LSS_52_212-2_Final_10Feb_2015.pdf

52.212-2 Addendum

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Logistics Support Services

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This acquisition will utilize Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2, as supplemented. 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, satisfactory past performance and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements. The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation. The Government intends 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 Source Selection Authority.

1.1. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to select one contractor for the performance of Logistics Support Services. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract if the Source Selection Authority determines that it is in the Government’s best interest considering the expected volume of work over the period of the contract, available funding, the need to sustain adequate competition, the quality of proposals and prices submitted, and the availability of best-value proposals following completion of evaluations of the proposals received.

1.2. Rejection of Unrealistic Offers

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in price when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

1.3. Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any proposal uncertainty. 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, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

2. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

The Government will evaluate for acceptability the factors and subfactors described below:

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm%23P25_3805

- Factor One – Price

- Factor Two – Technical o Subfactor One – Technical Staffing Plan o Subfactor Two – Security Staffing Plan o Subfactor Three – Management Plan

- Factor Three – Past Performance

2.1. Evaluation Methodology

2.1.1. An intial price evaluation will be performed for all offerors in accordance with this section and proposals will be ranked from lowest to highest price based on a Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

2.1.2. Next, a technical and past performance evaluation will be performed beginning with the lowest priced offeror(s).

2.1.2.1. If the lowest price offeror is technically acceptable, has acceptable past performance and meets all other requirements of this solicitation, award will be made to that offeror.

2.1.2.2. If the lowest price offeror is not technically acceptable or does not have acceptable past performance, then evaluations may continue and the SSA may:

2.1.2.2.1. Award to the first technically acceptable offeror with acceptable past performance; or

2.1.2.2.2. Set a competitive range that may include some of the offerors

2.1.2.2.3. Continue evaluating additional offerors

2.1.2.3. Under the scenarios described above, it is possible that higher priced offers will not be evaluated for technical and past performance acceptability.

2.1.2.4. Technical and past performance evaluation of an offeror does not ensure inclusion in a competitive range, if one is set.

3. PRICE FACTOR

3.1. The pricing criteria used for evaluation are (1) completeness, (2) price reasonableness, (3) Balance, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

3.1.1. Completeness – The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L of the RFP. Incomplete price submissions will NOT be evaluated and the proposal may be eliminated from the competition.

3.1.2. Price Reasonableness – The Offerors price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 (Proposal Analysis Techniques).

Generally, adequate price competition will satisfy the criteria for price reasonableness.

3.1.3. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) – The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the proposed rates applied to notional hours for all years for the base period and options (including FAR clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services). To determine the price for the period covered by FAR clause 52.217-8, the Government will include in the TEP a price for a 6-month period. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only; evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The TEP is for award purposes only and is not contractually binding;

however, all rates that comprise the TEP are contractually binding and thus all rates must be populated. An omitted rate may result in proposal elimination. The formula for application of the notional hours WILL NOT be disclosed to offerors. A no bid or an omitted rate may result in an incomplete price submission. The TEP is for evaluation purposes only, however all proposed rates are contractually binding.

3.1.4. Unbalanced Pricing – Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items or subline items. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

4. Technical Factor

4.1. The Technical Volume will be evaluated for acceptability in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section. The Offeror’s Technical Volume must convey to the Government that the Offeror is capable, possesses adequate technical expertise and experience, possesses sufficient resources, and is able to plan, organize, and use those resources in a coordinated and timely fashion to meet the needs of the Government. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Technical Volume to ensure that each requirement in the PWS is addressed adequately. The Technical Volume shall explain how the contractor will accomplish/satisfy the requirements. The Technical Volume shall NOT simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet the requirements in the PWS. If an Offeror rephrases/restates the PWS, their Technical Volume will be unacceptable.

4.1.1. The Government Technical Evaluation Team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning one of the ratings in the table below. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The Offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion. The proposals shall be evaluated against the Technical Subfactors and all requirements found in the PWS.

Rating Description

Acceptable The proposal meets specified minimum requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance.

