Attachment_7_52.212-2.pdf

ATTACHMENT 7

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (Oct 2014)

1. Basis for Contract Award

1.1 Source Selection Methodology. This acquisition will utilize the Lowest Price Technically

Acceptable (LPTA) Source Selection Procedures (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

15.101-2 and 15.3, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement

(DFARS) and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. To arrive at a best value decision, the

Source Selection Authority will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this provision. Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government and who is determined to be responsible IAW FAR

Part 9, as supplemented. By submission of an offer IAW the instructions provided in FAR

52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items, and the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, 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.

1.2 Awards. The Government intends to award a single definitive contract to an eligible 8(a) contractor. To be considered an 8(a) Offeror, the firm must be an eligible participant in the 8(a) program as of the date the RFP closes, and must be approved as an 8(a) Offeror at the time of award.

1.3 Factors, Subfactors, and Relative Importance

1.3.1 Factors and Subfactors. The evaluation factors and subfactors below will be used to evaluate each Offeror’s 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: Price

Factor 2: Technical

Subfactor 1: Subject Knowledge

Subfactor 2: Staffing Approach

Subfactor 3: Management Approach

2. Evaluation Process

2.1 The Government will perform an initial responsiveness assessment of each Offeror’s proposal, then evaluate each Offeror’s proposal for complete, reasonable, and balanced pricing and technical acceptability. The Government will organize the proposals based on the lowest price and will evaluate the technical approach of the lowest Offeror first. Failure to meet any criteria in any of the three (3) subfactors within the Technical factor will result in a proposal being determined technically unacceptable in its entirety. If the lowest priced Offeror is technically acceptable, that Offeror represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process ceases at this point. If the lowest price Offeror is technically unacceptable, the Government will evaluate the next lowest Offeror for technical acceptability. Technical evaluation will continue until an Offeror is determined acceptable and represents the best value for the Government.

2.4 Discussions.

2.4.1 The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award without discussions with

Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)); therefore, an Offeror’s initial proposal should be complete and contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint for initial consideration. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer (CO) later determines them to be in the Government’s best interest.

2.4.2 Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in

Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items, and Addendum to

FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Items, to permit a meaningful assessment of each factor. By submission of the proposal, Offerors are representing that their firm will perform all the requirements specified in the RFP. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the RFP. During the evaluation process, the

Government may conduct exchanges with Offerors, including clarifications, communications, or discussions. During clarifications, Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal and resolve minor or clerical errors, but Offerors cannot revise their proposal. Exchanges with Offerors conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors

(i.e., clarifications) do not constitute discussions. The CO reserves the right to award a contract without discussions or the opportunity for proposal revision.

2.4.3 If, during the evaluation process, it is determined to be in the best interests of the

Government to hold discussions, the Government will provide the Offeror with Evaluation

Notices (ENs) and a Final Proposal Revision (FPR) Request. Any EN responses and the FPR will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the Offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as technically 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 technically unacceptable and ineligible for award.

3. Proposal Evaluation

3.1 Contract Information (Volume I)

3.1.1 The Government will perform an initial responsiveness assessment of all Offeror’s proposals, which will include, among other considerations:

3.1.1.1 Verifying all proposal submission requirements were received and complete, to include the items under Volume I: Contract Information as referenced in Section 5.2 in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1;

3.1.1.2 Verifying all proposal submission requirements followed the proposal instructions included in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 (specifically within Sections 3 and 4, e.g.

page limits, font size/type, etc.); and

3.1.1.3 Verifying the Offeror’s representations regarding their business size, to include whether the Offeror meets the size standard of $15M for the North American Industry

Classification System (NAICS) Code applicable to this acquisition of 541611, Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services, using the

System for Award Management (SAM) website.

3.1.1.3.1 IAW FAR 19.801, verification of Offerors certifying to be in the 8(a) program will include the SBA determining and then verifying that the Offeror is eligible and certified as an 8(a) participant. SAM will also be used to confirm the

Offeror has submitted documents verifying its 8(a) program eligibility at the time of initial offer (https://certify.sba.gov/).

3.1.2 The Government will review/verify the Offeror’s proposal Volume I elements, to include:

3.1.2.1 Proposal Cover Sheet: All required information IAW Section 5.2.1 of the

Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 must be provided and the cover sheet must be signed.

