Attachment 4 - Addendum to 52.212-1 and 52.212-2.pdf

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

ADDENDUM TO FAR CLAUSE 52.212-1

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS (ITO)

1.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

1.1. Requirement Objective

The Government plans to award a single Indefinite Delivery type contract for the performance-based service acquisition for School Bus Transportation Services at Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling (JBAB) in Washington, D.C. The Contractor shall furnish all labor, supervision, management, tools, materials, equipment, school buses, transportation, incidental engineering, and other items necessary to provide school bus transportation services for approximately 500 school age children for JBAB to schools identified and defined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The buses shall not be older than ten (10) years to fulfill the requirements of this contract; and shall be compliant with all Federal, State, County, and municipal laws, statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations.

1.2. Requirement Structure

Award will be made on the basis of “best value” and will utilize tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with (IAW) Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures. If used, the tradeoffs will be made between Factor 1 – Technical Capability (Subfactor 1 – Management and Administration, Subfactor 2 – Bus Requirements, Subfactor 3 – Safety Requirements, and Subfactor – 4 Environmental Requirements), Factor 2 – Past Performance, and Factor 3 – Price.

The Order of Importance in the evaluation assessment:

• Factor 1 – Technical Capability, including all Subfactors (Subfactor 1 – Management and Administration, Subfactor 2 – Bus Requirements, Subfactor 3 – Safety Requirements, and Subfactor 4 – Environmental Requirements) is most important and somewhat more important than Factor 2 – Past Performance and Factor 3 – Price.

• All Subfactors (Subfactor 1 – Management and Administration, Subfactor 2 – Bus Requirements, Subfactor 3 – Safety Requirements, and Subfactor 4 – Environmental Requirements) are equally important.

• Factor 2 – Past Performance is more important than Factor 3 – Price. Factor 3 – Price is least important.

• The greater the equality of Factor 1 – Technical Capability ratings, the more important Factor 2 – Past Performance and Factor 3 – Price become in selecting the ‘best value” for the Government.

Award will be made to the offeror that provides the best value to the Government, IAW Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Products and

Commercial Services. Award will be made to the offeror that provides the “best value” to the Government over the entire period of performance. The period of performance for this requirement is three (3) years comprised of a one (1) year Base Period and two (2) – one (1) year Option Periods.

Base Year – 1 August 2024 through 31 July 2025 Option Year I – 1 August 2025 through 31 July 2026 Option Year II – 1 August 2026 through 31 July 2027

1.3. Budget/Funding Information

The Government reserves the right to cancel this Solicitation, either before or after the Solicitation date. In the event the Government cancels this Solicitation, the Government has no obligation to reimburse an offeror for any costs. No award will be made under this Solicitation until funds are available. Once award is executed, funding will be obligated as Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) for the Contract period of performance (PoP).

1.4. General Instructions

The offeror(s) proposal shall include all data and information requested by the Solicitation and Instruction to Offerors (ITO) and shall be submitted in accordance with instructions. Any contract resulting from this Solicitation shall be required to meet United States Government regulations and statutory requirements. In addition, the offeror is expected to ensure compliance with all laws, regulations, standards, and any other constraints specifically identified in the Solicitation.

Any offeror who submits an incomplete proposal may be considered ineligible for award.

The proposal shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the PWS and attachments. Non-conformance with the instructions provided in the ITO may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation. FAR Clause 52.212-1(c) is amended as follows:

“Proposal and included prices are to be valid for 120 calendar days from the proposal due date.” This date may be extended by mutual agreement. The offeror shall make a clear statement in the proposal as to the expiration date of the proposal and the stated expiration date shall be valid for all proposed subcontractors as well.

The offer shall ensure the properly formatted proposal, in its entirety, is received electronically by the Contracting Officer (CO), Welth.Cooper@us.af.mil, and Contracting Specialist (CS), Rachael.Blosser.1@us.af.mil on or before the Solicitation submission due date of 28 February 2024 at 11:00 AM Eastern Time.

The offeror proposal shall be fully compliant and conform with all requirements, terms, and conditions of the Solicitation.

Late proposals will be processed IAW FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Products and Commercial Services and are incorporated into the Solicitation.

mailto:Welth.Cooper@us.af.mil mailto:Rachael.Blosser.1@us.af.mil

The proposal shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet the requirements.

Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their capabilities, management/staff/drivers, experience, and school bus fleet and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offerors proposal. A proposal that merely reiterates or promises to accomplish the requirements of the PWS will be considered unacceptable.

1.5. Point(s) of Contact

The CO (Welth.Cooper@us.af.mil), and CS (Rachael.Blosser.1@us.af.mil) are the sole points of contact for this acquisition. Address any questions or concerns to either the CO or CS. All questions must be submitted in writing and responses will be published on System for Award Management (SAM) website at https://www.SAM.gov.

Reponses will not be sent via e-mail.

1.6. Electronic Reference Documents

All referenced documents for this Solicitation are available on the SAM website at https://www.SAM.gov. Potential offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real-time e-mail notifications when information has been posted to the website for this Solicitation.

1.7. Debriefings

The CO will notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range, where upon they may request and receive a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505. Offerors excluded from the competitive range may request a pre-award debriefing or they may choose to wait until after the source selection decision to request a post-award debriefing.

However, offerors excluded from the competitive range are entitled to no more than one debriefing for each proposal. The CO will notify unsuccessful offerors IAW FAR

15.503. Upon such notification, unsuccessful offerors may request and receive a debriefing. Offerors desiring a debriefing must make their request IAW the requirements of FAR 15.505 or 15.506, as applicable.

1.8. Proposal Retention

In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.8 – Government Contract Files, the Government will retain one (1) copy of all offeror proposals.

1.9. Solicitation Amendments, if applicable

If this Solicitation is amended, all terms and conditions that are not amended remain unchanged and in full force and effect. Offerors shall acknowledge receipt of any amendment and provide confirmation upon submission of the offeror’s proposal. Any mailto:Welth.Cooper@us.af.mil mailto:Rachael.Blosser.1@us.af.mil https://www.sam.gov/ unacknowledged amendments in the offeror’s proposal will render the proposal ineligible for award.

2.0 PROPOSAL CONTENT, FORMAT, AND ORGANIZATION

2.1 Proposal Identification and Labeling

The proposal submitted in response to this Solicitation shall be formatted as stated below and furnished as stated herein. The acceptable electronic formats for proposal shall be compatible with Microsoft 365, specifically Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel; PDF format is acceptable for the Technical Capability proposal and price narrative. All proposal volumes shall be labeled with the Solicitation number (FA7060-24-R-0002), as well as the name, address, Commercial and Government Entity Program (CAGE) Code and telephone number of the offeror. All volumes shall be electronic files and not be password protected.

The proposal shall not contain citations for, or active links to live Internet websites or pages. All linked information shall be contained within the electronic proposal. Any linked information that is not contained in the proposal will not be accepted.

Each volume shall be written or presented on a standalone basis. Information required for proposal evaluation that is not found in its designated volume or presentation will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal and will not be considered.

2.2 Proposal Organization

The offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in Table 1: Proposal Organization. The completion and submission to the Government of documents identified in Table 1:

Proposal Organization, shall constitute an offer and shall indicate the offeror’s unconditional consent to the terms and conditions of the Solicitation.

Pages that exceed the required page limitations set forth in Table 1: Proposal Organization, will not be evaluated by the Government. A cover page, table of contents, and acronym list shall be included in each volume and will not be included in any applicable page limits. Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, and with an explanation for each.

Table 1: Proposal Organization

VOLUME PARAGRAPH

NUMBER

SECTION TITLE ELECTRONIC

COPIES

PAGE LIMIT

3.1 Cover Page – Not Evaluated 1 1 Page

3.0 3.1

Proposal Summary:

