52.212-2 Evaluation Criteria.pdf

FINANACIAL IMPROVEMENT AUDIT REMEDIATION (FIAR)

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 EVALUTION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

ATTACHMENT 2

1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This source selection will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items and FAR Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at https://www.acquisition.gov/content/regulations.

The Government will select multiple Offerors whose proposals offer the “best value” to the Government, using the trade-off method. "Best value" means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit(s) in response to the requirement. The Offerors are advised that the lowest priced proposal(s) meeting the solicitation requirements may not be selected for an award if award to a higher priced Offeror(s) is determined to be more beneficial to the Government. However, the perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal must merit the additional price.

Contract terms and conditions consistent with customary commercial practices are specified in the solicitation, with otherwise tailored terms and conditions specified in the Addendum to the solicitation.

In accordance with FAR 52.215-1, the Government intends to evaluate and award Multiple contracts without discussions with Offerors (except minor clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price or cost and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the PCO later determines them to be necessary. If a competitive range is established, the Government 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.

This source selection will be utilizing the tradeoff process as defined in FAR 15.101. Proposals shall first be evaluated for Step One (1) - Factor 1 Gates. Offerors that receive a rating of Unacceptable for any subfactor under Step One (1) - Factor 1 or an overall rating of Unacceptable under Step Two (2) - Factor 1 shall not be evaluated further. Each subfactor under Step One (1) - Factor 1 is individually evaluated as Acceptable/unacceptable.

Proposals will then be evaluated using the factors listed below.

Step One (1) -FACTOR 1: GATES

Subfactor 1: Facility Clearance (FCL) Subfactor 2: Corporate Experience

Step Two (2) -Trade Off

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

Element 1: Technical Approach Element 2: Transition Plan Element 3: Staffing Plan & Recruiting and Retention Element 4: Small Business Commitment Document (SBCD) Element 5: Small Business Subcontracting Plan

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 3: PRICE/COST

Factors are listed in descending order of importance. Technical is more important than Past Performance. All evaluation factors other than Price/Cost, when combined, are significantly more important than Price/Cost. Past Performance is more important than Price/Cost, Technical and Past Performance factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Price/Cost.

Price/Cost is not the most important evaluation factor, but its degree of importance will increase commensurably with the degree of equality among different Offeror’s Technical and Past Performance proposals. Step 2 - Factor 1 elements are not weighted.

All Offerors will be evaluated for compliance with the solicitation requirements.

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

2.0 EVALUATION STEPS

2.1 Step 1: Factor 1, Gates. The Government will evaluate each subfactor under Step 1, Factor

1. A rating of “Acceptable/Unacceptable” will be assigned. Offerors receiving a rating of “Unacceptable” in any subfactor shall not be evaluated further. Subfactors include:

Step 1 - Factor 1: Gates Subfactor 1: FCL/DD 254 Subfactor 2: Corporate Experience

2.2 Step 2: Factor 1, Technical Proposal. The Government will evaluate all offerors’ technical proposals that received a rating of “Acceptable” in each subfactor under Step 1, Factor 1 Gates.

A rating of “Outstanding”, “Good”, “Acceptable”, “Marginal”, or “Unacceptable” will be assigned for Step 2, Factor 1, Technical Proposals. Only one rating will be assigned. Individual elements are not rated. The elements include:

Step 2 - Factor 1: Technical Proposal Element 1: Technical Approach Element 2: Transition Plan Element 3: Staffing Plan; Recruiting and Retention Element 4: Small Business Commitment Document (SBCD) Element 5: Small Business Subcontracting Plan

2.3 Step 2: Factor 2, Past Performance. The Government will evaluate offerors’ past performance submissions. Step 2, Factor 2 will not be evaluated for any Offeror that received an “Unacceptable” under Step 2, Factor 1. Individual past performance submissions will be determined as “recent” or “not recent.” If a past performance submission is determined to be “not recent,” it will not be evaluated further. Those past performance submissions determined to be “recent” will go on to be evaluated for relevancy. Next, individual past performance submissions under each past performance category will be assessed for quality. The offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance will contribute to one overall past performance confidence assessment rating (adjectival rating) of “Substantial Confidence”, “Satisfactory Confidence”, “Limited Confidence”, “No Confidence” or “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)”.

