Addenda to 52.212-2.doc

Addenda to FAR 52.212-2

Evaluation Criteria for the

Acquisition of Commercial Items

For the

AN/FMQ-19 Automated Meteorological System (AMS)

28 Sept 2011

Section Content:

1.0 - Source Selection

2.0 - Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

3.0 - Volume I – Executive Summary

4.0 - Volume II – Technical Proposal

5.0 - Volume III – Price Proposal

6.0 - Volume IV – Performance Confidence

7.0 - Volume V – Contract Documentation

1.0 Source Selection

1.1 Basis for Contract Award: This acquisition will utilize Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. Award will be made to the technically acceptable offeror with the lowest evaluated price, and acceptable performance confidence assessment, which is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulations (and supplements) and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements. As part of the responsibility determination an offeror may be determined non-responsible if their property management system is determined to be non-compliant IAW FAR 45.105 and DFARS 245.105. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) are available electronically (http://farsite.hill.af.mil). The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the Instructions to Offerors (ITO) of this solicitation. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. All offers shall be evaluated for technical acceptability, price and performance confidence assessment. Failure to meet any criteria in any subfactor shall result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable in its entirety. While the Government’s 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 evaluation.

1.2 Award Without Discussions: It is the Government’s intent 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 the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines that discussions are in its best interest. 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) incorporated in the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

1.3 Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government intends to award one Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract for the AN/FMQ-19 Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) Program. 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.

1.4 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers: The Government may reject (as unacceptable) any proposals that DO NOT conform to the instructions provided in the RFP.

1.5 Correction Potential of Proposals: The Government may consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency. “Deficiency” is defined as a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

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 easily correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competition in accordance with FAR 15.306(c).

1.6 Government Furnished Property (GFP): The Firm Fixed Price on Line Item 0004 will include packaging and shipping all GFP from the incumbent contractors’ locations to the offeror’s company. The solicitation contains a description of all Government property that the offeror will have access to, based on the GFP availability at that time. The actual GFP provided at time of award may differ slightly depending on usage of existing GFP between solicitation and award timeframe and procurement of additional GFP between solicitation and award time frame. Use of Government property not already identified as part of this RFP is not authorized, unless the final GFP list applicable at contract award is different.

2.0 – Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

2.1 The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the acceptable offeror with the lowest evaluated price, which is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements based upon an assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor A: Technical Approach

Subfactor B: Management Approach

Subfactor C: Experience

Factor 2: Price

Factor 3: Performance Confidence

2.2 Evaluation Methodology: All factors will be evaluated in parallel. Once the initial evaluation of all volumes of all proposals has been completed, a determination will be made whether to enter discussions or not. If a decision is made to award without discussions or once discussions conclude and Final Proposal Revisions are made, the following approach will be utilized:

Step 1: Evaluate for technical acceptability and price reasonableness.

Step 2: Assess performance confidence for each offeror.

Step 3: Rank all proposals by price.

Step 4: Award will be made to the offeror with the lowest evaluated priced proposal meeting the acceptable ratings for the non-price factors, and who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104.

3.0 Volume I – Executive Summary

3.1 The Government shall ensure that each proposal includes a signed certification by the offeror concerning the inadvertent release of nonpublic information in accordance with ITO, paragraph 3.2.4 (refer to ITO, Attachment 1, Certification Statement for Inadvertent Release of Nonpublic Information). An offeror's failure to provide the certification required by ITO paragraph 3.2.4 as part of the proposal shall require the government to determine the offeror ineligible for award under this solicitation. Furthermore, an offeror shall be ineligible for award under this solicitation, if it is determined by the Government that an unfair competitive advantage has been created in favor of the offeror as a result of unauthorized or improper reliance or usage of nonpublic information by the offeror in developing the proposal. See FAR 9.5.

3.2 To be considered and evaluated for award, an offeror shall submit everything identified in Paragraph 3.2.4 of ITO "other information required" and the verifications must be acceptable.

4.0 Volume II Technical Proposal

4.1 Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability: The proposals must demonstrate a thorough understanding of the requirements as listed and offer complete technical solutions to all portions of the PWS. The Government may make a final determination as to the offeror’s capability to perform based on the proposal as submitted without requesting further information from the offeror. Award will be made to the offeror with the lowest evaluated priced proposal meeting the acceptable ratings for the non-price factors.