Cover Letter – Not Evaluated

Proposal Offer Summary – Not Evaluated

Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) – Not Evaluated

1 1 Page

3.1 Table of Contents – Not

Evaluated 1 1 Pages

3.1 Acronym List – Not Evaluated 1 2 Pages

3.2 Factor 1: Technical Capability 1 15 Pages

3.2.1 Subfactor 1: Management and

Administration

Included as part of the 15 Page Limit

3.2.2 Subfactor 2: Bus Requirements

3.2.3 Subfactor 3: Safety

Requirements

3.2.4 Subfactor 4: Environmental

Requirements

Cover Page – Not Evaluated 1 1 Page

Table of Contents – Not Evaluated 1 1 Page

Past Performance Summary 1 1 Page

3.3 Factor 2: Past Performance

(See Attachment 1.1) 1

Up to 5 Pages per Questionnaire; not to exceed 25 Total

Pages 4 3.4 Factor 3: Price Proposal 1 Unlimited

2.3 Page Size, Format and Font Size

A page is defined as each face of a sheet of paper containing information. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages. Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches. Page line spacing shall be single. Except for the reproduced sections of the Solicitation document, the text size shall be no less than Times New Roman 12-point font. Tracking, kerning, and leading values shall not be changed from the default values of the word processing or page layout software. Use at least 1-inch margins on all four sides. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume.

2.4 Signature Actions, Offeror Fill-Ins and Representations, Certification, and other Statements of Offers

All offerors must be registered and active in the SAM website (https://www.SAM.gov) and Dynamic Small Business Search website (https://dsbs.sba.gov/search/dsp_dsbs.cfm) at the time of proposal submission and contract award. Failure to register or sustain an active registration in the SAM database will cause your firm to be ineligible for award or future awards.

Offerors shall submit a copy of all completed fill-ins for provisions and clauses requiring contractor provided information, and (if applicable) a signed copy of all amendments to the Solicitation. The offeror has completed the annual representations and certification electronically via the SAM website at https://www.sam.gov. After reviewing the SAM database information, the offeror verifies by submission of this offer that the representation and certifications currently posted electronically at FAR 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications—Commercial Items are correct.

2.5 Solicitation Exceptions and Statement of Acknowledgement

Offerors shall clearly identify any exception(s) to the Solicitation attachments, terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Each exception shall be specifically related to each paragraph and/or specific part of the Solicitation to which the exception is taken.

Provide rationale in support of the exception and fully explain its impact, if any, on the performance, schedule, cost, and specific requirements of the Solicitation. This information shall be provided in the format and content of Table 2. Offerors are cautioned the Government could determine any identified exceptions to be unacceptable, which would make the proposal ineligible for award.

Table 2 Solicitation Exceptions

Solicitation Document

Page/ Paragraph

Requirement/ Portion Rationale

PWS, etc. Applicable

Page and Paragraph

Numbers

Identify the requirement or portion to which exception is taken

Describe why the requirement can/will not be met https://dsbs.sba.gov/search/dsp_dsbs.cfm

2.6 Assumptions

The offeror shall consolidate and identify all offeror's generated "assumptions" contained anywhere in the proposal. Also, the offeror shall include a statement that none of the "assumptions" contradict or take exception to any terms, conditions, or requirements of the Solicitation. Offerors are cautioned the Government could determine any identified exceptions to be unacceptable, which would make the proposal ineligible for award.

2.7 Quality Assurance Plan

Quality Assurance Plans shall be developed IAW PWS requirements and will be required for delivery to the Government by awardee after issuance of the contract award.

3.0 PROPOSAL DOCUMENTS

3.1 PROPOSAL SUMARY, Volume 1, shall include:

(1) Solicitation Number: FA7060-24-R-0002

(2) Date Submitted

(3) Offeror Name

(4) Offeror Address

(5) Offerors CAGE Code, and Unique Entity ID

(6) Offeror Contact Information for Proposal POC(s)

(7) All proposed subcontractor(s) (as applicable)

(8) Address, CAGE code, and Unique Entity ID for each proposed subcontractor

(9) Proposal Acceptance Period

(10) OCI Plan or negative affirmation

(11) Table of Contents

(12) Acronym List

3.2 FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY, Volume 2, shall include:

The Technical Capability Volume of the proposal shall present relevant information articulating the offeror’s proposed approach to meeting the PWS requirements. This Volume shall clearly demonstrate the offeror’s understanding by providing a clear description of the proposed approach to performing the services. The offeror’s description should include a clear description of all processes and procedures employed.

This section shall not include any pricing data. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to assess the risk that the offeror will timely meet contract requirements.

