Attachment_5_-_Addendum_52.212-2.pdf

FA8052-14-R-0004

Attachment 5

THIS SECTION IS FOR SOLICITATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS SECTION WILL BE

PHYSICALLY REMOVED FROM ANY RESULTANT AWARD, BUT WILL BE DEEMED

INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE.

ADDENDUM 52.212-2

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

Addenda to 52.212-2 -- Evaluation -- Commercial Items. (Jan 1999)

M-I. EVALUATION FACTORS

A. Basis for Contract Award.

1. This is a competitive source selection conducted in accordance with Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal

Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation

Supplement (AFFARS). This source selection will follow the Lowest Price Technically

Acceptable (LPTA) source selection process in accordance with FAR Part 15.101-2, in which best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price.

2. By submission of its offer, the Offeror agrees to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to the identified evaluation factors and sub-factors.

3. The Government will evaluate proposals on an acceptable/unacceptable basis; however, proposals will not be ranked using non-price factors/sub-factors. In order to be considered for award, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every non-price factor/sub-factor.

4. Trade-offs between cost/price and non-cost/price factors are not permitted. Unreasonably high/unrealistically low, unbalanced, inaccurate or incomplete price proposals may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition. The Government will evaluate proposed prices for reasonableness using price analysis techniques. Proposed prices evaluated as unreasonable and/or unrealistic may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.

5. As set forth in FAR 52.215-1(f)(4), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR

15.306(a), Clarifications and award without discussions). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint.

The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. In the event that discussions are held, a competitive range determination will be made. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the technically acceptable proposals. Any offer rated as technically unacceptable will not be included in the competitive range.

B. Award Process.

Basic Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. The Government intends to award one (1) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract as a result of this solicitation. Award will be made to the lowest priced Offeror, which after evaluation is deemed technically acceptable in accordance with the evaluation criteria in paragraph C, below. Award of the basic IDIQ contract will establish the ordering year rates to be utilized at the Task Order

(TO) level.

C. Evaluation Criteria

1. The evaluation process will begin with a ranking based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) from lowest to highest price of all proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria in paragraph (a) of this section. The offers will subsequently be evaluated utilizing price analysis techniques to determine if the price is complete, reasonable, realistic and balanced. Following the price ranking , the lowest priced proposal will then be evaluated for technical acceptability under the non-price factors (Technical Capability and Past Performance) in accordance with the evaluation criteria in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. Award will be made upon identification of a successful offer with the lowest price and acceptable non-price factors. The

Technical Capability and Past Performance volumes will not be evaluated for offers that proposed higher pricing than the successful offeror.

2. The proposals will be evaluated based on the following three (3) evaluation factor(s) and two (2) sub-factors:

Factor 1: Price

Factor 2: Technical Capability

Sub-factor 1: Management Approach

Sub-factor 2: Sample Resumes

Factor 3: Past Performance

(a) Factor 1 – Price. Price will not be scored or rated, but will be ranked from lowest to highest TEP. Evaluation of price will be performed using one or more of the price analysis techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b). Through these techniques the Government will determine whether the proposed ordering year rates are complete, reasonable, realistic and balanced.

a. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by verifying the rates proposed for ordering years one (1) to five (5) against the number of Full-Time

Equivalents (FTEs) set under each CLIN (reference Schedule B Proposal Pricing

Excel Spreadsheet listed as Attachment 2). For purposes of this solicitation, one (1)

FTE equals 1880 Hours. Thus, the Offeror's CLIN total extended pricing will include pricing for ordering years one (1) to five (5). This amount will then be added to the programmed cost CLINs for PCS/Travel and Overtime to arrive at the Total Evaluated

Price (TEP).

b. Award of a Basic IDIQ contract will be made to the lowest priced Offeror that is deemed technically acceptable with acceptable past performance.

c. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the proposed labor rates for each ordering year are significantly unbalanced.

d. Unbalanced Pricing may be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), as applicable, to assess potential performance risk which could result in unreasonably high prices.

e. Definitions.

Completeness/Accuracy. The offeror’s proposal is in compliance with the Price

Volume instructions in the solicitation.

Reasonableness. A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

Realism. The offeror’s proposed pricing represents a clear understanding of the requirements and are consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the offeror’s technical proposal.

(b) Factor 2 – Technical Capability. The Technical Capability evaluation provides an assessment of the offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. The technical approach will be evaluated for evidence of the degree to which the Offeror’s technical approach demonstrates a clear understanding of Family Advocacy Program (FAP) PACAF

Region Personal Services, as defined within the PWS. Proposals should display a clear understanding and reasonable, well-thought-out approach, that demonstrates the Offeror's understanding of all tasks to be performed, as well as, the technical approach and methodology for accomplishing all tasks under any resultant award to meet the requirements of the PWS. The proposals will be evaluated for technical acceptability/unacceptability against the following sub-factors:

Sub-factor 1 – Management Approach.

The offeror shall identify their overall management approach to supply qualified personnel in accordance with the PWS at all overseas locations (See

PWS Appendix A). Discuss how vacancies will be filled and describe how you will process and manage the credentialing requirements of employees in such a way to permit uninterrupted service to patients. Describe the procedures and techniques to be used to retain qualified personnel performing services under the contract and your approach to provide training and education for maintaining current licensing.

PWS References: 1.2, 1.2.1, 1.2.2

Sub-factor 2 – Sample Resumes.

The offeror shall provide sample resumes of the six (one resume per each of these positions) AFMOA FAP PACAF Region personnel. Resumes need to reflect the experience and qualifications consistent within the PWS. The

Government will evaluate the level of the employees' experience, education, and technical qualifications PLEASE DO NOT INCLUDE NAMES OF

CANDIDATES ON RESUMES. Describe the procedures you will use to verify that information in an individual provider's resume is valid. Describe the process for validating licensure where required. Describe the process for ensuring the employee can be credentialed in a military treatment facility

IAW paragraph 2.2.28 of the PWS.

PWS References: 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.4, 2.1.5, 2.1.6

Technical Factor Ratings. The Technical Factor will receive one of the adjectival ratings defined in, Table 1 – Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings, below. The sub-factor ratings will be used to determine an overall rating for the factor. An offer rated as technically unacceptable in any sub-factor will result in an overall rating of unacceptable and will not be eligible for award.

Table 1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable

Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

(c) Factor 3 - Past Performance. The Past Performance evaluation will assess the

Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation’s requirements as indicated by that Offeror’s record of past performance. Past Performance is assessed at the factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance and focusing on performance that is relevant to the services being procured under this solicitation. Offerors are cautioned that in conducting the performance risk assessment, the Government may use data provided in the Offeror’s proposal and data obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval

System (PPIRS), the Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Defense

Contract Management Agency (DCMA) or similar systems, and commercial sources. Past performance areas of evaluation include:

a. Each Offeror will receive a past performance evaluation rating based on the

Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements.

b. Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

c. Relevancy Assessment. To be relevant, the effort must be similar in nature of work, size, and complexity. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine if it is the same or similar in nature of work, size, and complexity to the services/products being procured under this solicitation.

A relevancy determination of the offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to what aspects of an offeror’s contract history would give the most confidence that the offeror will satisfy the current procurement. The past performance information provided in the proposal and obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance.

Past Performance Ratings. The Past Performance Factor will be assigned one of the ratings defined in, Table 2 – Past Performance Evaluation Ratings, below. An offer rated as unacceptable will not be eligible for award.

Table 2. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the

Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

Unacceptable

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the

Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

d. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned; the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

(End of Provision)