Attachment_2-Addendum_to_Clause_52.212-2_Evaluation_Factors_LPTA_.pdf

ATTACHMENT 2 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

2 Oct 15

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0. Source Selection (SS)

1.1. Basis for Contract Award

This acquisition will utilize Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable (LPTA) Source Selection procedures, with technical proposals. Technical tradeoffs will not be made, and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. Award will be made to the offeror who is rated “acceptable” in Factor 1 Technical, has the lowest evaluated cost or price, and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by FAR 52.212-1 and its Addendum of this solicitation). The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary by the Contracting Officer.

1.1.1. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below).

While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the Source Selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.1.2. This source selection is conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures 04 Mar 2011, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded:

The Government intends to select one contractor for this acquisition. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

1.3. Correction Potential of Proposals:

The Government will consider throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any proposal aspect evaluated as “unacceptable”. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror's proposal not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable or if the amount and/or complexity of the corrections needed to meet the Government requirement requires a major proposal revision, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1.4. Rejection of Offers

The Government may reject any evaluated proposal that fails to adequately address a significant portion of the requirement or contract terms and conditions. This may include rejection of a proposal that does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of the contract/program requirements and/or displays a fundamental lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of the program. All aspects/volumes of the proposals may be reviewed to ensure adequate resources to perform the proposed technical approach.

1.5. Competitive Range Determination

During the evaluation process multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition IAW FAR 15.505. A competitive range determination may eliminate Offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), prior to issuance of the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request, or for efficiency. If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505.

1.6. Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. Therefore, it is imperative that Offerors submit their best terms initially. However, 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 (ENs) and the FPR will be considered in making the Source Selection decision. If a Request for FPR is issued, Offeror responses to ENs for Volume I (Technical), Volume II (Price), and Volume III (Contract Documentation) must be incorporated in the FPR in order to be considered in the final evaluation. Failure to include EN responses in the FPR may result in a final “unacceptable” technical rating, or otherwise make your company ineligible for award.

1.7 Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements, in addition to those identified as factors and subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable, and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

2.0. Evaluation Factors

2.1.1. Evaluation factors 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 described below.

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Resource Management Subfactor 2: Phase-In

Factor 2: Price

2.1.2. Evaluation Methodology:

The Government will evaluate all factors concurrently for all proposals. Initial ratings and evaluated price will be established for each offeror. Only those offerors determined to be technically acceptable, either initially, or as a result of discussions will be considered for award. Award will be made to the lowest evaluated priced proposal meeting the acceptability standards for Factor 1 Technical, who has been determined responsible, and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by FAR 52.212-1 and its Addendum of this solicitation).

2.2. Factor 1 – Technical

Each subfactor within the technical factor will receive one of the ratings described below based on the criteria listed below. Individual subfactor ratings will be used to determine the overall technical acceptability of each offeror. To be determined technically acceptable at the factor level, the Offeror must be rated acceptable in each subfactor. A final unacceptable subfactor assessment will determine an overall technical unacceptable rating. The technical evaluation will also consider risk in determining overall acceptability. Risk pertains to the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. Risk will not be receive a separate rating, rather, it will be inherent within the subfactor ratings, and the overall Technical rating. The technical ratings are defined as follows:

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

2.2.1. Subfactor 1: Resource Management

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Resource Management approach.

Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential components with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance:

a. The proposed Contract Manager shall meet the qualification and experience requirements of PWS paragraph 1.5.3.1.

b. The proposed Courseware Developers shall meet the qualifications and experience of PWS paragraph 1.5.3.2.

c. The proposed Instructors shall meet the certification and experience requirements of PWS paragraph 1.5.3.3.

d. A total number of qualified instructors, which ensures all training estimates are met in accordance with Appendix B of the PWS.

2.2.2. Subfactor 2: Phase-In

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Program Management approach.

Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential components with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance:

a) An approach to manage and accomplish transition and phase-in, which ensures completion all workforce requirements within 60 calendar days IAW PWS paragraph 1.15.

b) An approach to provide the required contractor furnished equipment by contract start date IAW PWS paragraphs 1.12 through 1.12.3.

2.3. Factor 2 –Price

Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) reasonableness, (3) price realism, (4) unbalanced pricing, and (5) Total Evaluated Price. Offerors whose price is determined incomplete, unreasonable, or unrealistic will not be considered for award.

Additionally, an offeror’s price may be rejected, if it contains unbalanced pricing to the extent it poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.3.1. Completeness

For completeness, offerors must provide unit prices for all courses listed in the pricing maxtrix (Attachment 4-Class Price List) and all CLINs in Section SF1449-Continuation Sheet of the model contract. Incomplete proposals (without required unit prices) may render an offeror’s proposal ineligible for award.

2.3.2. Price Reasonableness

The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. Analysis of price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 in order to determine price reasonableness. Reasonableness must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business.

Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.

2.3.3. Price Realism

Proposed prices will be evaluated for price realism. To be realistic, the proposed price must demonstrate an adequate understanding of the requirement, and must ensure the price does not pose a risk to performance. Unrealistic prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition based on an apparent lack of adequate understanding of the requirement or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program. To evaluate price realism, the Government may use one or more of the the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404. The Government may also use other evaluation techniques, as needed. Offerors are cautioned to not use underbidding as a pricing strategy with the intention of recovering under-bid costs after contract award via Requests for Equitable Adjustments (REAs) or other devices.