3.2.1 Subfactor 1: Management and Administration

The offeror shall provide an approach for Management and Administration (IAW PWS Section 2.1 and Section 4). As a minimum, the approach shall provide the following essential components:

• Provide an approach that addresses an effective integrated management approach that demonstrates an organizational structure that consists of appropriate leadership, manning levels, and skill sets by position title, job descriptions, qualifications, certifications, training and security requirements as applicable and as outlined in the PWS.

o Manning: Process for recruiting, hiring, training, and retaining qualified/licensed/certified and capable personnel that can accomplish the scope of the effort, and handle daily bus operations.

o Training/Certification: Compliance with all Federal, State, and local laws, and with regulations and standards for Department of Defense and base installation.

o Security Requirements: Process for establishing Installation to access.

o Quality Assurance Plan

3.2.2 Subfactor 2: Bus Requirements

The offeror shall provide an approach for Bus Requirements (IAW PWS Section 2.2). As a minimum, the approach shall provide the following essential components:

• Provide an approach that addresses the ability to provide buses and associated camera and communication requirements and the ability to manage authorized passengers and inspection/maintenance/cleaning requirements in accordance with the PWS.

o Camera System: Verification and documentation attesting to configuration, functionality, and operational capabilities of the onboard monitoring system.

o Cleaning Requirement: Process for daily cleaning and disinfecting all common bus surfaces.

• School Bus Age Requirement: Verification and documentation attesting school buses provided during operation of transportation services shall not be older than ten (10) years.

• Ability to meet guidelines outlined in CFR Title 49, Chapter V, Part 571, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and Highway Safety Program Guideline #17 (Pupil Transportation Safety).

3.2.3 Subfactor 3: Safety Requirements

The offeror shall provide an approach for Safety Requirements (IAW PWS Section 2.3). As a minimum, the approach shall provide the following essential components:

• Demonstrate an understanding of the unique requirements of transporting school-age children in addition to providing an approach that addresses how the safety requirements as outlined in the PWS will be met.

• Accidental Reporting: Address accident reporting procedures.

• Safety Equipment and SAPR Compliance: Address inspection and preservation of safety equipment (such as fire extinguishers, first aid kits etc.) and training and protocols for Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR).

3.2.4 Subfactor 4: Environmental Requirements

The offeror shall provide an approach for Environmental Requirements (IAW PWS Section 2.5). As a minimum, the approach shall provide the following essential components:

• Outline process which effectively demonstrates capability in complying with all Federal, State and local laws and all other requirements as outlined in the PWS.

3.3 FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE, Volume 3, shall include:

Each offeror shall submit a past performance volume with its proposal, containing past performance information in accordance with the format contained in Attachment 1.1 of the ITO. The Past Performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing services that meet the Government’s requirement. The Past Performance volume shall include prime contractor and all significant subcontractors proposed to perform the work outlined in the Solicitation.

All information provided will be utilized by the Government to assess offer(s) recent and relevant past performance. It is the offeror's responsibility to submit detailed, clear, and complete information for Past Performance evaluation by the Government.

Offerors shall complete the top portion (fields A through H) of the attached Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 1.1) and e-mail it to at least (2) different contractor selected points of contacts (POCs). The questionnaires will be returned to the offeror and shall be submitted with the proposal. Failure to provide the information requested may result in an assessment that the offeror does not possess a record of Recent and Relevant past performance.

3.3.1 Recent Past Performance

The offeror shall provide Past Performance Information (PPI) on current or previous contracts (or efforts). The offeror shall submit PPI for contracts which include all or some performance within the last five (5) years from the date of issuance of this Solicitation. Current performance will have greater impact on the performance confidence assessment than older performance. Request each offeror submit no more than five (5) past performance questionnaires for the prime contractor with the assigned NAICS Code 485410. These may include Federal, State, local and private industry contracts.

3.3.2 Relevant Past Performance

Relevancy for this Solicitation is defined as passenger transportation experience related to Factor 1, Technical Capability experiences and the PWS. Offerors shall submit performance information on contracts they consider relevant to this effort, contracts with comparable scope, magnitude, and complexity. This information should include rationale supporting the offeror’s assertion of relevance. Offerors are required to explain what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort, and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy.

3.3.3 Responsibility Determination

Although the assessment of past performance is separate and distinct from the Determination of Responsibility required by FAR Part 9.1, PPI references contained herein may be used to support the Determination of Responsibility for the successful offeror.