3.1.2.2 Proposal Validity: The proposal validity statement IAW Section 5.2.3 of the

Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 must be provided.

3.2 Factor 1: Price (Volume II)

3.2.1 The Government will review the Offeror’s price proposal (Pricing Matrix) for completeness, balance, reasonableness and Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

3.2.1.1 Completeness: The Government will review the Offeror’s Pricing Matrix submission (see RFP Attachment 4: Pricing Matrix) for completeness. A complete

Pricing Matrix is one in which the Offeror has filled out all required cells. 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.

3.2.1.2 Balance: The Government will review the rates/prices submitted in the Offeror’s

Pricing Matrix submission for balance. IAW FAR 15.404-1(g), unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one (1) or more 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, so separately priced line items shall be analyzed to https://certify.sba.gov/ determine if the prices are unbalanced. Pricing may be considered unbalanced if unreasonable variances (both high and low) exist in prices between different labor categories. Failure to provide balanced pricing may result in a proposal being deemed ineligible for award if the CO determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3.2.1.3 Reasonableness: The Government will review the rates/prices submitted in the

Offeror’s Pricing Matrix submission and resultant Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for reasonableness. Per FAR 19.806, fair market price shall be the price achieved IAW the reasonable price guidelines in FAR 15.404-1(b). Pricing may be considered unreasonable if any specific rate/unit price or the TEP varies significantly from comparable rate/unit prices per the application of one or more of the price analysis techniques as described in

FAR 15.404-1(b). 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).

3.2.1.4 TEP: The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Contractor’s proposed prices, which is comprised of the base period and all option periods. Evaluation of the option

CLINs shall not obligate the Government to exercise such option CLINs.

3.3 Factor 2: Technical (Volume II)

3.3.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical proposal on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in Table 1 – Technical

Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method below. Each sub-factor will be rated as acceptable or unacceptable as defined in Table 1. A rating of unacceptable in one or more sub-factors will constitute an overall rating of unacceptable for the technical evaluation. Offerors must receive an acceptable rating on each measure of merit within the sub-factors in order to be considered technically acceptable for each sub-factor. All requirements specified in the RFP are mandatory. The technical proposal, including its subfactors, shall not make any reference to cost or pricing information. The Offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

Table 1 – Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

3.3.2 The Offeror’s technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the three (3) subfactors below, to determine if the Offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and RFP, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements. The technical proposal must address each of the following four (3) subfactors in sufficient detail.

3.3.2.1 Technical Subfactor 1 – Subject Knowledge

This subfactor is met when the Offeror adequately and completely addresses the items below, demonstrating a thorough knowledge and understanding of the subject knowledge that meets the requirements of the PWS and RFP.

3.3.2.1.1 This sub-factor will evaluate Offeror’s Subject Knowledge. This sub-factor can be met by providing a list of qualifications for each labor category demonstrating that their candidates meet the Government’s requirements for education, experience, knowledge, skills and abilities, and required clearance (as applicable). The task/labor categories are listed in Section 3.1 through Section 3.6 in the PWS.

3.3.2.2 Technical Subfactor 2 – Staffing Approach

This subfactor is met when the Offeror adequately and completely addresses the items below, demonstrating a thorough staffing approach that meets the requirements of the

PWS and RFP.

3.3.2.2.1 This sub-factor will evaluate the Offeror’s capability to provide qualified candidates. This sub-factor can be met by providing a Staffing Plan that addresses hiring and retention for the positions within the PWS. The Staffing Plan shall detail how the

Offer identifies, screens, places, and monitors employee performance. The Staffing Plan shall detail how the Offer ensures that personnel meets the appropriate level of education, experience, and expertise.

3.3.2.3 Technical Subfactor 3 – Management Approach

This subfactor is met when the Offeror adequately and completely addresses the items below, demonstrating a thorough management approach that meets the requirements of the PWS and RFP.

3.3.2.3.1 This sub-factor will evaluate how the Offeror will successfully accomplish the requirement. This sub-factor can be met by providing a Management Plan that details how the Offeror will successfully meet the requirement and an Organization

Chart. The Organization Chart must show lines of authority, responsibility, and communication for personnel.