2.4 Step 3: Factor 3: Cost/Price. The offerors whose technical proposals determined to be marginal or higher will be evaluated for price reasonableness, unbalanced pricing, and completeness. Normally, adequate price competition establishes a fair and reasonable price.

Reasonableness will be determined utilizing various price analysis techniques of the total evaluated price (TEP).

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

3.1 Step 1, Factor 1, Gates:

3.1.1 – Subfactor 1, Facility Clearance: This aspect is Acceptable when the Prime Offerors FCL for each location stated on the DD 254 is validated via the Defense Information Security System (DISS) at the TOP SECRET level; and the DD Form 254 Contract Security Classification submitted DD254 is validated to be complete and accurate and lists all the contractor performance locations.

Subfactor 1 – Ratings

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

3.1.2 – Subfactor 2, Corporate Experience: This aspect is “Acceptable” when the Offerors’ submitted Corporate Experience is evaluated and demonstrates the following:

3.1.2.1 – Recent: the effort must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Efforts that do not meet these criteria will not be evaluated.

3.1.2.2 – Quality: The Government will evaluate quality based on verified and validated corporate experience only. Any efforts that could not be verified and validated will not be evaluated. Quality will be evaluated, for those verified and validated experience, does the contactor demonstrate capability to solve and implement complex accounting issues across the entire DAF and proven so at other government and/or private organizations with similar complexities. Quality will be evaluated for risk to performance in regard to having met contracted objectives/outcomes and performance issues (if any) on provided efforts.

NOTE: Due to the sensitivity of private sector information, Offerors will not be made aware of or be able to address adverse information (if any is received) as a result of the verification/validation process, as this information will not be releasable due to Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDA).

Subfactor 2 – Ratings

Rating Description Acceptable Based on the Offerors performance record, the Government has a reasonable to high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unacceptable Based on the Offerors performance record, the Government has a low to no expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

3.2 Step 2, Factor 1: Technical Proposal

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine the Offeror’s understanding of, approach to, and ability to meet the solicitation requirements. The Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Proposal with respect to its compliance with the solicitation requirements and the risk associated with the Offeror’s approach. The evaluation will also include an assessment of the elements listed below. Elements are not weighted and are not assigned individual ratings. Step 2, Factor 1: Technical Proposal will be assigned one (1) Technical/Risk rating.

3.2.1 Element 1: Technical Approach

Technical Approach includes Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) and Task Order

(TO) 001

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s written technical approach to the IDIQ PWS tasks and TO 001 PWS tasks. Offerors’ proposals shall demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the nature and scope of work required. Offeror’s technical approach is broken into two parts.

ID/IQ Technical Approach: Offeror’s submission shall adequately detail the technical approach to meet all the ID/IQ PWS tasks. This aspect is met when the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a comprehensive technical approach that meets or exceeds the PWS tasks.

TO 001 Technical Approach: Offeror’s proposal shall detail an adequate approach to its proposed strategy, methodology, findings, and recommendations to TO 001 technical approach.

This aspect is met when the Offeror’s proposal adequately addresses TO objectives and demonstrates ability to successfully perform TO objectives.

3.2.2 Element 2: Transition Phase-In Plan

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Transition Phase-In plan to determine the offeror’s ability to meet the following requirements and demonstrate an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements in Section x.x of the PWS. A plan that solely relies on capturing incumbent personnel shall be deemed unacceptable.

A. Approach to recruiting, employee orientation, training, certifying and qualifying personnel during the 30-day transition phase-in that results in fully qualified employees for the initial task orders and approach to transition all remaining TOs under the current contract.

B. Key Transition Personnel responsible for on-boarding Key Personnel as soon as possible within 30 days and the remaining proposed Personnel for the initial TOs and all remaining TOs under the current contract.

C. A schedule for the transfer of duties that demonstrates understanding of current workload and milestones D. Approach to communicate with key stakeholders throughout the transition (at a minimum: incumbent management and staff, Contracting Officer Representative (COR) and Contracting Officer (CO)) E. Manages program risk to include loss of continuity for the task areas and mitigation of disruption to ongoing projects

3.2.3 Element 3: Staffing Plan & Recruiting and Retention (IDIQ & TO 001) The Government will evaluate the Offerors Staffing Plan to determine if the proposal demonstrates an effective staffing plan that addresses Recruiting and Retention, that can be performed as proposed for both the IDIQ level and for TO 001.