3.3.4 Additional Past Performance Information

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, such as, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) or similar systems, and commercial sources. The Government reserves the right to use all information available to fully assess the offeror’s past performance.

3.4 FACTOR 3 – PRICE, Volume 4, shall include:

3.4.1 Price Proposal Format

The offeror shall complete JBAB School Bus Pricing Worksheet Attachment. The Offeror shall submit pricing for one (1) year Base Period and two (2) – one (1) year Option Periods.

The offeror’s price proposal shall include a unit cost for each route, consisting of the price for at least one school bus, bus driver and routine cleaning (IAW PWS 2.25) for each bus at a monthly rate. The offeror’s extended price will be the annual amount for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN).

In addition to the information requested above, the Government reserves the right to request additional or more detailed information to support its evaluation of price reasonableness.

4.0 OTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED

4.1 Ombudsman

An Ombudsman has been appointed to hear concerns from offerors or potential offerors during the proposal development phase of this acquisition. The Ombudsman for this acquisition is Ms. Shannon Ozoria, located at 1500 West Perimeter Rd, Suite 5750, Joint Base Andrews, Maryland 20762, (240) 612-6112, Shannon.Ozoria@us.af.mil. This does not diminish the authority of the program director or CO, but communicates offeror’s concerns, issues, disagreements and recommendations to the appropriate Government personnel. When requested, the Ombudsman shall maintain strict confidentiality as to the source of the concern. The Ombudsman does not participate in the evaluation of proposals or in the source selection process; interested parties are invited to call (240) 612-6112 / 202-498-0727.

4.2 Authorized Offeror Personnel

Provide the name, title, and telephone number of the company/division point of contact regarding decisions made with respect to your proposal and who can obligate your company contractually. Also, identify those individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government.

mailto:Shannon.Ozoria@us.af.mil

ITO ATTACHMENTS

PAST PERFORMANCE PACKAGE ATTACHMENT

ITO Attachment – 1.1 PAST AND PRESENT PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

ITO ATTACHMENT 1.1

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

WHEN FILLED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION

IAW FAR 3.104

SECTION 1: CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION

A. Contractor: ____________________________________________________________________

B. CAGE Code of contractor contract was awarded to: ____________________________________

C. Contract Number: _______________________________________________________________

D. Contract Type: _________________________________________________________________ Firm-Fixed Price, Cost Reimbursable, Other (Please specify)

E. Contract Title: _________________________________________________________________

F. Was this a competitive contract? Yes No

G. Period of Performance: __________________________________________________________

H. Total Contract Cost: $___________________________________________________________

I. Description of services provided:

J. How is this contract relevant to contract of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment (school buses, transportation), requirements, conditions, etc.)

SECTION 2: CUSTOMER OR AGENCY IDENTIFICATION

A. Customer or agency name:

B. Customer or agency description (if applicable):

C. Geographic description of services under this contract, i.e. local, nationwide, worldwide, other Commands:

SECTION 3. EVALUATOR IDENTIFICATION

A. Evaluator's Name:

B. Evaluator's Title:

C. Evaluator's Phone Number:

D. Evaluator’s E-mail:

E. Number of years evaluator worked on subject contract: _________________________________

SECTION 4: EVALUATION

Please indicate your satisfaction with the contractor’s performance by placing an “X” in the appropriate block using the scale provided to the right of each question. This scale is defined as follows:

CODE PERFORMANCE LEVEL

B BLUE/EXCEPTIONAL – The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some or many (requirements) to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with few, if any, minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

G GREEN/SATISFACTORY – The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Y YELLOW/MARGINAL – Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

R RED/UNSATISFACTORY – Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

N NOT APPLICABLE – Unable to provide a score.

OVERALL

The contractor: B G Y R N Did the contractor provide accurate and complete line-item proposal including all aspects of work required for task(s) identified?

Did the contractor demonstrate ability to hire, manage, retain, and replace personnel who have the knowledge, experience, and required certifications, inclusive of the ability to meet any surge or emergency requirements?

Did the contractor demonstrate effective ability to staff appropriate key positions in onsite management, administrative staff, subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and labor force?

Assuming the contractor corporate office was not local to the contract performance location, did the corporate office participate in solving significant local problems?

Was the contractor responsive to your needs?

Was the contractor proactive in heading off and mitigating unexpected challenges?