Unacceptable The proposal fails to meet specified minimum requirements necessary for contract performance. Proposals with an unacceptable rating are not awardable.

SUBFACTORS: Offeror is required to address the specific paragraphs listed, excluding “Overview” parapgrahs. The proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactor criteria:

4.2. Subfactor One: Technical Staffing Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable).

4.2.1. The proposal is technically acceptable when it identifies a methodology or plan, which clearly demonstrates the techniques and procedures required to provide qualified personnel that possess the capabilities and experience at skill level which accomplishes the requirements outlined in following PWS sections in conjunction with the Standards of Work (Appendix E) :

4.2.1.1. Depot Maintenance Production Planning Support – PWS para 2.1 (Overview), 2.1.1, 2.1.2.1.1, 2.1.3, and 2.1.7

4.2.1.2. Depot Maintenance Production Scheduling Support – PWS para 2.2 (Overview), 2.2.1 and 2.2.4

4.2.1.3. Depot Maintenance Production Material Support – PWS para 2.3 (Overview), 2.3.3, 2.3.5, 2.3.6, and 2.3.9

4.3. Subfactor Two: Security Staffing Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable).

4.3.1. The proposal is technically acceptable when the offeror provides a methodology or plan which clearly demonstrates the ability to provide a workforce that possesses the appropriate security clearance upon the start of the Task Order Period of Performance IAW PWS para 8.2. The proposal must detail a sound methodology or experience or combination in obtaining personal security clearances to be acceptable.

4.4. Subfactor Three: Management Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable).

4.4.1. The proposal is technically acceptable when the offeror identifies a methodology or plan which clearly demonstates the ability to adequately and effectively manage and supervise its workforce and provide a process for identification, reporting, and resolution for quality and personnel issues IAW PWS para 5.2.

5. PASP PERFORMANCE FACTOR (Acceptable/Unacceptable).

5.1. Volume III – Factor Three – Past Performance

5.1.1. Past performance information will be gathered from offeror submissions and

Government databases (e.g., Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), customer interviews, etc.). Only recent and relevant past performance information will be considered. Subcontracting may be included; the offeror shall include contract number and prime contractor. If this is a first time joint venture, each party to the joint venture must provide a list of past relevant contracts (maximum of three).

5.1.1.1. Recency is defined as performance less than three years old. The Government will not consider performance on contracts or task orders where performance was concluded more than three years prior to this solicitation’s issue date.

5.1.1.2. Relevancy is defined as work that involves similar types and complexities of services described in the RFP. For subcontracting and contracting teaming arrangements also include information on the portion of work performed by the offeror that is considered most relevant in demonstrating the ability to perform the proposed effort.

5.1.2. Past performance will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis using the following 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. (See note below).

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.

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 or unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “Acceptable.”

6. Volume IV – Contract Documentation

6.1. This volume will be reviewed for completeness. The offeror’s proposal shall include a signed copy of the Model Contract and Solicitation, Sections A through K, signed amendments to the solicitation (if any), and all other information required by FAR 52.212-1 Instruction to Offerors (ITO) - Addendum “Contract Documentation.” An incomplete package may be excluded from the competitive range.

6.2. The proposal shall contain evidence of adequate financial resources. Acceptable evidence normally consists of a commitment or explicit arrangement that will be in existence at the time of contract award, to acquire the needed materials, equipment, personnel and other resources necessary to sustain operations.

6.3. Total Case Incident Rate (TCIR) and Days Away, Restricted and Transferred (DART) rates, or, injury and illness rates should be equal to or lower than the most recently published Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) national average for North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 541614. For offerors that do not possess three years of consecutive recording data, submit this information for the time period you do possess.

Other comparable data from a recognized agency, such as workers compensation, insurance rates, etc., for the same time period is also acceptable.

6.4. Safety Plan will be reviewed for compliance with applicable Clauses, regulations and

PWS requirements.

7. DISCUSSIONS

7.1. It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions; therefore, it is imperative that offerors submit its best offer 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 Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

8. SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS

8.1. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.