3.2.4 Element 4: Small Business Commitment Document (SBCD)

(Applicable to all Offerors) The Government will evaluate the extent of the Offerors commitment stated in the SBCD to use small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, women-owned small business concerns (as defined in the clause at FAR 52.219-8), and non-traditional small businesses as subcontractors. The Government will also evaluate the SBCD for the following:

(1) The Small Businesses goals are identified in its proposal and how it will meet the goals

(2) How it will utilize Small Businesses and Non-traditional Small Businesses (NTSB).

• The Government will evaluate the Offerors detailed plan to incorporate the use of NTSBs and its plan to assist the NTSBs to become Government contractors (SAM registration, RFP process, intricacies of Government contracting, applicable regulations, points of contact, etc.)

• How it will allocate tasks to SBs and NTSBs;

(3) The realism of the proposal to utilize Small Businesses and Non-traditional Small Businesses.

The Government will evaluate Offerors Small Business Commitment Document (SBCD) to determine the Offeror’s approach to, ability to, and commitment to utilize small businesses and non-traditional small businesses (to include assisting non-traditional small businesses become Government contractors) to the maximum extent practicable.

3.2.5 Element 5: Small Business Subcontracting Plan

(Applicable to Large Business only)

This aspect will be met when the Offeror submits a Small Business Subcontracting Plan that meets all the requirements of FAR 19.7, as supplemented, as well as the conditions below. The Government will assess the subcontracting plan in accordance with the FAR 19.7 and its supplements, FAR 52.219-8 and FAR 52.219-9. To be determined acceptable, the company shall demonstrate a progressive small business subcontract approach that complies with the requirements of FAR Part 19.7 and its supplements, FAR 52.219-8 and FAR 52.219-9, while maximizing these subcontract opportunities. The plan shall capture goal percentage for the overall small business requirement of 25%. The Plan shall address how the offeror will foster all types of business concerns as listed in the table below:

Business Category Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business

(SDVOSB)

Women Owned Small Business (WOSB) Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HUBZone)

Small Business 25% minimum Subcontracting

While offerors are invited to propose a higher overall small business subcontracting goals, the minimum percentage of total contract dollars, at the IDIQ contract level, to small business subcontractors is contractually binding post-award.

3.2.6 Step 2- Factor 1 Technical/Risk rating

For Step 2 - Factor 1: Technical Proposal, a combined Technical/Risk rating will be assigned.

This method reflects whether the proposal meets or does not meet the minimum requirements along with an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposal to determine the combined Technical/Risk rating. The benefit to the Government associated with assessed strengths along with technical risk will be considered in determining whether the Offeror’s proposal rises to a level of being thorough or exceptional. Assessment of technical risk considers potential for disruption of schedule, increase in costs, degradation of performance, the need to increase Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a technical factor with an “Unacceptable” Technical/Risk Rating may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition.

Step 2 - Factor 1: Technical Proposal, Combined Technical/Risk Rating

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description BLUE Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of f l f i l

PURPLE Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant 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 is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

Adjectival Rating Description Low Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

3.3 Step 2 - Factor 2: Past Performance

For Step 2 – Factor 2: Past Performance, Government will evaluate recent performance to determine how well an Offeror has performed work similar to the work required by the solicitation. If more than five (5) past performance efforts are received, the Government will only evaluate the first five (5) efforts IAW Solicitation Instructions to Offerors; any efforts in excess shall not be evaluated.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality. The first aspect of the past performance is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance being evaluated. Past performance will be considered recent if the contract/order has been performed within three (3) years of the solicitation release date. Past Performance that is not recent will not be evaluated further. Those past performance submissions determined to be “recent” will go on to be evaluated for relevancy.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate how relevant the Past Performance being evaluated is to the requirements of this solicitation. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s recent performance will be made. In determining the relevancy of effort under individual contracts submitted, equal consideration will be given to the effort being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner or subcontractor. The Government will use the following aspects to determine relevancy for this evaluation:

Relevancy regarding Subject/Task Areas:

Demonstrated performance in providing:

Task 1 Risk Management a& Internal Control (RMIC) and A-123

Programs Task 2 Corrective Actions and Integrated Master Schedules Task 3 Audit Liaison Support Task 4 Financial Reporting and Analysis Task 5 FIAR IT Systems/Integration/Support Task 6 Asset Valuation and Sustainment Task 7 Universe of Transactions (UoT) Task 8 Data Analytics, Robotics Process Automation Task 9 Change Management/Strategic Communication Task 10 Formal Classroom Training

