DRAFT_Attachment_2_-_Addendum_to_52.212-2_FIAR_(Updated_7_Aug_17).docx

RFP FA7014-17-R-5002 Attachment 2 Addendum to 52.212-2 – Evaluation – Commercial Items

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

1.1 This is a performance-price tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 12, Commercial Items, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

1.2 The Government intends to make a single award and will select the proposal found to be most advantageous to the Government with technical approach, past performance, and cost/price. The evaluation criteria are divided into four factors: Technical, Past Performance, Small Business Participation Plan, and Cost/Price. The tradeoff process for this acquisition will permit a tradeoff between past performance and price for technically acceptable proposals in reaching the contract award decision. The Contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with 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 Addendum to 52.212-1 – Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Item of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that performance of the technically acceptable higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.3 This contract is a competitive full and open procurement. The Government intends to award one (1) indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (ID/IQ) contract for the SAF/FM Financial Improvement & Audit Readiness (FIAR). However, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all. This acquisition will result in a Firm Fixed Price contract, with a cost reimbursable line item for travel. The Government will review the proposals for responsiveness. If a proposal is non-responsive then it will not be evaluated.

1.4 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Past Performance, Technical Approach, Small Business Participation Plan, and Cost/Price are listed in descending order of importance with Factor 2 (Past Performance) being most important, Factor 1 (Technical) being second and Factor 3 (Small Business Participation Plan) being third and Factor 4 (Price) is last in importance. Within the Technical Factor, the subfactors are equal in importance. All evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

1.5 The evaluation will be completed in the following steps:

1.6 Step 1: IPA Certification. The CO will review IPA certifications. If the firm does not meet criteria, the proposal will not be evaluated further.

1.7 Step 2: OCI Mitigation Plan. The Government will review the proposal to determine if there is an OCI. If the CO determines no OCI, the offeror will move to step 3. If the CO determines an OCI, the mitigation will be reviewed and the CO will determine if the OCI has been mitigated or not. If the mitigation plan is acceptable, the proposal will move to stop 3. If the OCI cannot be mitigated, the Government will not evaluate any further and the offeror will not continue to step 3.

1.8 Step 3: Evaluate remaining factors. The Government will simultaneously evaluate technical, past performance, small business participation plan and price.

2.0 Correction Potential of Proposals

2.1 The Government intends to award without exchanges. Accordingly, offerors are advised to submit initial proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable without additional information. The Government will not search for information within the proposal in order to make the proposal acceptable. However, if during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold exchanges, a notice will be sent to the offeror.

2.1.1 If exchanges are necessary, the Government will issue Exchange Notices (ENs)/ as necessary to offerors. ENs/ will be sent electronically to offerors to ensure complete understanding of any discrepancies. Any necessary page changes to the offeror’s proposals will be obtained prior to concluding exchanges. Throughout the exchange process, the Government will document any changes in ratings and total evaluated price. Offeror responses to ENs/ and the Proposal Revision Opportunity (PRO)/ (PRO) at the conclusions of exchanges will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time exchanges are closed, any changes or exceptions in the PRO/ are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

2.1.2 Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

3.0 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

3.1 The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

3.1.1 Factor I: Technical

Subfactor 1: Methodology and Approach to Complete PWS Tasks Subfactor 2: Management Plan Subfactor 3: Staffing Plan/Recruiting and Retention Plan Subfactor 4: Transition Plan

3.1.2 Factor II: Past Performance

3.1.3 Factor III: Small Business Participation Plan

3.1.4 Cost/Price (Including review of the Executive Professional Compensation Plan)

3.2 Factor 1: Technical

The Government will rate the technical proposal at the subfactor level and assign a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable.” The subfactor ratings will be rolled up into an overall Technical Factor rating. All subfactors must receive a rating of “Acceptable” in order for the Technical Factor rating to be found “Acceptable.” If any subfactor is rated as “Unacceptable” then the overall Technical Factor rating will be “Unacceptable.”

3.2.1 Subfactor 1: Methodology and Approach to Complete PWS Tasks: This subfactor demonstrates an offeror’s understanding, approach, and methodology to complete the required tasks IAW the PWS. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed approach/methodology and associated processes to complete all required tasks IAW PWS requirements.

3.2.2 Subfactor 2: Management Plan

This subfactor demonstrates an offeror’s plan to monitor their employees to continuously meet the Government’s requirements as outlined in the PWS. This subfactor will demonstrate the offerors management plan for oversight of a minimum of 200 FTE’s as a prime contractor or have performed as a subcontractor having managed at least 100 FTE’s.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s management plan to ensure the offeror has an adequate plan to allocate the resources for off-site performance and identify the location and facilities where the staff will provide the support.

