Attachment 09 52 212 2 Addendum.pdf

FA7014-20-R-0005

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Attachment 09

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation-Commercial Items.

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a 100% small business set-aside 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 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 Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract for Publicly Available Information Dept. of Defense Enterprise License Subscription (PADELS) as a result of this solicitation however, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all. A contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by FAR 52.212-1 of this solicitation) and is deemed, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Department of Defense the greatest certainty that it will best meet or exceed our requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government. 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 the technical superiority and/or overall business approach and/or superior past and present performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors described in this provision.

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. Award will be accordance with NAICS code 518210, Data Processing, Hosting, and Related Services and will be to a small business which also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in this solicitation.

Proposals will be assessed for how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the solicitation requirements and the risks associated with the Offeror’s approach. The Government reserves the right to select for award the proposal whose price is not the lowest, but whose technical proposal is more advantageous to the Government and warrants the additional price.

EVALUATION PROCESS: All evaluation factors other than price, when combined are significantly more important than price. The Government will evaluate all Offeror’ Part I: Factor 1 Gateway to Demonstration/Oral Presentation and Summary and Miscellaneous Data and assign a rating to Factor 1 IAW with Table 1 below. Any proposal receiving an “Unacceptable” rating for Factor 1, will receive no further consideration and will be ineligible for award. Only Offerors with an ‘Acceptable” rating for Factor 1, Gateway criteria will proceed to be evaluated under Factor 2, Technical Approach, – Demonstration/Oral Presentation. The Government will then evaluate Factor 3, Past Performance for those Offerors receiving an acceptable or higher rating for Factor 2. Following past performance evaluation, Offerors will be assigned a Confidence Assessment Rating as outlined in Table 5 of this addendum. The Government will evaluate the price proposals for completeness, fairness, reasonableness, and balance. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will then make an integrated best value award decision.

EVALUATION FACTORS:

PART IA - FACTOR 1 - GATEWAY TO DEMONSTRATION/ORAL PRESENTATION

Factor 1: Gateway 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 Demonstration/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 Demonstration/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 Statement of Objectives (SOO).

The proposals will be evaluated against the following:

Gateway Approach: This factor evaluates the adequacy of the Offeror’s proposal 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.

Table 2 Factor 1 - Gateway to Demonstration/Oral Presentations Instruction to Offerors Evaluation Criteria

Gateway to Demonstration/Oral Presentation Written Technical Proposal including Statement of Work (SOW)

Offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the nature and scope of work required.

SOW – Offeror’s proposed SOW shall demonstrate a thorough understanding of the PADELS requirement

Commercial Availability Proposals shall provide a clear, concise description of how the Offeror plans to provide and employ a commercially-available unlimited PAI alerting DoD enterprise license subscription.

This criteria is met when Offeror’s proposal provides a clear and concise description of a commercially-available unlimited PAI alerting DoD enterprise license subscription and demonstrates employment.

Written certification for Terms of Service Compliance: Offerors shall submit a written certification that the solution abides by terms of service for its data sources, in accordance with Department of Defense Directive 3115.18, DoD Access to and Use of Publicly Available Information

This criteria is met when Offeror submits a statement such as Attachment 02, signed by authorized signature.

**Only Offerors rated “Acceptable” for Factor 1, Gateway to Demonstration/Oral Presentation will proceed to be evaluated for Factor 2: Technical Approach. Offerors receiving a rating of “Unacceptable” for Factor 1 will not be further evaluated and will be ineligible for award. **

PART II – VOLUME I – FACTOR 2 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

Factor 2: Demonstration/Oral Presentations The Demonstration/Oral Presentation shall be utilized to ascertain whether the Offeror has sufficient understanding of technical concepts and requirements of the PADELS. An adequate response to the elements below shall address the technical capability of the offeror’s proposed solution. The Government will use Combined Technical/Risk Rating below in Table 3. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Table 3 Demonstration/Oral Presentation Combined Technical/Risk Rating 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.

Technical Rating provides an assessment of the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution, as shown by the Demonstration/Oral Presentation, for meeting the Government’s requirement and the risks associated with successful performance. The technical factor will receive one of the color/adjectival ratings as described in the Table 3 above based on the observed strengths and weaknesses. A “strength” is an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance. A weakness is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Presentations. The Government will evaluate the Demonstration/Oral Presentation during the scheduled session to determine the Offeror’s comprehensive understanding of and ability to meet all PADELS requirements defined in the SOO and illustrated in the SOW, while maintaining quality and timeliness of service. This requirement is met when the Offeror demonstrates:

A. Sub-Factor 1 – Address ability to detect emerging events, in near real-time

1) Detect emerging events in near real-time, incorporating data veracity into methods by which alerts are generated (e.g. Timeliness of alert, approach to determine data veracity, relevance of alerts)

2) Use a wide variety of social media, news and other publicly available information sources (e.g.

variety and type of access to regional and global social media, regional and global news, and other publicly available information sources.)