RATING DEFINITION

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Performance effort covering 8 to 10 of the subject areas

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Performance effort covering 6 to 8 of the subject areas

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Performance effort covering 3 to 5 of the subject areas

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Performance effort covering 2 or less of the subject areas

The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate the overall quality of the Offeror’s recent, relevant past performance. The Government will review all PPI collected, to include Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ), and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. The Government will not assign each PPI submission a separate quality assessment rating. Instead, the past performance evaluation team will review all PPI collected and the results of the quality assessment will be incorporated into the overall confidence assessment rating.

The Government reserves the right to evaluate information relative to present and past performance on its own, in addition to information provided by the offeror. The quality of an offeror’s past performance may be reviewed and evaluated using systems such as the Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), SAM.gov, Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases known to the Government. Interviews may be conducted with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials, Defense Contract Management Agency or other sources known to the Government.

Confidence Assessment Rating. The Government will consider past performance in the aggregate based on the recency/relevancy ratings and quality review of each submission determined “recent” in both relevancy categories when forming a confidence assessment rating. Each offeror will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment based on the definitions in the Confidence Assessment Rating Table below. The Government evaluation team will consider the offeror’s past performance as an entire team (in the case of joint ventures or where primes propose with subcontractors [the offeror must obtain consent of the entities before the Government can disclose PPI to the Prime Contractor]) or on an individual basis for offerors proposing on their own.

Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful evaluation rating can be reasonably assigned will receive an “Unknown Confidence” rating. Given the nature of this requirement, and the importance of a strong record of past performance in the selection of the awardee, the Source Selection Authority has determined that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than an “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)” past performance rating in this best value tradeoff.

The performance evaluation rating may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as PPI 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.

Confidence Assessment Rating Table

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.

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.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

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.

3.4 Step 2 - Factor 3: Cost/Price

For Step 2 - Factor 3, The Government will evaluate the IDIQ TEP and the TO 01 TEP. The IDIQ TEP is the sum of the Labor, Travel and ODCs CLINS for the entire five-year ordering period; and the calculated six-month extension under FAR 52.217-8. The TO 01 TEP is sum of Labor, Travel and ODC CLINs for the entire TO01 period. Evaluation of option period prices shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The price evaluation will determine price reasonableness, the presence of unbalanced pricing, and completeness.

Price Reasonableness. Normally, adequate price competition establishes a fair and reasonable price. For the price to be fair and 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. If adequate competition is not obtained, the Government will evaluate the reasonableness of the offeror’s total proposed price (TPP) utilizing the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b). An offer that is determined to be unreasonably high will not be considered for award.

Unbalanced Pricing. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one (1) or more contract line items is significantly over or understated. The Government will evaluate for the presence of unbalanced pricing by comparing Ordering Period 1 against Ordering Periods two (2) through five (5) to determine whether the price is significantly over or understated. In accordance with FAR 52.212-2(b), the Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced.

Additionally, an offer that is determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Completeness. An offeror’s price proposal is complete when the offeror’s proposed price and other information adheres to the requirements of the solicitation for Factor 3, Cost/Price.

4.0 CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

The provided documentation will be relied upon to facilitate the Contracting Officer’s determination of eligibility for award of the apparent successful offeror. The One (1) area of evaluation for contract documentation will be Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI).

Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI). Prior to award, a determination will be made regarding whether any possible Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) exist with respect to the apparent successful offerors or whether there is little or no likelihood that such conflict exists. Awards will be made if there is no OCI or if any potential OCI can be appropriately avoided and mitigated.

Resolution of OCI. Any communications necessary to resolve OCI issues shall not be considered discussions. As such, the Contracting Officer may email the offeror’s Authorized Offeror Personnel to resolve questions or concerns with the Offeror’s OCI analysis or mitigation plan prior to any decision to conduct discussions.

5.0 OTHER DEFINITIONS

Strengths: 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.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

(FAR 15.001)

Significant Weakness: A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (FAR 15.001)

Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. (FAR 15.001)

Recency: As it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant.

Relevancy: As it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

Risk: As it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance.

The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or element may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.