AFSLDP_52_212_2_Addendum_(29May19).pdf

FAR 52.212-2 ADDENDUM

Paragraph 52.212-2(a), Proposal Evaluation, is tailored as follows:

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive Full Tradeoff best value source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12 Acquisition of Commercial Items and FAR 15.3 Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3.

Among the evaluation factors considered in the tradeoff decision, past Performance, when combined with Technical/Risk Rating is significantly more important than cost or price. Offerors must have a minimum of a Satisfactory Confidence assessment rating for award. By submission of its offer, the offeror agrees to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, technical requirements, past performance requirements and pricing requirements. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The Government has the right to determine a proposal incomplete due to exceptions taken and eliminate it from further consideration for award.

PROCESS: The Government will evaluate all technical proposals first IAW Volume I of this addendum. All technically acceptable proposals will then be ranked by Total Evaluated Price (TEP) from lowest to highest. The Government will then evaluate technically acceptable offeror’s past performance starting with the lowest TEP offer. Following past performance evaluation, offerors will be assigned a Confidence Assessment Rating as outlined in Volume II of this addendum. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) shall then make an integrated best value award decision from the listing of offers established. An award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

Gateway to Oral Presentations

The Government will evaluate proposals in response to the Gateway to Oral Presentations on a pass/fail basis and assign an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating as described in Table 1 below.

Table 1 - Gateway to Oral Presentation Ratings Rating Definition

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

A rating of unacceptable in one or more sections will constitute an overall rating of Unacceptable for the Gateway to Oral Presentation evaluation and make offeror ineligible for award. The offeror’s proposal shall, at a minimum, address each of the sections outlined below as they apply to the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

The proposals will be evaluated against the following:

Management, Organizational Structure, and Staffing Approach. This factor evaluates the adequacy of the offeror’s proposed Management and Staffing Approach for the basic contract period and all option years. The evaluation will address the offeror’s response as outlined below in the right-hand column. The “Instructions to Offerors” column on the left is verbatim from the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 and is provided here for quick reference only.

Management, Organizational Structure, and Staffing Approach Instruction to Offerors Evaluation Criteria

(a) Management.

Offeror shall submit the proposed management and staffing by shift, skill classification, and work unit and include the following:

1) Lines of authority and the details of onsite personnel by skill mix, function and numbers.

2) Resumes for key positions.

The proposed management is acceptable when it clearly addresses:

1) Well defined lines of authority and details of onsite personnel by skill mix, function and numbers.

2) Adequate qualifications of key personnel through submitted resumes for the Program Manager, Force Development Manager, and the Senior Leader Development Director IAW section 3.12 of the PWS.

(b) Organizational Structure.

Offeror shall submit the proposed organizational structure that the offeror will employ and include the following:

1) Descriptions of the proposed roles, responsibilities, cross utilization (if applicable), and relationships for each organizational element with a shift summary and organizational charts.

2) Approach to provide backup capability in “one-deep” positions; include a chart depicting approach.

The proposed organizational structure is acceptable when it illustrates a thorough understanding of the Tasks listed within section 2.1 of the PWS including:

1) Roles, responsibilities, cross utilization (if applicable) and relationships for each task(s) are clearly defined and represent reasonable allocation of personnel. Provide rationale used to develop the organizational structure.

2) Acceptable approach to provide backup capability in “one-deep” positions; include a chart depicting approach. Approach demonstrates continuation of services.

(c) Staffing Approach.

Offeror shall submit the proposal staffing approach to include:

The proposed staffing approach/rationale is acceptable when it provides:

1) Description of how the offeror will recruit and retain an experienced, motivated workforce as well as sustain trained, qualified, and certified personnel, including management and staffing approaches, throughout the life of the contract.

1) Effective methods for sustaining trained, qualified and certified personnel, including management and instructor staffing approaches, throughout the life of the contract. Realistic recruitment and retention approach that ensures an experienced and motivated workforce.

**Those offerors whose responses to the Gateway to Oral Presentation are found to be Acceptable will be further evaluated for Factor 1: Technical Approach. Offerors with a rating of Unacceptable will not be evaluated further for this acquisition.**

PART II – VOLUME I – FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

Subfactor 1: Oral Presentations

The Oral Presentation Gateway shall be utilized to ascertain whether the offeror has sufficient understanding of technical concepts and requirements of the Air Force Senior Leadership Development Program. An adequate response to the two (2) scenarios below shall address the developmental needs of leadership IAW the requirements of the PWS. To be considered acceptable, the presentation should address the required scenarios. Questions an offeror should consider were included with the scenarios, which are intended to guide the presentation topic.