3.2.3 Subfactor 3: Staffing Plan/Recruiting and Retention Plan This subfactor demonstrates an offeror’s capability to properly allocate resources in accordance with the PWS. The offeror demonstrated the capability to recruit and retain employees. The offeror shall demonstrate a matrix of staff security levels IAW PWS.

The Government will evaluate the cross matrix for allocation of hours, labor categories (including alternate labor categories), key personnel IAW PWS task areas, security levels at least an interim to SECRET for the positions identified in the PWS (page/table). The Government will review submitted resumes for all key personnel to show an understanding of the requirement and the labor category matrix (Attachment 3). The Government will evaluate the offerors staffing plan for a solid approach that demonstrates an offeror’s plan to minimize impact on transition, recruiting, and retention.

The Government will use the cross-matrix submitted in the Volume I to assess that the offeror is proposing enough resources to meet the full requirement of the PWS. The cross-matrix will not be evaluated but will be used as a tool to assess the offerors full understanding of the requirement for staffing resources and overall management of the entire project and scope.

3.2.4 Subfactor 4: Transition Plan.

This subfactor will demonstrate the offerors ability to transition in and out within 30 days or less. The Government will evaluate the offerors approach and plan for a smooth transition in the turnover of work to/from the incumbent contractor.

The Transition Phase-In Plan shall address the following items in the transition plan:

A Transition Phase-In Plan that solely relies on capturing incumbent personnel will be deemed unacceptable. The Offeror should present a realistic transition plan to address areas of staffing, continuity of information, pending actions and identify any risks that would be evident during a transition from one contractor to another.

3.3 Factor II: Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments based on the recency, relevancy, and quality assessment ratings per the criteria below.

3.3.1 The Government will review up to ten (10) total contract's past performance submitted by the Offeror, up to five (5) contracts for Contract Management History with a minimum of 3, and up to five (5) contracts for Auditing support with a minimum of 3. The Offeror may submit the same information for both elements if that information satisfies recent and relevant past performance for both elements. Any submission in excess of the limit will not be considered and only the first ten (10) contracts listed in Volume II will be evaluated.

3.3.2 The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Price factor, taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated above in paragraph 1.4 The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

3.3.3 In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance questionnaires (PPQs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

3.3.4 Recency Assessment

Recency assessment will apply to all contracts evaluated. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. In order to be recent, the contract (or subcontract) must have been performed within the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation and for a minimum of a six (6) month period. Past Performance outside this given timeframe will not be evaluated. If performance on the contract occurred within the last five (5) years prior to the RFP's proposal submission deadline, the past performance record will receive a rating of "Recent," otherwise, the past performance record will receive a rating of "Not Recent," and will not receive further evaluation.

3.3.5 Relevancy Assessment

Relevancy will be determined in two subject areas: contract management history and audit services support. Both subject areas are equal in importance. Each contract under each subject area will receive a relevancy rating. Those individual ratings will roll up into an overall Relevancy Rating for the Contract Management subject area and the Performance of Audit Services subject area. The two subject area ratings will be combined into one overall Relevancy Rating.

3.3.6 Contract Management History: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is relevant. To determine relevancy in this area, the offeror can submit up to five (5) submissions. Each individual contract will receive a relevancy rating which will be rolled up into the OVERALL relevancy rating. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s relevancy on the management of a large number of FTE’s spread across multiple locations. “Multiple locations can include a number of different locations within the same area and/or varying geographic locations”. In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the Government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime with any of their teaming partners/subcontractor for their submission. The past performance information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. Submissions for contract management history can be from Federal Agencies or Private Firms.

3.3.6.1 A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. The Government will use the following ratings in Table 1 when assessing the Offeror’s contracts for relevance:

Table 2

3.3.7 Performance of Audit/Coaching Services: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is relevant. Relevancy will be assessed on an individual contract basis. In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the Government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime. The past performance information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. Relevancy ratings for past performance will be determined by audit/coaching services that are the same or similar to the requirements in the PWS with an emphasis on the budget, percentage or work and number or tasks supported in the submitted effort.

3.3.7.1 A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. The Government will use the following relevancy ratings in table 2 when assessing the Offeror’s contracts for relevance:

3.3.7.2 The following areas in Table 3 will be used as guidance to assist in determining the relevancy ratings and not the actual rating for this area. Ratings will be provided on an overall basis.

Table 3

Scope:

The Government will evaluate the past performance submissions for similarities in budget size as the Air Force.

