Addendum_to_52_212-2.pdf

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

(a) The government will award contracts resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offerors whose offers conform to the solicitation and will be most advantageous to the government, price and other factors considered.

The following factors will be used to evaluate offers:

(1) Technical

(2) Past Performance

(3) Price

Past Performance and Technical “acceptability”, when combined, are significantly more important than Price.

(b) Options. The government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options will not obligate the government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful Offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, will result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the government may accept an offer whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2, EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS

1. Basis for Contract Award

1.1 This acquisition will utilize the Performance Price Tradeoff source selection process. Evaluation will be in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-1, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures, 1 April 2016, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures MP5315.3 Source Selection.

1.2 By submission of its offer in accordance with the instructions provided in FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors, the Offeror agrees to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. All technically acceptable offers will be considered equal in ratings for technical factors. The tradeoff will occur only between the past performance factor and the price factor to determine the best value to the government, as stated below in the evaluation process:

1.2.1 Initially, offers that receive an acceptable or unacceptable technical rating shall be ranked according to Total Evaluated Price (TEP), including option prices. The Offeror’s price worksheet submission (See Section J, Attachment 5, and Vehicle Barrier Pricing Matrix) will calculate the TEP by adding the total of all CLINs proposed, to include options.

1.2.2 The Contracting Officer shall evaluate recent and relevant past and current performance information on each Offeror based on (1) data obtained from the references provided by the Offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources for contract management history and performance of Vehicle Barrier Maintenance and Repair (VB M&R) services.

1.2.3 The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the Offeror’s ability to provide the services that meet users’ needs, described in the solicitation, based on the Offeror’s demonstrated record of past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5, Performance Confidence Assessments. When evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater weight to information on those contracts deemed most recent and/or relevant to the effort described in this solicitation.

1.2.4 Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will not be considered as highly relevant as past performance information for the Principal Offeror. 8(a) Offerors may rely on past performance of its Joint Venture partners only if the Joint Venture partner is identified in the Offeror’s response to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors, Paragraph 5.2.5. If the 8(a) Offeror is a formal Joint Venture, the Government will consider the past performance of all firms that comprise the Joint Venture.

1.2.5 Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history or the Offeror’s performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating “Unknown Confidence”, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

2. Evaluation Process

2.1 All offers will be evaluated for technical acceptability. After being determined to be either technically acceptable or unacceptable, the proposals will be ranked by TEP from lowest TEP to highest TEP and will then receive a performance confidence assessment rating based on past performance information. If after initial evaluation, the target number of awardees of lowest priced evaluated offerors, eight (8), are judged to have a technically acceptable proposal, a performance confidence rating of "Substantial Confidence", the Offerors are determined to be responsible, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines to award without discussions, then the proposals represent the best value to the government. Award shall be made to those Offerors without further consideration of any of the other Offerors. The Government reserves the right to award more or less than the targets identified.

2.2 If award without discussions is not achieved and the SSA determines to open discussions, the same process above shall be used to select awardees, however, if the Government does not judge all of the target number of lowest priced evaluated Offerors for a given set-aside to have a performance confidence rating of "Substantial Confidence" and the Offerors are determined to be responsible, the technically acceptable proposals will be ranked by TEP from the lowest TEP to the highest TEP and then sorted again from the highest to lowest performance confidence ratings. The SSA shall then make an integrated assessment trade-off for a best value award decision.

2.3 Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors, to permit a meaningful assessment of past performance. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal or respond to adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors, or for the purpose of clarifying Past Performance information in determining the competitive range, will not constitute discussions and the Contracting Officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

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

3. Evaluation Factors

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

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: National Management Plan

Subfactor 2: Self Performance Subfactor 3: Subcontracting Process Subfactor 4: Sample O&M Work Plan

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

3.2 The relative importance of each factor and subfactors is as follows: As listed, Factor 1 (Technical) and Factor 2 (Past Performance) are equal in importance, and when combined are significantly more important than Factor 3 (Price). Within the Technical Factor, the subfactors are not in any order of importance; they are equally important. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

3.3 Factor 1: Technical

3.3.1 The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, ineligible for award. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award in accordance with the evaluation process described herein.

However, the Offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion. Therefore, the Offeror should submit its most complete and best proposal for initial consideration.

