updated Attachment 12 - Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 .docx

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

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 along with an initial task order 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.

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

B. Volume I, Completed Request for Proposal (RFP)

1. General: Each proposal will be reviewed for consistency, conformance and completeness to instructions provided in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 – Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Products and Commercial Services. 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 Agreement: If any sort of teaming arrangement exists for this solicitation, the teaming arrangement agreement 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. Facility Clearance Proof: Offeror will provide proof of their current facility clearance. Facility Clearance must be at the same level as the DD254 (attachment 2). Offerors must show that the prime offeror has (1) at least a SECRET final facility clearance level, or (2) at least an interim SECRET facility clearance, or (3) an existing facility clearance sponsorship letter and documentation that reasonably demonstrates that the process is in the final stages and likely to be completed no later than 20 Mar 2023. Proposals that do not satisy one of the above criteria will be ineligible for award. RESERVED.

C. Volume II, Technical Factor

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 will be evaluated to determine if it addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail.

Subfactor One – Personnel Plan:. This subfactor is met when the Personnel Plan includes the following information: (1) How the offeror will manage subcontractor(s) or other team partner(s) arrangements, if applicable; (2) How the offeror is able to recruit and manage a team that spans multiple states, (3) How the offeror will maintain continuity and expertise in the technologies described in the PWS; (4) The offeror's oversight process to ensure qualifications are net and maintained; and (5) The offeror's management/oversight structure for each location (See PWS, 1.3 Places of Performance). Also, if subcontractors are to be used, an adequate Personnel Plan, must describe the offeror's rationale for selection of subcontractor(s) anticipated division of labor, and procedures for ensuring the prime will serve as a single focal point for the Government.

Subfactor Two – Technical Narrative: This subfactor is met when the offeror submits a written narrative that adequately describes its approach that is based on its ability to apply reasonable IT industry methods and techniques to accomplish the full range of tasks in the PWS. This subfactor is met when the Technical Narrative includes the following: (1) A description of how the offeror will use and manage key technologies, tools, and systems as listed in the PWS as required within the AFRC IT environment; and (2) A description of any offeror-specific capabilities, technologies, or tools expected to automate or increase efficiency of the services described in the PWS.

Subfactor Three -Initial Task Order Proposal: This subfactor is met when the offeror submits a completed Task Order Proposal Worksheet (Attachment 9 – TO Proposal Worksheet) that demonstrates an adequate mix of labor categories and hours to accomplish the requirements of the initial task order and a written narrative that adequately describes the basis for the proposal to include any labor efficiencies and an adequate explanation of any proposed labor category titles that differ from those listed on the Rate Sheet template (Attachment 8 – Rate Sheet).

Subfactor Four – Mission Essential Services Continuation Plan: This subfactor is met when the offeror submits a written Mission Essential Services Continuation Plan that adequately describes how the offeror will provide the continuity of mission essential services identified in the PWS, to include Infrastructure and Engineering Field Support (See PWS, 2.1.1.), HQ AFRC and AFRC Host Base Cyber Transport Support (See PWS, 2.1.2.2.), Mobile Application Infrastructure Support (See PWS, 2.1.3.), Virtualization Engineering and Management Support (See PWS, 2.1.4.), Enterprise File/Storage Support Services (See PWS, 2.1.9.), AFRC Wide Area/I-COOP File Server Storage Support Services (See PWS, 2.1.10.), SharePoint Architecture and Server Support (See PWS, 2.1.16.1.), and Service Desk/Communications Focal Point (See PWS, 2.2.)

2. 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. One technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. To be considered awardable, the technical proposal must receive an “acceptable” rating in every technical subfactor.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

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 subcontractor(s) and/or teaming partner(s) involvement to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance work record. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming contractor), other than the offeror itself that has been determined by the offeror to be directly responsible for the majority of work for any one or more of the following services: Virtualization Engineering And Management Support (See PWS, 2.1.4), Mobile Application Infrastructure Support (See PWS, 2.1.3), Enterprise File Storage Support Services (See PWS, 2.1.9), Cyber Transport Support (See PWS, 2.1.2), Enterprise Architecture Program (See PWS, 2.6), Service Desk/Communications Focal Point (See PWS, 2.2), Enterprise Microsoft SharePoint Support (See PWS 2.1.16), VTC, Program Management, Spectrum Management, or Cybersecurity. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture members’, and if applicable, the critical subcontractor(s)’ and/or teaming partner(s)’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. The recency, relevancy and quality of the information 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 RFP. 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 this acquisition , such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of this acquisition.

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. The Government may use data from previous source selections if the Government determines that the data is recent and relevant.

(b) Adverse Present/Past Performance Information: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse present/past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member, critical subcontractor, and/or teaming partner has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented for problems identified as having occurred during the performance of the contract. 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 submitted 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 scope of each task order.

(a) 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 magnitude evaluation.

(b) 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 recency evaluation.

(c) In order to calculate the annual cost for the magnitude as described in paragraph II.D.3 below, the number of months in the total period of performance (PoP) would be divided by twelve (12) to determine a whole year number. The Total Dollar Value would then be divided by the whole year number to determine an annual value to be used in the magnitude evaluation.

(d) The Government shall look at the technical scope of each task order across the series of orders to ensure they constitute a continuous scope to qualify as a series of orders. Offerors are on notice that if the Government considers not a continuous scope, it will be removed from considerations.

The Total Dollar Value, Total Period of Performance, and technical scope for the series of orders, will be used to evaluate the submitted effort’s scope, complexity, and magnitude, as explained below in II.D.3., Note, the technical complexities along with the scope and magnitude of effort will be evaluated to arrive at a Present/Past Performance Relevancy Rating for the contract effort.