B. Sub-Factor 2 – Ability to push/display usable alerts to users in near real-time

1) Deliver (push) alerts to accounts (e.g. delivery (push) alerts to accounts via web-browser account interface, DISA approved Mobile Applications and Email)

2) Display a map interface with event locations (e.g. closest distance map can clearly zoom to)

3) Ability for accounts to search events and create queries (e.g. map, text, individual account defined criteria, common account profiles)

4) Provide source attribution in alerts (e.g. source information, notify account before leaving website environment)

5) Translation capability (e.g. ability to view in original language, ability to translate to English)

C. Sub-Factor 3 - Ability to rapidly respond: scalability, account creation, customer issues, and technical questions

1) Scale to meet the DoD enterprise license subscription (e.g. timeframe to scale to enterprise)

2) Ensure safeguards are in place to protect DoD information (e.g. NIST Standard SP 800-171, Federal and DoD Regulations)

3) Ensure safeguards are in place to promote proper use in accordance with Public

Law and DoD Policy (e.g. United States Code, Title 5, Section 552a (Privacy Act), as amended, DODD 3115.18)

4) Provide help desk service (e.g. enable/disable accounts based on completion of DoD training, desk hours, amount of time to create accounts, provides technical assistance)

5) Ease of use (e.g. training time required for account to be operational, training delivery methods)

6) Provide a low-bandwidth capability for degraded communications use

PART II – VOLUME II – FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will evaluate past performance submissions for recency, relevancy, and quality. Each past performance submission will be determined as recent or not recent. Then, each past performance submission will receive a relevancy rating. Next, each past performance submission will receive a quality rating. These ratings, recency, relevancy, and quality will contribute to one overall Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating. Only Offerors with a past performance confidence rating of “Satisfactory” or “Substantial” will be eligible for award. Any proposals receiving a confidence rating below “Satisfactory” for past performance will not be eligible for award.

(i) Recency. An evaluation of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent.

To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past five (5) years from the proposal due date under this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated further.

(ii) Relevancy. The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the products provided/services performed under those contract citations relate to the Technical and Price factors, including their relative order of importance. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical and Price (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s), and critical subcontractor(s). In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance citations, the Government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, Subcontractor, or teaming partner. The past performance information forms (PPQs Attachment 07) and information obtained from other sources will be used by the evaluation team to establish the relevancy, recency, and quality of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts (DoD Source Selection Procedures, Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method, and Table 4):

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 the Offeror’s 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.

NOTE: In the case of Offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).) In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.”

PART II – VOLUME III – FACTOR 4 – PRICE PROPOSAL

The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated using Price Analysis as described IAW FAR 15.404-1(b), for completeness, fairness, reasonableness, and balanced. Offerors Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified by the unit price proposed by the offeror for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) to confirm the extended amount for each and escalation rates. The TEP is the sum of the 14-day transition, the base and each option year.

Evaluation of FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. The solicitation and subsequent award for this acquisition contains the clause at FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. This option to extend the contract term will be evaluated as part of the initial evaluation, whereby any resultant exercise of this option is within scope of the pending contract. The option provision may be exercised more than once, but the total extension of performance hereunder shall not exceed six (6) months. Offerors are required only to price the base and option CLINs. Offerors shall not submit a price for the potential six-month extension of services period.

The Government will evaluate the possible prices for FAR 52.217-8 through its evaluation of the base and option prices. If conditions warrant the exercise of this FAR 52.217-8, the price(s) for continued performance under this clause shall be at the same price(s) as awarded for the base period or the option period (whichever is being extended). As such, if the base and option prices are considered fair and reasonable then the cost of the possible extension of services under FAR 52.217-8 shall be considered fair and reasonable and in the best interest of the Government. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

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 and balanced between the base, and subsequent option years. 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 CLIN includes an appropriate apportionment of all costs, direct and indirect, overhead, and profit.

For the 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.

Unbalanced Pricing The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to Price, variable quantity matrix factors, and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g).

A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer (CO) determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Completeness Price proposals will be evaluated for completeness by assessing the level of detail the Offeror provided and the established rounding methodology employed throughout the price proposal. For the price data to be complete, the Offeror must provide all the necessary data.

Competitive Range 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 price elements of the proposal, and/or otherwise revise the proposal.

Evaluation Notices (EN) ENs may be used for clarification or communication purposes as well as discussions. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, ENs may be issued. Responses to the ENs for price and past performance will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria stated herein. Written ENs will be issued for oral presentations. Failure to respond to ENs will eliminate the Offeror from further evaluation and consideration for award.

Proposal Revisions

Final Proposal Revision (FPR)

The Government reserves the right to award without discussions and make an award based on best value;

however, discussions may be held and result in FPRs. Material changes to proposals submitted in the FPR may not be subject to further discussion or negotiation, and may render the offer unacceptable to the Government. Any revision or non-concurrence to contract terms and conditions submitted in the FPR may not be subject to further discussion or negotiation, and may render the offer unacceptable to the Government. This provision is not intended to restrict the offeror’s opportunity to revise its proposal rather, it is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government, which could result if new or revised terms and conditions are submitted in the FPR that have not been fully disclosed, discussed and understood during discussions or negotiations. Hence, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the FPR, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

NOTE: Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Addendum FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items.. 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.

(End of Addendum)