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

Table 1 – Technical Ratings

3.3.2 The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

3.3.2.1 Subfactor 1: National Management Plan – The Offeror’s National Management Plan will be rated Acceptable when the Offeror demonstrates it understands how to manage the vehicle barrier work across the contiguous United States. Understanding is demonstrated when the Offeror submits the following:

3.3.2.1.1 Management Plan Worksheet: A complete Request for Proposal (RFP) Attachment 2: Vehicle Barrier Management Plan Worksheet. To be considered complete, the Offeror must have identified the extent to which it will self-perform versus subcontract for each task at every base in the country. This will require the Offeror to select whether it will self-perform or subcontract from the drop down box in the “self-perform” columns of the management plan document. The Offeror must indicate at least six

(6) bases which they will self-perform the work (Preventive Maintenance, Emergency Service Calls, and Routine Service Calls). For those tasks that the Offeror may potentially subcontract, the Offeror must also identify the subcontractors that it intends to use. For the management plan document to be considered complete, the Offeror must name a subcontractor at each base where it could potentially subcontract. An Offeror must identify at least one (1) unique subcontractor name.

3.3.2.1.2 Organization Structure, Roles, Responsibilities, and Qualifications: For a national program, the Offeror shall:

3.3.2.1.2.1 Describe its proposed organization structure, roles and responsibilities of key personnel, qualifications of key personnel to effectively manage services at all applicable locations, addressing performance of the program identified in their Vehicle Barrier Management Plan Worksheet.

3.3.2.1.2.2 Describe their company program to train and qualify new personnel to conduct vehicle barrier maintenance for the program identified in their Vehicle Barrier Management Plan Worksheet.

3.3.2.1.2.3 Describe how they will manage the repair part supply chain to perform a national vehicle barrier maintenance and repair program as identified in their Vehicle Barrier Management Plan Worksheet.

3.3.2.1.2.4 Describe how they will manage a Quality Control Program to perform a national vehicle barrier maintenance and repair program as identified in their Vehicle Barrier Management Plan Worksheet.

3.3.2.1.2.5 Describe how they will manage tools and equipment to perform a national vehicle barrier maintenance and repair program.

3.3.2.1.3 Customer Service Information: For a national program, the Offeror shall:

3.3.2.1.3.1 Provide a single customer service hotline phone number which is operated 24 hours a day.

3.3.2.1.3.2 Describe how its customer service function will be responsive to all bases. To be responsive, personnel must be available during all hours to respond to Government requests.

3.3.2.1.3.3 Describe how it will log all calls received from United States Air Force USAF installations and must identify its process for resolving USAF installation concerns, and following up on unresolved requests.

3.3.2.1.4 Propose on 80% of Task Order Solicitations: For a national program, the Offeror shall:

3.3.2.1.4.1 Document that it is willing and able to bid on at least 80% of the task order solicitations that it receives.

3.3.2.1.4.2 Describe how its proposed structure will result in bids on at least 80% of the total task orders solicited.

3.3.2.1.4.3 Identify circumstances that would cause it to not propose on a task order, how it plans to mitigate these constraints and propose on at least 80% of task orders solicited.

3.3.2.1.5 Willingness to Perform All Required Work: The Offeror shall certify on its company letterhead that it is willing to perform at all bases identified in the RFP Attachment 2: Vehicle Barrier Management Plan Worksheet.

3.3.2.1.6 Limitation on Subcontracting Compliance: A description of how the Offeror’s national management structure is set up to ensure compliance with the limitations on subcontracting requirement.

This description must be consistent with the Offeror’s response recorded in RFP Attachment 2: Vehicle Barrier Management Plan Worksheet, and should clearly describe how the Offeror, if awarded an MAC IDIQ contract, the Offeror agrees that in performance of the contract at least 50% of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the concern.

3.3.2.2 Subfactor 2: Self Performance - The self-performance requirements Subfactor will be rated Acceptable when the Offeror demonstrates it understands the Government’s vehicle barrier requirement.

Understanding will be demonstrated when the Offeror submits the following:

3.3.2.2.1 Preventive Maintenance: For the work that the Offeror identified in RFP Attachment 2: Vehicle Barrier Management Plan Worksheet as being self-performed (minimum of six (6) bases)):

3.3.2.2.1.1 Describe how the Offeror will provide all personnel, labor, equipment, equipment supplies, tools, materials, supervision, and reporting for conduct of preventive maintenance, periodic inspection, and repair for barrier systems at each of the bases.