4.2 Factor I – Technical Acceptability: The SSEB shall evaluate all technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable.” Failure to meet any criteria in any Subfactor – in the Technical Acceptability Factor – results in an offer being determined technically unacceptable in its entirety. The proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactors:

(a) Technical Approach

(b) Management Approach

(c) Experience

Technical Acceptability/Unacceptable Ratings

The technical evaluation provides an assessment of the contractor’s capability to satisfy the Government’s PWS requirements. The PCO will notify contractors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range or from further consideration for award.

4.3 Technical Acceptability Factor

4.3.1 Sub-Factor A: Technical Approach – Logistical Support and Computer Resource Support (PWS Section 4 and Section 5)

4.3.1.1 Proposals will be evaluated based on offeror’s demonstrated technical approach for meeting the requirements set forth in the PWS, Sections 4 and 5 requirements identified below:

· Contractor Performance – ability to meet Up-Time Ratio (PWS para 4.1)

· Helpdesk (PWS para 4.2)

· Reliability and Maintainability – including, but not limited to, Obsolescence and System Designs, Enhancements, and Upgrades (PWS para 4.3)

· Rationale for how the resolution proposed for obsolescence will be fully completed while still continuously meeting all CLS requirements

· Spares – including, but not limited to, establishing inventory levels to meet service tiers A and B (PWS para 4.4)

· Support Equipment (PWS para 4.5)

· Repair (PWS para 4.6)

· Configuration Management (PWS para 4.7)

· System Manuals/TOs (PWS para 4.8)

· Site Installation Physical Design (PWS para 4.9)

· Government Furnished Property Management (PWS para 4.10)

· Engineering Change Proposals/Special Projects (PWS para 4.11)

· Training/Training Materials (PWS para 4.12)

· Packaging, Handling, Storage, and Transportation – including, but not limited to, meeting CLS service tiers A and B (PWS para 4.13)

· Computer Resource Support (PWS para 5.1)

· Security Accreditation (PWS para 5.2)

· Time Compliance Network Orders (PWS para 5.3) An acceptable approach shall provide a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate: (A) that all requirements set forth in each of the specific bullets listed above have been considered, defined and satisfied; (B) an explicit understanding of all technical requirements; (C) that the offeror is capable of satisfying requirements; (D) that the offeror’s approach is realistically achievable; and (E) if the technical approach utilizes subcontractor(s), the prime contractor is responsible for performing the primary and vital requirements.

4.3.2 Sub-Factor B: Management Approach – Program Management and Configuration Management (PWS Section 3 and Section 4)

4.3.2.1 Proposals will be evaluated based on offeror’s demonstrated management approach and must reflect a clear understanding of all management requirements, be capable of satisfying requirements, and be realistically achievable. The Management Subfactor consists of five plans entitled: (a) Program Management Plan (PMP); (b) Transition Plan; and (c) Configuration Management Plan (CMP); (d) Quality Assurance Plan; and (e) Safety Plan.

(a) Program Management Plan (PMP). The offeror’s proposed PMP shall be evaluated to ensure that PWS Section 3 criteria is met.

An acceptable approach shall provide a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate: (A) that all processes and programs by which the contractor will effectively execute the requirements of the PWS have been considered, defined and satisfied; (B) an organizational chart of all key contractor employees, consultants and subcontractors that contains the appropriate level of expertise and skill mix for the successful performance of the FMQ-19 program; (C) an explicit understanding and methodology for the performance of special projects; (D) that the plan is realistically achievable; (E) how contractually required parts will be obtained from FMQ-19 OEMs; and (F) how the offeror will maintain contractually required communication with the Contracting Officer’s Representatives (CORs) in the form of IPTs, PMRs, TIMs, etc.

(b) Transition Plan. The offeror’s proposed transition plan shall be evaluated to ensure that PWS Section 3 criteria is met.