Audited a federal entity with an annual budget between $60 - $160B

Audited a federal entity with an annual budget between $35 - $59B

Magnitude:

The Government will evaluate the offerors percentage of support provided on a contract similar in scope in accordance with the PWS.

Complexity:

The Government will evaluate if the past performance submission demonstrates the offeror has audited a federal agency that has performed the tasks IAW the PWS.

3.3.8 Performance Quality Assessment

Table 5

Contract Management History: The Government will evaluate the Offeror's recent and relevant past performance for demonstrated quality of performance in contract management history. This evaluation will be based on responses to Contract Management History Past Performance Questionnaire. The questionnaire will be completed by the Point of Contact (POC) identified by the Offeror. Additional sources of performance information may include, but is not limited to: CPARS, FAPIIS, PPIRS, and SAM.

The performance quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. “Adverse” is defined as past performance information that supports a less than "Satisfactory" rating on any evaluation element. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), the mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. The Government will not use negative quality assessments against the Offeror until the Offeror has had a chance to address the findings made, either prior to the RFP submission if time permits or during the course of this evaluation. The Government may enter into communications with the Offeror regarding adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to comment.

3.3.9 Performance Confidence Assessment

As a result of the recency, relevancy, and quality ratings, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and cost/price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of recent / relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an “Unknown Confidence” rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an “Unknown Confidence” rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

The performance confidence assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following performance confidence ratings when assessing recent, relevant efforts

Table 6 Performance Confidence Assessment

3.4 Factor 3: Small Business Participation Plan

The Government will evaluate the Offerors Small Business Participation Plan to determine whether it is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table 4 below:

Small Business Participation Ratings

Table 7

3.4.1 This factor will evaluate the extent of participation of small businesses to include service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) concerns, Woman-owned small business (WOSB) concerns, and veteran-owned small business (VOSB) concerns in performance of the contract shall be evaluated under this factor.

3.5 Factor 4: Price

3.5.1 The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes based upon the proposed prices in the IDIQ Pricing Sheet (Attachment 4) being fair and reasonable, along with a realistic PECP. Price will also be evaluated for the total proposed price for Task Orders 1-7. The Government reserves the right to eliminate a proposal from further evaluation due to unacceptable risk if the evaluated prices are unfair or unreasonable. Comparison of proposed prices received in response to this solicitation is the preferred and intended price analysis technique. Other techniques and procedures, if deemed necessary and reasonable, may be used to ensure a reasonable price.

3.5.1.1. IDIQ Pricing Sheet (Attachment 4) will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness. The IDIQ Pricing Sheet (Attachment 4) will be incorporated into the contract and utilized for pricing for future task orders.

3.5.1.2. Task Order Pricing Sheet (Attachment 5)will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness. The total evaluated price (TEP) will consist of the sum of the Firm Fixed Price (Off-Site Labor) plus Travel for Task Orders 1-7.

3.5.2 PECP Realism Analysis.. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s and PECP for realism in accordance with FAR Provision 52.222-46 -- Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees (Feb 1993). For the PECP to be realistic, the compensation plan(s) will be evaluated to determine if the compensation level proposed is unrealistically low IAW the scope and effort of the PWS. The Government may utilize Government civilian rates, similar contract labor rates, salary.com, other similar or relevant websites, or anything else it deems appropriate or beneficial in its evaluation of realism. Failure to comply with the requirements in FAR Provision 52.222-46 may constitute sufficient cause to justify rejection of the proposal.

3.5.3 Price Reasonableness and Fairness

The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of the proposed price/cost by assessing the acceptability of the Offeror's methodology used in developing the cost/price estimates. For the cost/price to be reasonable in its nature and amount, it should not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of a competitive business. Reasonableness takes into account the context of a given source selection, including current market conditions and other factors that affect the ability of an Offeror to perform the contract requirements. Reasonableness depends upon a variety of considerations and circumstances, including but not limited to:

a. Whether it is the type of cost generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the conduct of the Offeror's business or of the contract performance;

b. Generally accepted sound business practices, arm’s length bargaining, Federal and State laws and regulations, etc.;

c. The contractor's responsibilities to the Government, other customers, the owners of the business, employees, and the public at large; and

d. Any significant deviations from the Offeror's established practices.

4. Award The Source Selection Authority (SSA) shall select the source whose proposal offers the best value to the Government in accordance with the established criteria in this Evaluation Criteria. Trade-offs may be utilized to award to the best-value source based on a comparative assessment of proposals in accordance with the established criteria and with consideration of the recommendations and minority opinions presented to the SSA.