3.3.2.2.1.2 Provide an annual schedule for how the Offeror plans to self-perform preventive maintenance in accordance with the O&M plan for each of the bases.

3.3.2.2.2 Annual Training: For the work that the Offeror identified in RFP Attachment 2: Vehicle Barrier Management Plan Worksheet as being self-performed, (minimum of six (6) bases)):

3.3.2.2.2.1 Describe how it will conduct the annual Government Training.

3.3.2.2.2.2 Provide a synopsis of the training deliverables that they will provide.

3.3.2.2.3 Qualified Personnel: For work that the Offeror identified in RFP Attachment 2: Vehicle Barrier Management Plan Worksheet as being self-performed:

3.3.2.2.3.1 Provide a summary of the qualifications by name of the Offeror's Lead Barrier Technician(s).

3.3.2.2.3.2 Provide a summary by name of the qualifications of the Offeror's Barrier Technician(s).

3.3.2.2.3.3 Describe how it will organize the qualified personnel to support the schedule for Preventive Maintenance, Service Calls and Additional In Scope Work.

3.3.2.2.4 Quality Control: The Offeror shall provide a complete quality control plan for self-performed work for one of the bases identified in the RFP Attachment 2: Vehicle Barrier Management Plan Worksheet as being self-performed. The Offeror shall:

3.3.2.2.4.1 To be complete, the quality control plan must include an inspection plan and must detail the qualifications of the people involved with quality control.

3.3.2.2.4.2 The plan must describe the process to ensure all tasks are completed within cost, schedule, and quality.

3.3.2.2.4.3 The Offeror must provide documentation of the qualifications of at least one key quality control person to self-perform the work included in this solicitation. Key quality control personnel must have no less than three years’ experience inspecting and maintaining barriers, barrier control systems, and traffic control systems with this Offeror or their previous Employer(s).

3.3.2.2.4.4 Provide a quality control plan that illustrates an adequate inspection system and inspection plan to ensure contract compliance at the base.

3.3.2.2.4.5 This will require the Offeror to maintain inspection records and make them available to the Government and allows [but does not require or obligate] the Government to do its own tests and inspections.

3.3.2.2.5 Emergency Service Calls: For work that the Offeror identified in RFP Attachment 2: Vehicle Barrier Management Plan Worksheet as being self-performed:

3.3.2.2.5.1 Describe how it will perform emergency service calls at a minimum of two (2) bases (or 10% of the number of bases which it indicated it will self-perform whichever is greater) simultaneously when given notification of the emergency service calls in the same hour.

3.3.2.2.5.2 Describe how it will meet a response time of six (6) hours to all the bases requesting emergency services and either completion of the work or put the barrier in a safe mode within six

(6) hours after notification of approval for the work by the Government at a minimum of two (2) bases (or 10% of the number of bases which it indicated it will self-perform whichever is greater) simultaneously when given notification of the emergency service calls in the same hour.

3.3.2.2.5.3 Offeror is to describe the sources (how far from the base estimated response time to the base) of qualified personnel, description of equipment and sources of parts and the time required to simultaneously to respond to each base where they are self-performing the emergency service call when given notification of an emergency service call in the same hour.

3.3.2.2.6 Routine Service Calls: For work that the Offeror identified in RFP Attachment 2: Vehicle Barrier Management Plan Worksheet as being self-performed:

3.3.2.2.6.1 Describe how it will perform routine service calls at a minimum of two (2) bases (or 10% of the number of bases which it indicated it will self-perform whichever is greater) simultaneously when given notification of the routine service calls in the same hour.

3.3.2.2.6.2 Describe how it will meet a response time of 24 hours to all the bases requesting routine services and either completion of the work or put the barrier in a safe mode within six (6) hours after notification of approval for the work by the Government at a minimum of two (2) bases (or 10% of the number of bases which it indicated it will self-perform whichever is greater) simultaneously when given notification of the routine service calls in the same hour.

3.3.2.2.6.3 Offeror is to describe the sources (how far from the base estimated response time to the base) of qualified personnel, description of equipment and sources of parts and the time required to simultaneously to respond to each base where they are self-performing the routine service call when given notification of a routine service call in the same hour.