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 this acquisition. The Government reserves the right to request additional information from the offeror‘s Points of Contact provided, in order to verify that the series of orders is for the same continuous technical scope.

3.2 Evaluation of an Order or Series of Orders: The Total Dollar Value, Total Period of Performance, scope of the order or series of orders will be evaluated using the Present/Past Performance Relevancy Matrix below.

4. Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform its own independent determination of relevancy of the present/past performance data provided by the offeror or obtained by the Government in accordance with II.D.2.(a) above. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent up to five (5) contracts for the offeror/joint venture and up to three (3) for each critical subcontractor. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each contract effort submitted in the offeror’s Volume III Present/Past Performance proposal:

Present/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

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

PRESENT/PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY MATRIX

Scope

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 less 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

- Provided enterprise level 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 administration/room operation/design

- Provided enterprise level 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 administration/room operation/design

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

Magnitude

5. Quality of Present/Past Performance Assessment: Recent and relevant present/past performance information submitted by the offeror will be evaluated to determine the quality of the offeror’s performance and general trends in the offeror’s performance. A separate quality assessment rating will not be assigned. Rather the Present/Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating is based on the offeror’s overall recency, relevancy, and quality of present/past performance.

6. Present/Past Performance Confidence: As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts submitted for evaluation, offerors will receive one of the ratings as described in the Present/Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Method table below. In determining the confidence assessment rating, all of the relevancy evaluations for each of the categories (scope, complexity, and magnitude) of all of the contracts submitted for evaluation will be aggregated to reflect how well the contracts collectively demonstrate relevancy. Please note that it is not necessary to receive a “Very Relevant” rating in all of the categories (scope, complexity, and magnitude) on a single contract submitted for evaluation to receive a “Substantial Confidence” rating. A “Substantial Confidence” rating can be assigned if the offeror demonstrates across all of its present/past performance contract submissions that it has recent “Very Relevant” experience in all of the categories (scope, magnitude, and complexity) when considering all of the contracts submitted. The government will evaluate all of the information it gathered across all of the contracts submitted for present/past performance evaluation to determine the level of confidence the government has in the offeror’s ability to successfully execute the Enterprise IT service. A simplified example of how this is applied during evaluation is found immediately below the confidence assessment rating table. The example is provided for EXAMPLE PURPOSES ONLY, it does not consider numerous other factors that may be considered during evaluation.

Present/Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Method

*Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of recent and relevant present/past performance or for whom information on present/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 Confidence”. A strong record of recent and relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

Example Evaluation – FOR EXAMPLE PUROSES ONLY - : Offeror submits five (5) recent contracts in its proposal for present/past performance evaluation purposes.

In Contract 1, the offeror has demonstrated the following recent present/past performance experience:

· 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 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.

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

· Magnitude: $3M annually with 20 FTEs

In Contract 2, the offeror has demonstrated the following recent present/past performance experience:

· Scope: Does not include virtualization, mobile, enterprise file storage, and enterprise cyber transport

· Complexity: Provided enterprise level 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 administration/room operation/design

· Magnitude: $2M annually with 15 FTEs

In Contract 3, the offeror has demonstrated the following recent present/past performance experience:

· 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, 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; and 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

· Magnitude: $7M annually with 50 FTEs

In Contract 4, the offeror has demonstrated the following recent present/past performance experience:

· Scope: Does not include virtualization, mobile, enterprise file storage, and enterprise cyber transport

· Complexity: - Provided enterprise level 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 administration/room operation/design

· Magnitude: $6M annually with 55 FTEs

In Contract 5, the offeror has demonstrated the following recent present/past performance experience:

· Scope: Does not include virtualization, mobile, enterprise file storage, and enterprise cyber transport

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

· Magnitude: $9M annually with 65 FTEs

Based on the contracts submitted, the offeror is evaluated as follows:

In this example the offeror has demonstrated in contracts 1 and 3 that it has Relevant experience in Scope. The offeror has demonstrated on contract 3 that it has Very Relevant experience in Complexity. The offeror has demonstrated on contract 5 it has Very Relevant experience in Magnitude. Assuming all submittals were recent and were of acceptable quality this offeror would receive a Substantial Confidence rating.

6.1 If the lowest priced proposal is assigned a Present/Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating of "Substantial Confidence", and the proposal is assigned a Technical Rating of “acceptable,” that proposal represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process ends at this point, provided the price is determined to be fair and reasonable. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

5.2. If the lowest priced proposal is not assigned a Present/Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating of "Substantial Confidence", the next lowest priced proposal will be evaluated, and the process will continue until a proposal is assigned a "Substantial Confidence" Present/Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating or until all proposals are evaluated. If the lowest priced proposal is assigned a Present/Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating 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. Price Factor

1. General. Proposals will be evaluated based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP), completeness, price reasonableness, unbalanced pricing, and price realism (if necessary). An offeror whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable, unrealistic, 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 Government will use the offerors completed Attachment 8 – Rate Sheet, to calculate the TEP 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 52.217-8 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 using Attachment 8 – Rate Sheet. All elements necessary for the TEP shall be included in the offeror submitted Rate Sheet and the offeror submitted Attachment 9 – Task Order Proposal Worksheet. 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 Independent Government Estimate (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 may be determined ineligible for 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. For additional information see FAR 15.404-1(g). Should further information to support balanced pricing be necessary, the Government reserves the right to request further information.

6. Price Realism. The Government reserves the right to conduct a price realism analysis on the lowest price proposal(s).

Proposals are understood to reflect the Offerors’ understanding of the technical requirements of the PWS in its entirety.

Proposals with an unrealistic price (price too low) may be determined ineligible for award.

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 considering past performance is significantly greater than price.

21-Sep-22 image1.emf