An acceptable Transition Plan (and Sub-Plans) shall provide a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate: (A) a methodology and staffing planned to meet all requirements of an orderly transition without negative impact on system operations in the time frame required; (B) a comprehensive, realistic, overall strategy to include timeframes, inventory relocation, capital investment considerations, including installation of indoor and outdoor components of the mock-up from incumbent contractors; and (C) a reasonable methodology to maintain the FMQ-19 at an availability up-time-ratio (UTR) of 96% on day 1 after transition is complete.

(c) Configuration Management Plan (CMP). The offeror’s proposed CMP shall be evaluated to ensure that PWS Section 4 criteria is met.

An acceptable CMP shall provide a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate: (A) a methodology to maintain software and configuration for 110 FMQ-19 systems worldwide; (B) a methodology to maintain hardware configuration for 110 FMQ-19 systems worldwide; and (C) a comprehensive, realistic, overall strategy to identify, test, provide data, integrate and field obsolescence based modifications.

(d) Quality Assurance Plan (QAP). The offeror’s proposed QAP shall be evaluated to ensure that PWS Section 3 criteria is met.

At a minimum the QAP shall provide a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate: (A) a methodology to address quality issues and risks; (B) a complete cross-reference matrix of contract requirements to contractor operating instructions/work instructions; and (C) a comprehensive, feasible, overall strategy to track corrective actions, analyze trends, and maintain quality assurance records and data.

(e) Safety Plan. The offeror’s proposed Safety Plan shall be evaluated to ensure that PWS Appendix A criteria is met.

At a minimum the Safety Plan shall provide a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate a comprehensive, feasible, overall strategy to track corrective actions, analyze trends, and maintain safety and data in accordance with Appendix A.

4.3.3 Sub-Factor C: Experience

4.3.3.1 Proposals will be evaluated based on offeror’s demonstrated experience in Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) services specifically related to weather systems, in accordance with the key elements listed below:

· Meteorological System Logistics Support: IAW PWS para 4.1 - 4.13

· Reliability and Maintainability (Obsolescence, System Design Changes, Enhancements, and Upgrades), Systems Engineering, and Configuration Management: IAW PWS para 4.3

· Computer Resource Support IAW PWS para 5.1

· Time Compliance Network Orders: IAW PWS para 5.3

· Security Accreditation - DoD Information Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process (DIACAP): IAW PWS para 5.2

The at least one year of continuous experience (within the past five years), the plan for transition of core personnel, and the resumes shall demonstrate experience with the key elements listed above. This must be demonstrated with substantiative documentation (a document or documentation that can be independently substantiated); anecdotal evidence will not be counted as acceptable.

An acceptable approach shall provide a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate related evidence of experience with the key elements set forth in the ITO, paragraph 4.3.3.1 and a feasible method to integrate new core personnel into the team to ensure smooth technical transition of expertise and continuity.

5.0 Volume III – Price Proposal

The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) calculated as stated in paragraph 5.2. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for the criteria of Reasonableness and Balance.

5.1 Evaluation Criteria

5.1.1 Reasonableness: The proposed prices and all labor rates will be evaluated for reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it will represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

5.1.2 Balance: The Government may also determine a proposal unacceptable should the proposed prices, including labor rates, be materially unbalanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques as those defined by FAR Part 15.404-1.

5.2 Total Evaluated Price: A TEP will be calculated for use in evaluation of offers and will be a consideration in the best value award decision. The TEP will be the summation of all firm-fixed priced contract line items, to include all ordering periods as well as the six-month option to extend services clause 52.217-8; calculation method of each contract line item total is discussed below. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only; the TEP is not representative of the actual contractual value. (Note1: The Government will utilize the offeror’s “TEP worksheet” submission, and TEP worksheet, in its evaluation. Note 2: The offeror shall recognize that the firm fixed unit prices the offeror submits on the “TEP Worksheet” must consistently match the line item schedule pricing on the Standard Form 1449, which will be contractually binding.)

(a) CLIN X001 Contractor Logistics Support (CLS): The Government will evaluate the price for CLIN X001 by selecting a notional service tier - Tier A or B (undisclosed to offerors) from the TEP Worksheet (Service Tier Pricing tab) and multiplying the monthly price of that tiered availability by a Government selected notional number of months (undisclosed to offerors) for each ordering period of CLIN X001. Different notional service tiers can be used for different notional number of months of a specific ordering period of CLIN X001, and this will be done for each of the ordering periods (including the 6 month extension option). All offerors will be evaluated using the same undisclosed tiered availability and months. Notional hours will be based on historic information that the Program Office adjusts to be consistent with what the Program Office independently considers realistically possible. The Government will input the notional quantities of each ordering period in the appropriate cell in the TEP worksheet, and they will be added together.