3.3.2.2.7 Additional In Scope Work: For the work that the Offeror identified in RFP Attachment 2: Vehicle Barrier Management Plan Worksheet as being self-performed (minimum of six (6) bases):

3.3.2.2.1.1 Describe how it will provide all personnel, labor, equipment, equipment supplies, tools, materials, supervision, and reporting for conduct of additional in scope work for barrier systems at each of the bases.

3.3.2.2.1.2 Provide a schedule of a summary of a sequence of activities for how it will organize on an annual basis to self-perform additional in scope work in accordance with the operations and maintenance plan for each of the bases.

3.3.2.2.8 Safety: The Offeror must demonstrate that it has an effective safety management program.

3.3.2.2.8.1 To be complete, the Offeror shall state how it will comply with all local, state and federal laws and safety regulations.

3.3.2.2.8.2 The Offeror will list all personal protective equipment and site related safety equipment to perform services that it will provide to its employees for work at the base.

3.3.2.2.8.3 The Offeror shall summarize how it will control Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) at the task order level. The Offeror will state where their company maintains MSDS sheets so that Contractor employee or the Government on the site should not have to fetch a key, ask a supervisor, submit a request, etc. to have immediate access.

3.3.2.3 Subfactor 3: Subcontracting Process – The Offerors subcontracting process will be determined Acceptable when the Offeror demonstrates it understands the Government requirement for subcontracting vehicle barrier work and it demonstrates it understands how to subcontract and manage subcontractor performance for VB M&R work. Understanding will be demonstrated when the Offeror submits the following:

3.3.2.3.1 Subcontractor Pre-Qualification Process: Its criteria for determining acceptability of its subcontractors. The criteria must explain how the Offeror determines acceptability in the areas of preventive maintenance work on vehicle barriers, completion of annual training of Government personnel, qualifications of personnel, quality control, emergency service calls, routine service calls, and safety plan.

3.3.2.3.2 Documentation on Subcontractors: Documentation showing that this pre-qualification process has been followed for all subcontractors identified in the RFP Attachment 2: Vehicle Barrier Management Plan Worksheet. Prequalification documentation on all subcontractors identified in RFP Attachment 2: Vehicle Barrier Management Plan Worksheet (minimum of one (1)) showing subcontractor are acceptable in accordance with the criteria established in response to paragraph 3.3.2.3.1. The documentation is in the Offeror's format that addresses their criteria. It is satisfactory for the Offeror to use a summary checklist which documents that they have conducted a review of their proposed subcontractor(s) relative to their criteria in the areas of preventive maintenance work on vehicle barriers, completion of annual training of Government personnel, qualifications of personnel, quality control, emergency service calls, routine service calls, and safety plan.

3.3.2.3.3 Subcontractor Performance Management: Its process for managing subcontractor performance. This process must identify the key metrics the Offeror will track, how it tracks those metrics and how it holds its subcontractors accountable.

3.3.2.4 Subfactor 4: Sample O&M Work Plan – Subfactor will be rated Acceptable when the Offeror demonstrates it understands the Government’s vehicle barrier requirement. Understanding will be demonstrated when the Offeror submits a sample O&M work plan for Base X using the list of equipment found in the PWS Appendix D. The O&M work plan shall be representative of a task order proposal request as required by section 6.1 of the PWS. At a minimum the O&M work plan shall include the following for evaluation:

3.3.2.4.1 Develop Quarterly and Annual Checklist for Base X Equipment: The Offeror shall develop a quarterly and an annual O&M checklist for the equipment at each of the three (3) gates on Base X (Appendix D) using the PWS, Appendix G of the PWS, manufacturer maintenance manuals, industry standards, and the Offeror’s experience.

3.3.2.4.2 Standard Test Procedures for Base X Equipment: The Offeror shall develop the test procedure for barrier operations and safety system testing for each of the three (3) gates using the PWS, Appendix G of the PWS, manufacturer maintenance manuals, industry standards, and the Offeror’s experience. The Offeror shall base these procedures on the equipment found in (Appendix D). The testing procedures shall be uniquely tailored for each gate’s equipment. At a minimum these procedures shall be accomplished after the Offeror’s work is complete and before the system is turned back over to the Government.

3.3.2.4.3 Recommended List of Long Lead Time Parts for Base X Equipment: The Offeror shall develop a recommended list of long lead time parts for on base storage consideration using the

PWS, PWS Appendix G, manufacturer maintenance manuals, industry standards and the Offeror’s experience.

