Submission: In an ordering type contractual vehicle, performance is demonstrated at the order level (i.e. a delivery/task order). Therefore, in accordance with Section L, if the contract you are submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, including but not limited to an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), the offeror should have submitted an individual delivery/task order (or series of orders) for evaluation, in lieu of just 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 quality. If the offeror provides only the basic ordering contract the present/past performance for that contract will not be considered.

3.1 Series of Orders: If a series of orders was submitted for evaluation, in lieu of the basic ordering contract, the offeror should have provided the total dollar value, total period of performance, and type and complexity of data deliverables for each order in the series.

-The Government shall add up all total dollar values in the series of orders to arrive at a Total Dollar Value for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

-The Government shall 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 shall look at the type and complexity of data deliverables across the series of orders, to arrive at an Overall Type and Complexity of Data Deliverables for the series of orders.

The Total Dollar Value, Total Period of Performance, and Overall Type and Complexity of Data Deliverables, for the series of orders, will be used to evaluate the submitted effort’s programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, as described in Section M, Paragraph II.D.4 Note. As explained in Section M, Paragraph II.D.4 Note, the technical complexities along with the programmatic/logistical 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 instant acquisition. 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.

3.2 Programmatic/Logistical Evaluation of an Order or Series of Orders: The Total Dollar Value, Total Period of Performance, and Complexity of Data Deliverables of the Order or Series of Orders will be evaluated against the Expected Magnitude and Complexities established in Section M Paragraph 4.1 below.

4. Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent five (5) contracts for the prime and three (3) for critical subcontrators. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s Volume III of its proposal:

Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

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.

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.

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY MATRIX

Very Relevant Relevant Somewhat Relevant Not Relevant

Scope

Includes Virtualization engineering and management involving VMWare/Horizon technologies, mobile applications infrastructure for IOS and Android involving Airwatch/Workspace One, enterprise file storage with EMC/Dell technologies, and enterprise cyber transport with Cisco-based infrastructure. Plus includes all of the following: VTC system engineering and operation using CISCO and Crestron; Sharepoint architecture; IT service Desk using ServiceNow or Remedy; Server operations with Windows and Linux;

lifecycle management of IT capabilities; Spectrum management within DoD;

Enterprise Architecture using DoD Architecture Framework; cybersecurity work based on RMF

Includes Virtualization engineering and management involving VMWare/Horizon technologies, mobile applications infrastructure for IOS and Android involving Airwatch/Workspace One, enterprise file storage with EMC/Dell technologies, and enterprise cyber transport with Cisco-based infrastructure. Plus includes at least 6 of the following: VTC system engineering and operation using CISCO and Crestron; Sharepoint architecture; IT service Desk using ServiceNow or Remedy;

Server operations with Windows and Linux; lifecycle management of IT capabilities; Spectrum management within DoD;

Enterprise Architecture using DoD Architecture Framework;

cybersecurity work based on

RMF

Includes Virtualization engineering and management, mobile applications infrastructure, enterprise file storage, and enterprise cyber transport. Plus includes at least 4 of the following:

VTC system engineering and operation using CISCO and Crestron;

Sharepoint architecture; IT service Desk using ServiceNow or Remedy;

Server operations with Windows and Linux;

lifecycle management of IT capabilities; Spectrum management within DoD;

Enterprise Architecture using DoD Architecture Framework; cybersecurity work based on RMF

Does not include virtualization, mobile, enterprise file storage, and enterprise cyber transport and/or includes les than 4 of the following: VTC system engineering and operation using CISCO and Crestron;

Sharepoint architecture; IT service Desk using ServiceNow or Remedy; Server operations with Windows and Linux;

lifecycle management of IT capabilities; Spectrum management within DoD; Enterprise Architecture using DoD Architecture Framework;

cybersecurity work based on RMF

Complexity

- Provided enterprise level classified and unclassified IT activities for at least 15k customers at sites across multiple states, related to -- Virtual server and desktop environments -- Enterprise service desk -- Network sustainment/engineering -- Directory Services -- Cyber security/Risk Management Framework -- VTC administration/room operation/design classified and unclassified IT activities for at least 8k customers at sites across multiple states, related to -- Virtual server and desktop environments -- Enterprise service desk -- Network sustainment/engineering -- Directory Services -- Cyber security/Risk Management Framework

-- VTC

classified and/or unclassified IT activities for at least 5k customers at sites across multiple states, related to -- Virtual server and desktop environments -- Enterprise service desk -- Network sustainment/engineering -- Directory Services -- Cyber security/Risk Management Framework

-- VTC

- Provided enterprise level classified and/or unclassified IT activities for less than 5k customers

Magnitude over $10M annually for a single contract or task order with at least 80 FTEs

$7-10M annually for a single contract or task order with between 60-79 FTEs

>$5M<$7M annually for a single contract or task order with between 40-59 FTEs

$5M or less annually for a single contract or task order with less than 40 FTEs

5. Quality Assessment. Quality will be based on how well the offeror performed on each recent and relevant effort.

Table below will be used to determine an offeror’s Quality Assessment Rating on EACH recent and relevant effort.

Past Performance Quality Rating Method E Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

V Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

S Satisfactory Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

M Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements.

The contractual performance being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

U Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

N/A Not Applicable Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect, performance was not observed, or information was not available. Do not know.

6. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below.

Adjectival 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 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 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.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)).

Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral”. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

6.1 If the lowest priced offer is deemed to have a "substantial confidence" performance assessment, and receives an acceptable rating on the technical evaluation, that offer represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process ends at this point, provided the price is found to be fair and reasonable. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

6.2. If the lowest priced offeror is not deemed to have a "substantial confidence" performance assessment, the next lowest priced offer will be evaluated and the process will continue until an offeror is judged to have a "substantial confidence" performance assessment or until all offerors are evaluated. If the lowest priced offeror is deemed to have a performance confidence assessment of "satisfactory confidence" or lower, the Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offeror. In that event, the Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

F. Cost/Price Proposal Factor

1. General. Proposals will be evaluated based on Total Evaluated Price (TEP), completeness, reasonableness, and unbalanced pricing. An offeror whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable, or unbalanced will not be considered for award. The source selection decision will be based on the Offeror’s TEP.

2. Total Evaluated Price. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the offeror’s proposed burdened labor rates multiplied by the government-provided labor hours including the 6-month Option to Extend Services IAW 52.217-8.

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

Note: The cost/price of FAR 52.217-08 Option to Extend Services will not be requested and will be prorated based on the last year’s ordering period prior to exercise of the option, if applicable.

3. Completeness. Offerors will submit burdened labor rates in accordance with the Government-provided rate sheet.

All elements required for the TEP shall be included in the rate sheet provided in Section L, Attachment L-05 and the task order proposal worksheet provided in Section L, Attachment L-06. An offeror whose price is determined to be incomplete will not be considered for award. Completeness will be evaluated based on compliance with instructions provided in Section L.

4. Reasonableness. The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. Reasonableness will be established by adequate competition and comparison to the IGE. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3. An offeror whose price is determined to be unreasonable will not be considered for award.

5. Unbalanced Pricing. An offeror whose price is determined to be unbalanced might not receive the award.

Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more unit prices is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost analysis techniques. Should further information to support balanced pricing be necessary, the Government reserves the right to request further information.

G. Integrated Assessment In the last phase of the Source Selection, the SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment. The integrated assessment taking into account past performance is significantly greater than price.