Did the contractor provide timely resolution of contract discrepancies?

Were deficiencies corrected in a timely manner by the contractor?

Did the contractor team work well with stakeholders/Mission partner?

Was the contractor cooperative with stakeholder(s)/Mission partner(s) to accomplish the contract goals and objectives?

Did the contractor demonstrate ability to provide and execute a Quality Control Plan that provide qualifications, responsibilities, and authority levels of each position(s) assigned to the Quality Control function?

Did the contractor demonstrate ability to provide a description of procedures, processes, and methods for tracking progress of the project, with attention to quality, timeliness, and cost control?

Was the contractor compliant with contract/transportation schedules?

How would you rate the contractor's overall performance against contract, Performance Work Statement (PWS)/Statement of Work (SOW) and attachment(s) requirements?

Was the contractor ever issued a cure or show cause notice under the referenced contract? Yes or No If yes, explain outcome in “Remarks”.

Remarks:

2. Please discuss each and every response for which you indicated B/E (Blue/Exceptional), Y/M (Yellow/Marginal) or R/U (Red/Unsatisfactory) in response to the questions above (use additional sheets, if necessary).

SECTION 5: NARRATIVE SUMMARY

What were the contractor’s most positive aspects in the performance of the contract?

What were the contractor’s most negative aspect in the performance of the contract? Would you have any reservations about soliciting this contractor in the future or having them perform one of your critical and demanding programs?

Evaluator’s Signature Date

Thank you for your prompt response and assistance!

Please return this completed questionnaire to:

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

ATTN: Welth Cooper, and Rachael Blosser

E-mail addresses are as follows:

Welth.Cooper@us.af.mil and Rachael.Blosser.1@us.af.mil

(End of Provision) mailto:Welth.Cooper@us.af.mil mailto:Rachael.Blosser.1@us.af.mil

ADDENDUM TO FAR CLAUSE 52.212-2

EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL

SERVICES

1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This acquisition will utilize Subjective Tradeoff Source Selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 and 15.3, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures 20 August 2022, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at https://www.acquisition.gov.

Tradeoffs will be made between Factor 1 – Technical Capability, Factor 2 – Past Performance and Factor 3 – Price, with Factor 1 – Technical Capability considered most important and somewhat more important than Factor 2 – Past Performance and Factor 3 – Price.

Award will be made to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposal is technically acceptable with highly rated past performance, and conforms to the Solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors (ITO) – Commercial Items and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. Contract terms and conditions consistent with customary commercial practices apply. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the Source Selection Process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgement is implicit throughout the entire process. This may result in an award to a higher rated (past performance), higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines the technically acceptable offeror with higher past performance confidence and higher price outweighs the price difference of the lower priced offeror(s).

1.1. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to select one (1) small business contractor for this acquisition.

However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

1.2. Rejection of Offers

The Government may reject any evaluated proposal that fails to adequately address a significant portion of the requirement or contract terms and conditions. This may include rejection of a proposal that does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of the contract/services requirements and/or displays a fundamental lack of competence or http://www.acquisition.gov/ http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm failure to comprehend the risk. All aspects of the proposals may be reviewed to ensure adequate resources are available to perform the proposed technical approach.

1.3. Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions, if necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR

15.306. Therefore, it is imperative that the initial offer contain the offeror’s best terms from a price, past performance and technical standpoint clearly without additional information. Should the Government determine it is in their best interest to open and conduct discussions, discussions will be held only with those offerors determined to be in the competitive range. The competitive range will be comprised of the most highly rated proposals based on the ratings of each offeror’s past performance, technical, and price proposals.

If the Government holds discussions, the Government may issue evaluation notices to offerors in the competitive range. Formal responses to evaluation notices and final proposal revisions will be considered in making the final decision for award. Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be requested from each offeror in the competitive range at the conclusion of discussions. Any new or revised terms and conditions not solicited via evaluation notices will not be evaluated and may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

1.4. Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

Offerors are required to meet all Solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements, in addition to those identified as Factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the Solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the Solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable, and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

1.5. Options

Pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with the pricing instructions in FAR Clause FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors. The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) calculation methodology is included in the JBAB School Bus Pricing Worksheet (Attachment). The offeror shall submit pricing for one (1) year Base Period and two (2) – one (1) year Option Periods. In addition to the information requested above, the Government reserves the right to request additional or more detailed information to support its evaluation of price reasonableness.