3.3.2.4.4 Quarterly Report Outline (or table of contents) for Base X: The Offeror shall provide an outline or table of contents for typical quarterly report based on the three (3) gates of Base X. Use PWS section 7.1 when developing the typical quarterly report outline.

3.4 Factor 2: Past Performance

3.4.1 The Government will review up to twelve (12) total contract’s past performance submitted by the Offeror, up to six (6) contracts for Contract Management History, and up to six (6) contracts for Performance of VB M&R services. The Offeror may submit the same information for both elements if that information satisfies recent and relevant past performance for both elements. Any submission in excess of the limit will not be considered and only the first twelve (12) contracts listed in Volume II will be evaluated.

3.4.2 For 8(a) Offerors, past performance will begin with the Government assessing whether a Joint Venture partner’s past performance may be attributed to the Offeror. To be attributed to the Offeror, the Joint Venture partner’s name and DUNS number on the Offeror’s past performance submittal must match the name and DUNS number of a firm listed as the Joint Venture partner in the Offeror’s response to FAR52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors, Paragraph 5.2.5. For all Offerors, past performance for contracts where the Offeror was the Prime Contractor and contracts where the Offeror was a subcontractor will be considered. However, contracts where the Offeror was a Prime Contractor may be considered more relevant than contracts where the Offeror was a subcontractor.

3.4.3 Past Performance Evaluation Process

3.4.3.1 The past performance evaluation considers the Offeror’s demonstrated quality of recent and relevant past performance in providing services that are similar in effort to this acquisition.

After the Offeror’s proposal has been determined to be Technically Acceptable or Unacceptable, then the Government will rank each proposal by price. Starting with the lowest priced proposal, the Government will evaluate Past Performance, which addresses both the Offeror’s contract management history and performance of VB M&R services, and determine a Performance Confidence Assessment rating. Performance of VB M&R services will be weighed significantly more than Contract Management History, when determining the Offeror’s Performance Confidence Assessment rating.

3.4.3.2 In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to:

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Past Performance Integrated Reporting System (PPIRS), System for Award Management (SAM), past performance questionnaires, Government customer interviews, applicable commercial clients, and any other source deemed necessary to obtain additional information that will be used in the evaluation of the Offeror’s past performance.

3.4.4 Recency Assessment

3.4.4.1 Contract Management History: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. In order to be recent, the contract (or subcontract) must have been performed within the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation (calendar years 2011-2016) and for a minimum of a six (6) month period. Past Performance outside this given timeframe will not be evaluated. If performance on the contract occurred within the last five (5) years prior to the RFP’s proposal submission deadline, the past performance record will receive a rating of “Recent,” otherwise, the past performance record will receive a rating of “Not Recent,” and will not receive further evaluation.

3.4.4.2 Performance of VB M&R Services: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent the contract (or subcontract) must have been performed within the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation (calendar years 2011-2016) and for a minimum of a six (6) month period. Past Performance outside this given timeframe will not be evaluated. If performance on the contract occurred within the last five

(5) years prior to the RFP’s proposal submission deadline, the past performance record will receive a rating of “Recent,” otherwise, the past performance record will receive a rating of “Not Recent,” and will not receive further evaluation.

3.4.5 Relevancy Assessment

3.4.5.1 Contract Management History: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is relevant. Relevancy will be assessed on the aggregate. “On the aggregate” is defined as up to six (6) submissions as a whole. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s relevancy on the management performance of multiple, concurrent contracts at geographically separated locations. “Concurrent” is defined as at least three (3) months of simultaneous contract performance. “Geographically separated” is defined as locations that are, at a minimum, beyond 25 miles from one another. In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor, or Joint Venture partner. The past performance information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance.

a. To be considered for the aggregate relevancy rating, the individual contract must be a minimum value of $25K annually; performing VB M&R service contracts and/or services in Base Operations Support Services (BOSS) and/or Base Maintenance Contracts (BMC) to include, but not limited to, services of similar NAICS identified in FAR 52.212-1 – Instructions to Offerors, Table 4; performing concurrently with other services, BOSS and/or BMC contracts for a minimum of three (3) months; and geographically separated from other VB M&R services, BOSS, and/or BMC contracts.

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

Rating Definition

VERY RELEVANT Performing present/past performance effort of a total of six (6) VB M&R service contracts, concurrently and geographically separated.