2.3.4. Unbalanced pricing

Offerors’ proposals will be reviewed for unbalanced pricing. The Government will evaluate any supporting information provided by the Offeror explaining variances that appear unbalanced. Evaluated offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be deemed ineligible for award by the Contracting Officer if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as demonstrated by application of price analysis techniques, such that:

a) There is reasonable doubt the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the Government, even though it is the lowest priced Offeror; or

b) The offer is so grossly unbalanced; its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advanced payment.

2.3.5. Data Other than Certified Pricing Data

If requested by the CO, data other than certified pricing data shall be evaluated to support a determination of reasonable and balanced pricing. This information will only be requested if all other sources have been insufficient to support a determination of reasonable and/or balanced pricing.

2.3.6. Total Evaluated Price (TEP):

Pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with Section L pricing instructions.

The TEP calculation methodology is demonstrated below. Proposed pricing evaluated as the TEP is required in accordance with the following format.

The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the offeror’s proposed prices for sixty (60) day Phase-in Period, Ten (10)-month Base Period, four(4) one-year Option Periods and one six (6) Month Extension Period in accordance with FAR 52.217-8 “Option to Extend Services”. The six (6) Month Extension Period unit prices will be based on the proposed Option Period four(4) unit prices. The 6 (six) Month Extension Period under FAR 52.217-8 will only be utilized if necessary.

TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The 6 (six) Month Extension Period is not to be considered part of Option four (4) Period and will be a separate option exercise if it is utilized.

2.3.6.1. Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs (Section SF 1449-Continuation Sheet) of the model contract should reflect pricing proposed in the Price Volume (including pricing proposed in the Pricing Maxtrix) used to develop the TEP. Should discrepancies exist in unit prices between the hard copy and electronic copy of the price model, the hard copy will be used for the TEP.

2.3.6.2. For purposes of TEP calculation, the Best Estimated Quantities (BEQ) for each course is included in the Price Matrix, Attachment 4- Class Price List, and provides information to be utilized as a basis for proposing prices by contract periods for CLINs X001, the Basic Period and Option Periods. An Extension Period of six (6) months is also required, that pricing shall be based on the last Option Period unit prices. Extended Prices per CLINs X001 will be based on unit prices multiplied by the government provided BEQs. Extended Prices per CLINs X002 and X003 will based on unit prices mulitplied by the number of months for that period (example base period 10 months and option periods 12 months).

2.3.7. CLIN Structure:

Information provided below demonstrates the general CLIN structure of the requirements and explains details regarding instruction of submitting proposed pricing.

Explanation of calculation methodology is provided in Table 1 below. Pricing will be based on TEP evaluation that includes review for price reasonableness and balance. All supporting documentation provided in the Price Volume will also be considered as part of price evaluation. To develop the TEP for the contract, CLINs 0001 through 4003 will be proposed for evaluation and subsequent award purposes as follows:

Table 1 CLINs X001 Training Services- the Pricing Maxtrix, Attachment 4-Class Price List, shall be used for CLINs X001 proposed pricing. The proposed unit price for each class will be multiplied by the listed BEQs to determine the extended price for that class. The total extended prices for all classes will then be summed and totaled to determine the estimated total annual price for the Basic Period and all Option Periods, CLINs 0001, 1001, 2001, 3001 and 4001.

For the 6 (six) Month Extension Period, the proposed unit prices for each course in the Price model Attachement -for Option Year Four, CLIN 4001, will be multiplied by BEQs to determine the extended price for that class. The total extended prices for all classes will then be summed and totaled to determine the estimated total proposed price for 6 Month Extension Period.

The total proposed prices, resulting from the calculation method described above, will be summed to provide the TEP for Training Services.

CLINS X002 Courseware Development Support- the proposed monthly price will be based on a proposed hourly labor rate multiplied by 160 hours. The monthly proposed price will be multiplied by the number of months in that period (example base period will be 10 months and all option periods will be 12 months). The sum of these prices will result in the TEP for CLINs 0002, 1002, 2002, 3002 and 4002.

For 6 (six) Month Extension Period, the proposed monthly prices for Option Year Four, CLIN 4002, will be multiplied by 6 to determine the extended price. This price will reflect the TEP for 6 Month Extension Period.

The total proposed prices, resulting from the calculation method described above, will be summed to provide the TEP for Courseware Development Support.

CLINs X003 Program Support- the proposed monthly price will be multiplied by the number of months in that period (example base period will be 10 months and all option periods will be 12 months). The sum of these prices will result in the TEP for CLINs 0003, 1003, 2003, 3003 and 4003.

For 6 (six) Month Extension Period, the proposed monthly price for Option Year Four, CLIN 4003, will be multiplied by 6 to determine the extended price. This price will reflect the TEP for 6 Month Extension Period.

The total proposed prices, resulting from the calculation method described above, will be summed to provide the TEP for Program Support.

CLIN 0004 Phase-in- Proposed unit price to equal evaluated total. Evaluated total for Phase-in equals total for CLIN 0004.

The Final TEP will be calculated by summing the results of the TEP calculation for CLIN X001, CLIN X002 and CLIN X003 plus the proposed price for CLIN 0004, Phase In.

TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only; evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

2.3.8. Cost Assumptions Used in Development of Proposed Pricing The Government will review information provided in the Price Volume regarding cost assumptions utilized in the development of proposed pricing. Such information will be used to understand the offeror’s proposed pricing basis of estimate. Additionally, these assumptions help provide support for the Government’s determination of reasonable and balanced pricing.

2.3.9. Other Documentation Review

In reviewing proposed prices, all additional information from the Price Volume will also be considered. Offerors may provide any additional data other than certified pricing data as believed necessary to support, justify or clarify their proposed pricing.