An incomplete JBAB School Bus Pricing Worksheet will be considered unreasonable since pricing completeness is part of the price reasonableness criteria. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. The TEP is for evaluation purposes only. The quantities provided in the JBAB School Bus Pricing Worksheet will be used for evaluation purposes only and do not obligate the Government to place task orders or provide funding beyond the contract minimum dollar value or guarantee such quantities during the contract period of

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors Used to Evaluate Proposals

For this Solicitation, the Government intends to award a single awardee contract to the responsible small business offeror whose proposal conforming to the Solicitation provides the best value to the Government considering the price and non-price factors below.

Factor 1 – Technical Capability

Subfactor 1 – Management and Administration (IAW PWS 2.1 and 4) Subfactor 2 – Bus Requirements (IAW PWS 2.2) Subfactor 3 – Safety Requirements (IAW PWS 2.3) Subfactor 4 – Environmental Requirements (IAW PWS 2.5)

Factor 2 – Past Performance Factor 3 – Price

2.2 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

A best value analysis based on a Factor 1 – Technical, Factor 2 – Past Performance and Factor 3 – Price. The Order of Importance is used to explain how the other factors will be traded off.

The following is the Order of Importance in the integrated assessment:

• Factor 1 – Technical Capability, including all Subfactors (Subfactor 1 – Management and Administration, Subfactor 2 – Bus Requirements, Subfactor 3 – Safety Requirements, and Subfactor 4 – Environmental Requirements) is most important and somewhat more important than Factor 2 – Past Performance and Factor 3 – Price.

• All Subfactors (Subfactor 1 – Management and Administration, Subfactor 2 – Bus Requirements, Subfactor 3 – Safety Requirements, and Subfactor 4 – Environmental Requirements) are equally important.

• Factor 2 – Past Performance is more important than Factor 3 – Price. Factor 3 – Price is least important.

• The greater the equality of Factor 1 – Technical Capability ratings, the more important Factor 2 – Past Performance and Factor 3 – Price become in selecting the ‘best value” for the Government.

2.3 Evaluation Methodology

The Government intends to award a single award Indefinite Delivery contract to the responsible small business offeror whose proposal conforming to the Solicitation provides the best value.

1. All timely received proposal(s) received will be evaluated for completeness. Incomplete proposal(s) may be ineligible for award. Responsibility will be verified in accordance with FAR 9.1 – Responsible Prospective Contractors.

2. Evaluate all complete proposal(s) based on Factor 1 – Technical Capability (Subfactors 1, 2, 3, and 4), Factor 2 – Past Performance and Factor 3 – Price.

3. Evaluate Factor 3 – Price to determine fair, reasonable, and complete.

4. An integrated assessment will be made to determine which small business offeror provides the overall best value. This may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Contracting Officer determines that the technical superiority and/or superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference. While the Government evaluation team and the Contracting Officer will strive for maximum objectivity, evaluation process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

5. Responsibility will be re-verified in accordance with FAR 9.1 – Responsible Prospective Contractors prior to contract award.

2.4 Factor 1 – Technical Capability

The Technical evaluation will be based on each’s offeror’s approach for meeting the technical requirements listed below. The evaluation focuses on the technical approach as described in each offeror’s technical volume. The technical evaluation does not consider price. Each subfactor within the technical factor will receive one of the ratings described below based on the criteria listed below. Subfactors 1, 2, 3, and 4 will be rated Acceptable or Unacceptable and will not include tradeoff considerations. To be eligible for award, an offeror must be rated Acceptable in all subfactors, either initially, or as a result of discussions. Any subfactor rated as Unacceptable will be considered unawardable. A single deficiency identified within any subfactor will result in an Unacceptable rating for that subfactor. The subfactor ratings are as follows in the table:

Rating Description Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements, contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength.

Good Proposal demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength.

Acceptable Proposal demonstrates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains a weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be required to overcome difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the Solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is un-awardable. Proposal contains one or more deficiencies or weaknesses that increase the risk of unsuccessful performance.