RELEVANT Performing present/past performance effort of a total of three (3) to five (5) VB M&R service contracts, concurrently and geographically separated.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT Performing present/past performance effort of a total of two (2) VB M&R service contracts, concurrently and geographically separated.

NOT RELEVANT Performing present/past performance effort of one (1) or less VB M&R service contract.

Table 2 – Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

c. The aggregate relevancy rating will be determined by the Offeror’s ability to demonstrate a breadth of performance in contract management history. The Government will consider the highest number of concurrent performance when determining the aggregate relevancy rating of the Offeror. In the event there are multiple sets of the highest number of concurrent performance, the Government will consider the most recent set among the highest number of concurrent performance when determining the aggregate relevancy rating.

3.4.5.2 Performance of VB M&R Services: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is relevant. Relevancy will be assessed on an individual contract basis. In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the Government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor, or Joint Venture partner. The past performance information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance.

Relevancy ratings for past performance will be determined by the types of vehicle barriers serviced that are the same or similar, but not limited, to the vehicle barriers listed in the PWS.

a. To be considered for the aggregate relevancy rating, the individual contract must be performing VB M&R services to include preventive maintenance, periodic inspection, and repair for vehicle barriers.

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

VERY RELEVANT Present/past performance effort of preventive maintenance, periodic inspection, and repair spanning six (6) or more types of vehicle barriers.

RELEVANT Present/past performance effort of preventive maintenance, periodic inspection, and repair spanning three (3) to five (5) types of vehicle barriers.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort of preventive maintenance, periodic inspection, and repair spanning two (2) types of vehicle barriers.

NOT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort of preventive maintenance, periodic inspection, and repair spanning less than two (2) types of vehicle barriers.

Table 3 – Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

c. The individual contract relevancy rating will be determined by the Offeror’s ability to demonstrate a breadth of performance in preventive maintenance, periodic inspection, and repair for vehicle barriers to include but not limited to the vehicle barriers listed in the PWS.

3.4.6 Performance Quality Assessment

3.4.6.1 Contract Management History: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance for demonstrated quality of performance in contract management history. This evaluation will be based on responses to Section J, Attachment 3 – Contract Management History Past Performance Questionnaire. Section J, Attachment 3, Section B, will be completed by the Point of Contact (POC) identified by the Offeror. Additional sources of performance information may include, but is not limited to: CPARS, FAPIIS, PPIRS, and SAM.

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

b. The Government will use the following quality assessment ratings when assessing the quality of past performance:

EXCEPTIONAL During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many.

Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

VERY GOOD During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered. Contractor took timely corrective action.

SATISFACTORY During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

UNSATISFACTORY During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or failed) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

NOT APPLICABLE Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

Table 4 – Past Performance Quality Ratings

c. The individual contract quality rating will be determined by the Offeror’s ability to demonstrate quality in performance of preventive maintenance, periodic inspection, and repair for vehicle barriers to include but not limited to the vehicle barriers listed in the

PWS.

3.4.6.2 Performance of VB M&R Services: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance for demonstrated quality of contract performance in VB M&R services. This evaluation will be based on responses to Section J, Attachment 4 – VB M&R services Past Performance Questionnaire. Section J, Attachment 4, Section B will be completed by the contract POC identified by the Offeror. Additional sources of performance information may include, but is not limited to: CPARS, FAPIIS, PPIRS, and SAM.

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

b. The Government will use the following quality assessment ratings when assessing the quality of past performance:

EXCEPTIONAL During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many.

Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

VERY GOOD During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered. Contractor took timely corrective action.

SATISFACTORY During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

UNSATISFACTORY During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or failed) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

NOT APPLICABLE Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

Table 5 – Past Performance Quality Ratings

c. The individual contract quality rating will be determined by the Offeror’s ability to demonstrate quality in performance of preventive maintenance, periodic inspection, and repair for vehicle barriers to include but not limited to the vehicle barriers listed in the

PWS.

3.4.6.3 As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, the Offeror will receive a Performance Confidence Assessment rating.

3.4.7 Performance Confidence Assessment

3.4.7.1 The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Under the Past Performance factor, the Performance Confidence Assessment represents the evaluation of an Offeror’s present and past work record to assess the Government's confidence in the Offeror’s probability of successfully performing as proposed. The Government will consider the recency, relevancy, and quality of performance when determining the Offeror’s Performance Confidence Rating. Performance of VB M&R services will be weighed significantly more than Contract Management History, when determining the Offeror’s Performance Confidence Assessment rating. The Offeror will receive one of the ratings below:

SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE Based on the quality of 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 quality of 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 quality of 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 quality of 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.