The presentation should walk through a development process, from problem solution, integration, and implementation/release. Offerors must respond to both scenarios below.

Provide a management plan and/or approach to the following scenario:

Scenario 1 – Data Analytics and Decision Making

Problem Statement: The Air Force has expressed a desire to develop a solution to prepare and develop executive level leaders to operate more fluently with big data and leverage the insights that data analytics can offer to make better informed enterprise decisions.

Desired Outcomes: General Officers (and equivalents) throughout the organization that are able utilize data analytics to enhance enterprise-level decision making and provide strategic input on collection and integration of relevant data.

Planning Inputs: The proposed solution is intended to develop competencies in personnel that do not have a background in data science or computer science.

Specifically Describe:

a. Method to identify target competencies and/or skills to develop with the proposed solution

b. Identify the ideal target audience to achieve the desired outcomes

c. Outline of any proposed curriculum elements and learning objectives to meet developmental outcomes appropriate to the target audience and how those elements/objectives address competency or skill gaps

d. Target course length to accommodate busy executive schedules

e. Method to pilot the proposed solution, assess efficacy and modify elements to achieve desired outcomes

f. Any cost-control measures that would be utilized to reduce the overall cost to the Air Force

g. Assessments or similar strategies that would be used for individual development within the program

h. Proposed methods of soliciting program feedback and the proposed strategy for adjusting elements as required

i. Proposed methods to continually assess curriculum/learning objectives for relevancy and to remain abreast with field developments/emerging requirements

j. Any potential pairings with other program offerings that may benefit from synergy with this program

Provide a management plan and/or approach to the following scenario:

Scenario 2 – Cross-Domain Executive Leadership

Please provide a management plan and/or approach to the following scenario:

Problem Statement: The Air Force has expressed a desire to develop a solution to prepare and develop executive level leaders to effectively lead in a changed security environment where success in a conflict depends on harnessing the vast amount of information generated by joint and allied sensors, fusing it quickly into decision-quality information, and creating effects simultaneously, from any domain or component from anywhere in the world.

Desired Outcomes: Senior leaders capable of leading organizations that operate across all five operating domains.

Planning Inputs: The proposed solution is intended to develop competencies in personnel that have at least operational warfighting experience and are often experienced within a single domain of operations.

Specifically Describe:

a. Method to identify target competencies and/or skills to develop with the proposed solution

b. Identify the ideal target audience to achieve the desired outcomes

c. Outline of any proposed curriculum elements and learning objectives to meet developmental outcomes appropriate to the target audience and how those elements/objectives address competency or skill gaps

d. Target course length to accommodate busy executive schedules

e. Method to pilot the proposed solution, assess efficacy and modify elements to achieve desired outcomes

f. Any cost-control measures that would be utilized to reduce the overall cost to the Air Force

g. Assessments or similar strategies that would be used for individual development within the program

h. Proposed methods of soliciting program feedback and the proposed strategy for adjusting elements as required

i. Proposed methods to continually assess curriculum/learning objectives for relevancy and to remain abreast with field developments/emerging requirements

j. Any potential pairings with other program offerings that may benefit from synergy with this program

Note: There is a one (1) hour time limit for the presentation and the contracting officer shall terminate the presentation after the one hour mark.

The Government shall utilize the combined technical/risk rating method, with its adjectival ratings in Table 2 below to evaluate an offeror’s Subfactor 1 Oral presentation:

Table 2 - Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method Color Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Presentations. Oral presentations shall be conducted at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland (MD) at a time and place to be determined by the CO. All offerors who receive a rating of “Acceptable” on the Gateway to Oral Presentations are eligible to present, and will be provided advance notice of the time and place for presentations. Offerors should make every effort to present if eligible.

Offerors who fail to conduct their oral presentation will be ineligible for award.

PART II – VOLUME II – FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the offeror’s ability to fulfill the solicitation requirements. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, or No Confidence as defined below. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history or the offeror’s performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating “Neutral Confidence”, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. However, note that as outlined in the basis of contract award, an offeror must have a minimum of a Satisfactory Confidence Assessment rating to be considered for award. As stated, Past Performance when combined with Technical/Risk Rating is significantly more important than cost or price, thus, a strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a neutral/unknown confidence past performance rating.