(b) CLIN X002 Contract Delivery Requirements List (CDRL): The Government will include the offeror’s proposed CDRL price in the TEP.

(c) CLIN X003 Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs)/Special Projects: The Government will evaluate the price for the ECPs/Special Projects CLIN by selecting a notional, undisclosed number of labor hours and labor categories and multiply the respective fully burdened Fixed Labor Rates (offeror provided rates from the Fixed Rates Tables tab located in the Attachment 7 TEP Worksheet) by the undisclosed hours. Different notional, undisclosed number of labor hours and labor categories can be used from each of the ordering periods (including the 6 month extension option), and each of ordering periods will be evaluated. The prices from the ordering periods will be added together.

(d) CLIN 0004 Transition: The Government will include the offeror’s proposed transition price in the TEP.

6.0 Volume IV – Performance Confidence

The Government will evaluate the current and past performance of all offerors. The Performance Confidence evaluation assesses on a pass/fail basis whether the Government has confidence in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs based on a demonstrated record of performance, including schedule. The Government will consider the offeror-submitted information, as well as information obtained from any other sources, when evaluating the offeror past performance.

Performance Confidence Assessment

record is unknown. (See note below.)

Note: In the case of an offeror 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 (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

6.1 Evaluation Process: The performance confidence evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. Performance Confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical Acceptability Subfactors A and B (technical approach and management approach). The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to an individual contract basis. In conducting the Performance Confidence evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Performance Confidence proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS) (or other databases) interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources. The evaluation of past performance information will take into account information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the acquisition and will be considered in the evaluation.

6.1.1 Recency Assessment: An assessment of the performance confidence 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 three years from the date of issuance of this Solicitation. Performance confidence information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

6.1.2 Relevancy Assessment: The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts/projects relate to the applicable technical subfactors. The Relevancy attribute that has been defined in the table below and ITO, Attachment 3, Past Performance Information Sheet (PPIS) and Attachment 5, Roles and Responsibilities Worksheet (if applicable) shall be utilized to determine the relevancy of a particular offeror’s (up to five for prime contractors and up to three for subcontractors) contracts/projects. In the event that third party performance information is obtained (e.g., from PPIRS) the Government will utilize the same relevancy definition (if relevancy is not clear, the Government may communicate with the applicable offeror to determine the contract’s/project’s relevancy). The Government will evaluate Past Performance projects identified in the PPIS, Attachment 2 of the ITO and Roles and Responsibilities Worksheet on attachment 5 of the ITO.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

The offeror’s completed PPIS (refer to Attachment 2, Past Performance Information Sheet) will be the SSEB’s primary tool to consider relevancy (though additional information may be utilized).

6.1.3 Performance Quality Assessment: The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the applicable technical acceptability subfactors (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). The quality assessment consists of an evaluation of all past performance information received from the offeror, and may consider information available from third parties. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than acceptable rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation may consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. The government will review offeror’s response to ITO, paragraph 6.7 to evaluate offeror’s ability to isolate and resolve past issues. Adverse comments to which the offeror hasn’t previously had the opportunity to respond will be addressed via communications, or in discussion (if applicable).

7.0 Volume V – Contract Documentation

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal to ensure they have submitted all required documentation identified in Paragraph 7.0 of ITO (Contract Documentation).

7.1 Pre-Award Survey: The Government may conduct a pre-award survey (PAS) as part of source selection activities. Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be used in determining each offeror's capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation based on current capability observations.

7.2 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions: In addition to meeting the identified factors and sub-factors, in order for offerors to be rated acceptable they are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements specifically stated in the addenda for 52.212-1 and 52.212-2 to be eligible for contract award. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the complete solicitation may result in the offeror being rated unacceptable and removed from consideration for award.

52.212-2 Addenda-11 (of 11)