Table 6 –Performance Confidence Ratings

3.4.7.2 If the Offeror is without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor. A record of recent, relevant, and quality past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an “Unknown Confidence” rating.

3.5 Factor 3: Price

3.5.1 The Government will review the Offeror’s price proposal for completeness, balance, and reasonableness.

3.5.1.1 Completeness: The Government will review the Offeror’s price worksheet submission (See Attachment D, VB M&R Pricing Matrix) for completeness. The Offeror shall not tamper with the provided Rows, Columns, or Formulas or add any information other than what is requested in the instructions. For pricing to be considered complete, the Offeror shall fill in all applicable “Red” cells to include: Company Name, Prepared By, Cage Code, DUNS #, Date, certification to submit pricing data, not to exceed unit price for each type of service in each location, and an escalation rate percentage for each ordering period of the MAC IDIQ. Unit prices shall not extend beyond two decimal places. Failure to provide complete pricing may result in a proposal being deemed incomplete and ineligible for award.

3.5.1.2 Balance: The Government will review prices submitted in the Offeror’s price worksheet submission (See Attachment D, VB M&R Pricing Matrix) for balance. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one (1) or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Pricing will be considered unbalanced if unreasonable variances (both high and low) exist in prices between different Contract Line Items (CLINs). Failure to provide balanced pricing may result in a proposal being rated ineligible for award if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3.5.1.3 Reasonableness: The Government will review the prices submitted in the Offeror’s price workbook submission (See Attachment D, VB M&R Pricing Matrix) and resultant TEP for Price Reasonableness. Pricing may be considered “unreasonable” if any specific unit price or the TEP is significantly above the Government estimate or the median price of all Offerors for that specific element. Failure to provide reasonable prices may result in a proposal being deemed ineligible for award. If, after receipt of proposals, the CO determines that there is insufficient data to determine price reasonableness, Offerors may be required to submit additional data in accordance with FAR 15.403-3(c).

3.5.2 TEP Calculation

3.5.2.1 Attachment D, VB M&R Pricing Matrix, the Offeror will provide a Not to Exceed (NTE) unit price for each service in each region. The attachment will average the Offeror’s NTE unit price (provided by region) for each service to calculate the Offeror’s Average NTE Unit Price for that service for the Base Year. For each Option Year, the average NTE unit prices for each service will be calculated based on the Offeror’s escalation rate percentage. The Average NTE Unit Price for each service is multiplied by the average quantity of the service per year (Average Quantity Per Year provided in Attachment D, VB M&R Pricing Matrix) to calculate the Offeror’s Extended Cost Per Service for each service for the Base Year and each Option Year. The Extended Cost Per Service is summed to calculate the Offeror’s Total Extended Cost for the Base Year and each Option Year. The Total Extended Cost for the Base Year and each Option Year will be summed to determine the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP will be used to determine the Offeror's price. See Table 7 for an example that shows the Total Extended Cost calculation. The escalation rate percentages will be binding as maximum rates on all task orders proposed in the corresponding ordering period of the

MAC IDIQ.

Table 7 – Example of TEP Calculation

3.6 Contract Award

3.6.1 After the Offeror’s proposal has been determined to be Technically Acceptable or Unacceptable, the Government will then rank the proposals by TEP. Starting with the lowest TEP, the Government will evaluate Past Performance and determine a Performance Confidence Assessment rating, in accordance with Section 1.1 of this addendum. If the target number of lowest priced evaluated Offerors (8) is judged to have a technically acceptable proposal, a “Substantial Confidence” performance rating, the Offerors are determined to be responsible, and the SSA determines to award without discussions, the said proposals represent the best value for the government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to those Offerors without further consideration of any of the other Offerors.

3.6.2 If award without discussions is not achieved and the SSA determines to open discussions, the same process above shall be used to select awardees, however, if the government does not judge all of the target number of lowest priced evaluated Offerors for a given set-aside to have a performance confidence rating of "Substantial Confidence" and the Offerors are determined to be responsible, the technically acceptable proposals will be ranked by TEP from the lowest TEP to the highest TEP and then sorted again from the highest to lowest performance confidence ratings. The SSA shall then make an integrated assessment trade-off for a best value award decision.