The Technical Capability Subfactors shall receive a technical rating of “Outstanding”, “Good”, “Acceptable”, “Marginal, or “Unacceptable” with consideration of any strengths, weaknesses, or deficiencies. Technical Capability ratings will be assessed at the Subfactor level and overall Factor-level rating will not be assigned. In order to be eligible for award, offerors are required to meet all aspects of the Technical Capability Subfactors and receive at least an “Acceptable” Technical Rating.

The Technical Capability Rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirements and the degree to which the Offeror’s proposal meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements. If an offeror’s proposal demonstrates a material failure in meeting the Government’s requirement, this is a deficiency in the offeror’s proposal resulting in an “Unacceptable” rating and the proposal is ineligible for award.

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. Weakness is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal in meeting the Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

The Technical Capability Subfactors are outlined in the following Sections.

2.4.1 Subfactor 1 – Management and Administration

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal for demonstration of an effective integrated management and integration approach including an organizational structure that consists of appropriate leadership, manning levels and skill sets by position title, job descriptions, qualifications, certifications, and training requirements as applicable and as outlined in the PWS Section 2.1 and Section 4 requirements.

To be acceptable, the offeror must at minimum, address the essential elements below:

• Manning: Process for recruiting, hiring, training, and retaining qualified/licensed/certified and capable personnel that can accomplish the scope of the effort, and handle daily bus operations.

• Training/Certification: Compliance with all Federal, State, and local laws, and with regulations and standards for Department of Defense and base installation.

• Quality Assurance Plan

2.4.2 Subfactor 2 – Bus Requirements

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal for an effective approach that addresses ability to provide number of required buses and specified camera and communication requirements. Additionally, proposal clearly explains the ability to manage authorized passengers and inspection/maintenance/cleaning in accordance with the PWS (Section 2.2) requirements.

To be acceptable, the offeror must at a minimum, address the essential elements below:

• Camera System: Verification and documentation attesting to configuration, functionality, and operational capabilities of the onboard monitoring system.

• Cleaning Requirement: Process for daily cleaning and disinfecting all common bus surfaces.

• School Bus Age Requirement: Verification and documentation attesting school buses provided during operation of transportation services shall not be older than ten (10) years.

• Ability to meet guidelines outlined in CFR Title 49, Chapter V, Part 571, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and Highway Safety Program Guideline #17 (Pupil Transportation Safety).

2.4.3 Subfactor 3 – Safety Requirements

The Government will evaluate if the proposal demonstrates an understanding of the unique requirements of transporting school-age children in addition to providing an approach that addresses how the Safety Requirements as outlined in the PWS (Section 2.3) will be met.

As a minimum, the approach shall provide the following essential components:

• Demonstrate an understanding of the unique requirements of transporting school-age children in addition to providing an approach that addresses how the safety requirements as outlined in the PWS will be met.

• Accidental Reporting: Address accident reporting procedures.

Safety Equipment and SAPR Compliance: Address inspection and preservation of safety equipment (such as fire extinguishers, first aid kits etc.)

and training and protocols for Sexual Assault Prevention and Response

(SAPR).

2.4.4 Subfactor 4 – Environmental Requirements

The Government will evaluate if the proposal demonstrates an approach which effectively demonstrates the contractor’s capability in complying with all Federal, State and local laws and all other requirements as outlined in the PWS (Section 2.5).

As a minimum, the approach shall provide the following essential components:

• Outline process which effectively demonstrates capability in complying with all Federal, State and local laws and all other requirements as outlined in the

PWS.

2.5 Factor 2 – Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance.

2.5.1 Ratings

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the following performance confidence assessments IAW the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures:

Adjectival 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.

2.5.2 Evaluation Process

The Past Performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet users’ needs.

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 scope, magnitude, the Technical Subfactors, price assessment, performance quality and complexity. 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, such as, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) or similar systems, and commercial sources. The Government reserves the right to use all information available to fully assess the offeror’s past

2.5.3 Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been performed by the offeror as the prime contractor during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this Solicitation. If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.5.4 Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical Subfactors and Price assessment. Consideration will be given to things such as similar scope and type of service (assigned NAICS Code 485410), similar complexity of the effort, and contract magnitude. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s, as defined in paragraph 3.3.2 of Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors, past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror as the prime contractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated.