05_JUN_14-Attach__4-FAR_Provision_52.212-2-Revised.pdf

FA8052‐14‐R‐0014

Attachment #4 Revised

FAR Provision 52.212-2 Evaluation - Commercial Items (Jan 1999):

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation and the offeror that provides the Government with the best value through the Price Performance Tradeoff (PPT) Source Selection technique.

This PPT Source Selection Tradeoff technique allows for the Government technical evaluation team to evaluate technical capability on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis with the past performance factor allowed to be traded off with price. A decision on the technical acceptability of each Offeror’s technical proposal shall be made based on the evaluation criteria listed in the attached evaluation criteria document and the PWS. Evaluation may be made with or without discussions with the Offeror(s). The offers shall be evaluated against the following three (3) factors (See Attachment #5 of the solicitation - Evaluation Factors & Subfactors):

Factor 1. Technical Capability Factor 2. Past Performance Factor 3. Price

Factor 1: Technical Capability

Technical Capability Proposals will be given a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable. A technically acceptable proposal shall have a sound technical approach that meets all Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements.

Technical Capability shall address the following subfactors as detailed in Attachment #5 of the solicitation:

Subfactor 1: Training Requirements Subfactor 2: Accreditation Subfactor 3: Location

TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

DETERMINATION DEFINITION

Acceptable ALL of the minimum acceptable criteria are clearly met by the proposal. The Offeror’s proposal meets the performance and technical capability requirements defined in the PWS.

Unacceptable Not all of the minimum acceptable criteria are met by the proposal. An unacceptable proposal contains one or more deficiencies. The proposal fails to meet specified minimum performance and technical capability requirements defined in the PWS.

Factor 2: Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to fulfill the solicitation requirements as indicated by the Offeror’s record of past performance. Past Performance will be evaluated on a tradeoff basis with price.

(a) Ratings: Each Offeror’s Past Performance Factor will be assigned one of the Performance Confidence Assessment ratings defined in the table below.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

RATING DEFINITION

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

(b) Evaluation Process: In order for the Government to complete the Past Performance Evaluation, the Offeror must provide no more than three (3) of the most relevant contracts performed for Federal agencies and/or commercial or local government customers within the last three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

Each offeror shall submit their record of past performance using a Past Performance Questionnaire – see Attachment 9 of the solicitation. Questionnaires must be submitted by the point of contacts for the relevant effort(s).

Past Performance Questionnaire - For the contracts identified, the Offeror shall forward a copy of the past performance questionnaire to the points of contact responsible for monitoring performance under such contracts. The points of contact shall complete and return the questionnaires via email directly to the Contract Specialist (Mr. Dustin Tatum) at Dustin.Tatum@us.af.mil NO LATER

THAN (NLT) 01:00 PM (local San Antonio, TX time) on Wednesday, 04 June 2014. Any questionnaires not returned directly to the Government point of contact (Mr. Tatum) will not be reviewed and evaluated. The information contained in the questionnaires will be used to evaluate the Offeror’s past performance. Entities that have no past customers or less than three customers shall annotate on the Summary Page that they have had no previous or less than three customers, and that the minimum number of questionnaires cannot be provided. A sample Past Performance Questionnaire is included as Attachment 9.

In conducting the past performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the past performance information provided by the Offeror and information 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. However, the burden of providing thorough, complete, and current past performance information as requested in this paragraph remains with the Offerors.

The offerors’s past performance evaluation will be based on two (2) phases, as detailed below. Phase I consists of an assessment of an offeror’s recent and relevant past performance. Phase II will evaluate the quality of past performance. Quality of past performance will not be evaluated if the offeror’s past performance is determined to be NOT RECENT and/or NOT RELEVANT.

Phase I

Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. For the purposes of evaluation under this solicitation, the effort(s) must be ongoing or must have been performed within the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

Relevance Assessment. The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the training performed under those contracts relates to the NRP Certification Course requirements for this effort. Consideration will be given to criteria such as similarity of length of training course, number of students in a course, value, and performance period. The relevancy of the Offeror’s past performance will be assigned one of the ratings defined in the table below – Past Performance Relevancy Ratings.

Phase II - Quality of Performance. The Government will consider the performance quality of efforts determined to be recent and either somewhat relevant, relevant, and very relevant. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the NRP Certification Course requirements (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered.) The quality assessment consists of an evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses and any other information from PPIRS, CPARS, and interviews with Government customers, and if applicable, commercial clients. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports less than a satisfactory overall rating. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

QUALITY OF PERFORMANCE RATINGS

PERFORMANCE

RATING

DEFINITION

EXCEPTIONAL

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective

VERY GOOD Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

RATING DEFINITION

VERY RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

SOMEWHAT

RELEVANT

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

NOT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

An absence of past performance will be considered neutral.

with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

SATISFACTORY Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

MARGINAL Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

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

NOT APPLICABLE Unable to provide a score. Performance in this area is not applicable to the effort assessed.

(c) Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevance and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive a Performance Confidence Assessment rating based on combined recency, relevance, and performance ratings for each of the contracts.

Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned 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.

More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating.

Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

Factor 3: Price

The price proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness based upon a comparison of the Offeror’s price to the price of competitors. Price may be traded off for a higher Performance Confidence Assessment. A price that is very low will be verified to assure that the offeror understands what is being asked for and no mistakes have been made in preparing the price.

The offeror is to complete the yellow highlighted areas for the costs of each CLIN within the Pricing Schedule (Attachment #6) and submit with the proposal, which will be evaluated for reasonableness. The per student price shall include all costs associated with the training, including textbooks, materials, testing, uniforms, etc. Do not make changes to the format of the Excel Spreadsheet in Attachment #6 without approval from the Contracting Officer. In accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b) and FAR 15.403-3(a), information other than pricing data may be required to support price reasonableness or realism in the absence of competition.

Information shall be provided in accordance with FAR 15.403-5. If after receipt of the proposals, the Contracting Officer determines that there is insufficient information available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1 apply, the offeror shall be required to submit pricing data. The proposed pricing schedule is provided and is subject to change. Failure to provide prices as stated above may result in the rejection of the proposal. All pricing information shall be addressed ONLY in Pricing file format.

Technical must be acceptable. Past performance is significantly more important than price for technically acceptable offerors.

(End of Provision)