Recency. As outlined in FAR 52.212-1 Addendum, offeror shall provide a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) references for the Prime offeror and also a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) references for the critical subcontractor, if applicable. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture), other than the offeror itself, that would perform more than 30 percent of the overall effort, based on the sum of the Total Evaluated Price proposed. The percentage of work of the critical subcontractor shall be provided. Offeror's past performance shall be as a prime contractor, subcontractor, or member of a Joint Venture that contributed at least 50% of the effort based on the total cost.

References should be of the most relevant contracts performed for Federal agencies and commercial customers within five (5) years from issuance of this solicitation that demonstrate customer satisfaction with overall job performance and quality of completed service. References for contracts in which performance started prior to five (5) years from the issuance of this solicitation but performance is still on-going during the issuance of this solicitation are considered recent and acceptable. Questionnaires received must also meet recency criteria to be evaluated. Past performance information that fails these conditions will not be evaluated.

More recent or relevant performance will have a greater impact on the performance confidence rating than less recent effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral 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.

Relevancy. Relevant performance information will be based on (1) the references provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources.

This information is required for the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners considered critical to overall successful performance of this requirement.

Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving requirements that are similar or greater in scope and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation. Government will give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed very relevant to the effort.

The following relevancy rating definitions in Table 4 below will be used in the assessment of relevancy:

Table 4 - Relevancy Ratings Rating Rating Definition

Very Relevant Past/present performance effort involved essentially the same scope, magnitude and complexities as this Solicitation requires.

Relevant Past/present performance effort involved a similar scope, magnitude and complexity that this Solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Past/present performance effort involved some of the scope, magnitude and complexity that this Solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Past/present performance effort involved little or none of the scope, magnitude and complexity that this Solicitation requires.

In evaluating this factor, the Government will use the present and past performance information gathered from offeror provided Past Performance References (PPI), Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) and independent references through the use of additional questionnaires, interviews and site visits. Additional Government obtained references may include inquiries into offerors past performance in the areas of quality of product or services, cost/price control, labor relations and management of personnel with ratings outlined in the table below. Furthermore, the Government reserves the right to use data independently obtained from other Governmental and commercial sources, other customers known to the Government, consumer protection organizations, and others who may have useful and relevant information.

The Government will use the following Performance Confidence Assessment ratings in Table 5 below in the overall assessment of performance confidence:

Table 5 - Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings 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 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.

PART II – VOLUME III – FACTOR 3 – PRICE PROPOSAL

Offerors Total Evaluated Price (TEP) as outlined in FAR 52.212-1 Addendum shall be evaluated. An offerors TEP will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified by the unit price proposed by the offeror for each item to confirm the extended amount for each. The TEP is the sum of the transition plan, each ordering period year, and the six month extension of services under FAR 52.217-8.

Offerors are specifically advised that under this evaluation, the Government may determine an offeror ineligible for award if the prices are not complete, fair, reasonable or balanced between the base, and subsequent years of the ordering period. Prices are considered balanced by reasonable fluctuations between the base year and subsequent years for continued performance.

By signing its offer, the offeror certifies that each price stated on each Contract Line Item

Number (CLIN) includes an appropriate apportionment of all costs, direct and indirect, overhead, and profit. Price Analysis will be conducted IAW FAR 15.404-1(b).

NOTE: Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in FAR 52.212-1 Addendum. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Exchanges conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the Contracting Officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

In accordance with FAR 52.212-1(g), the Government reserves the right to award without discussions. If discussions are held, the Government may issue Evaluation Notices for the purposes of proposal revisions.

In accordance with FAR 15.306(c), the Government reserves the right to establish a competitive range of the most highly rated proposals but is not required to do so. In accordance with FAR 15.306(b), the Government may enter into communications with offerors before establishment of the competitive range. These communications may be conducted to enhance Government understanding of proposals; allow reasonable interpretation of the proposal; or facilitate the Government’s evaluation process. Such communications shall not be used to cure proposal deficiencies or material omissions, materially alter the technical or cost elements of the proposal, and/or otherwise revise the proposal.

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

(End of Addendum)