Attachment_2_HAF_Workflow_-Addendum_to_FAR_52.212-2_v2.docx

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE INSTALLATION CONTRACTING AGENCY

TECHNICAL AND PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA

Surgeon General Executive Services “Headquarters Air Force (HAF) Workflow Team Management”

52.212-2 -- EVALUATION -- COMMERCIAL ITEMS ADDENDUM

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The award will be made on a Performance-Price Tradeoff basis. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers: technical, price, and past performance.

Note to Offerors: A technical approach and past performance are being requested for this Request for Proposal (RFP). Please follow instructions and guidance below. The technical proposal and past performance are to be submitted as separate volumes with the numbering contained in the Instructions To Offerors-Commercial Items addendum attached separately.

1. This technical proposal will be rated as “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” based on the technical proposal evaluation criteria stated in the table below. The Government will award to the combination of price and past performance which offers the best value to the government. Therefore, the lowest priced offeror may not win the award. Price and past performance will be rated with past performance being more important than price.

Technical Ratings and Subfactors:

Technical proposals will received one of the following ratings after evaluation against the technical subfactors and the referenced terms of the Performance Work Statement.

1.1 Acceptable - Meets all specified technical capability requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance.

1.2 Unacceptable -Fails to meet one or more specified technical capability requirements. Proposals with an unacceptable rating are considered not awardable.

2. Proposals will be evaluated against the Technical factors and subfactors in accordance with the table below. The technical factors are equally important. Offerors shall address as specifically as possible the proposed methodology for accomplishing/satisfying these factors/subfactors. All requirements specified in the RFP’s Performance Work Statement (PWS) are mandatory. By proposal submission, the Offeror is representing that the Offeror can and will perform all requirements specified in the RFP’s PWS. Do not merely reiterate the requirements in the RFP’s PWS but instead, discuss how you will perform the requirements. The Proposal may not exceed 25 pages.

Table 1

Factor 1. Technical Capability: This area addresses the capability the Offeror proposes to meet the HAF Workflow Team Management requirements.

2.1

2.3

Factor 2. Past Performance: The Past Performance evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing aspects of the Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance, focusing on and targeting performance which is relevant in terms of scope, complexity, and magnitude as it directly relates to the work being procured under this solicitation. Past performance will be assessed on recency and relevancy.

Recent Performance. For the purposes of evaluation under this solicitation, the relevant effort must be ongoing or must have been performed within the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. The ongoing and/or performed effort must be at least 12 months in duration. Recency will be assessed with a rating of recent/not recent.

Relevant Performance. To be relevant, past performance must include efforts involving Services that are similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to efforts this solicitation requires. Table 1 – Subject Knowledge/Experience, illustrates how the Government will assess past performance with regard to scope, magnitude and complexity for subject matter experience.

Table 1. Subject Knowledge/Experience

0. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence (Neutral) as defined in Table 3 - Performance Confidence Assessments, below. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal Offeror. Offerors with no recent/relevant performance history or a performance record so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating "Unknown Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably (neutral).

Table 3. Performance Confidence Assessments

(b) Options. The price of the base year and all options will be included in the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Price will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance among all CLINs. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the CLIN or the option prices are significantly unbalanced.

(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, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of Provision) image1.wmf