POU_Section_M_draft_23_Feb_15.pdf

POU Program 23 February 2015

FAR 52.212-2 - ADDENDUM

EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

POINT OF USE PROGRAM (POU)

SOURCE SELECTION

1. BASIS FOR AWARD

1.1 This acquisition will utilize Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (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 acceptable offeror(s) with the lowest evaluated price, that is deemed responsible in accordance with (IAW) the FAR and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including all stated terms, conditions, representation, certification and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors and all other information required by FAR 52.212- Addendum, Instructions to Offerors (ITO), of this solicitation.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government intends to select one contractor for the Point of Use (POU) support program. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines it is in the Government’s best interest. If the Government determines to not award a contract the Government is not liable for costs incurred. The Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions.

1.3 Major Proposal Revisions: If a proposal receives an “Unacceptable” rating after initial evaluation and will require major revisions in order to meet the technical requirement, the Government reserves the right to exclude the offeror from the competitive range/or contract award.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

2. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS

2.1 The Government will evaluate the factors and sub-factors described below:

Factor One – Price Factor Two – Technical

Sub-factor One: Technical Approach – Management of Expendable Tools and Consumable Supplies Sub-factor Two: Resources Management Approach Sub-factor Three: Experience

Factor Three – Past Performance

2.2 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

2.2.1 An initial price evaluation will be performed for all offerors IAW this section and proposals will be ranked from lowest to highest price based on a Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

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

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

2.2.2.1 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.

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

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

2.2.3 Set a competitive range that may include some of the offerors

2.2.4 Continue evaluating additional officers

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

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

2.3 FACTOR ONE-PRICE (Volume I)

2.3.1 The pricing criteria used for evaluation are (1) Completeness, (2) Reasonableness, (3)

Balance, and (4)Total Evaluated Price.

2.3.2 Completeness – The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with FAR 52.212-1 Addendum, ITO , of the Request for Proposal (RFP).

Incomplete price submissions may not be evaluated and the proposal may be eliminated from the competition.

2.3.3 Reasonableness –The existence of adequate price completion is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness of the proposed fully burdened rates to include profit for all Labor and Consumable Supplies. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of the Government-obtained information, additional information IAW FAR 15.4 will be required to support the proposed price.

2.3.4 Balance- –Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more price elements, such as labor rates for the basic ordering period is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR 15.404-1. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced labor or consumable prices within the proposals. IAW FAR 14.404-1, offers that are determined to be unbalance may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Air Force.

2.3.5 Total Evaluated Price-The TEP worksheet (Section J Attachment 4) will be calculated for the evaluation of offers and will be a consideration in the award decision. The TEP is the sum of six years and six months (to include the option period) within the TEP worksheet, which will include fully burdened prices to include profit, for all labor and consumables items/tools prices. The offeror’s TEP will be computed and evaluated by the Government and will include a distribution of notional quantities for the entire projected terms of the contract, to include base period plus option period. The notional machine number lots size quantities will be applied to the offeror’s proposed yearly price by machine number lot size.

The notional consumable items/tools will be applied to the offeror’s proposed unit price.

The distribution of notional machine number lots and consumable items/tools quantities will be based upon the Government’s best estimate of projected workload over the term of this contract. The formula for application of notional machine lot size and quantities used 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 prices regardless of pricing arrangements are contractually binding.

2.4 FACTOR TWO-TECHNICAL (Volume II)

2.4.1 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 the Performance Work Statement (PWS) sections required in FAR 52.212-1 Addendum, ITO . The proposals will be evaluated for acceptability IAW the criteria set forth in this section. The technical proposal must convey to the Government that the offeror possesses adequate technical expertise and experience, 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 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. The offeror’s proposal shall not merely copy and paste, rephrase, or restate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

2.4.2 Technical Acceptability - The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals by assigning ratings of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable.” The technical factor as a whole will be rated “Unacceptable” if any single sub-factor is rated “Unacceptable.”

2.4.3 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 intends to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions. However, the Government may hold discussions if necessary.

Identify any best practices/innovations proposed. Proposals shall be evaluated against the following Sub-Factors:

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

2.4.4 Sub-factor One: Technical Approach –Management of Expendable Tools and

Consumable Supplies (PWS Para. 2)

2.4.4.1 The Management Approach is acceptable when the offeror’s proposal provides a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate that all requirements set forth in each of the Sections listed above have been defined and satisfied, and an explicit understanding and effective approach to all contractor management aspects of the POU support program. Management Approach consists of two plans: (a) Management of Expendable Tools and Consumable Supplies, (b) Quality Control Plan (QCP);

demonstrated technical approach for meeting the requirements set forth in the PWS Section 2 and requirements identified below:

(a) Management of Expendable Tools and Consumable Supplies: The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated based on the offeror’s demonstrated approach to accomplish the timelines and to meet requirements set forth in PWS Sections 2, as identified below:

i. Management of Expendable Tools and Consumable Supplies (PWS Para.

2.1)

ii. Management (PWS Para. 2.4.1.1, 2.4.1.2, and 2.4.1.2.1)

iii. Maintenance Support (PWS Para. 2.4.2.2, 2.4.2.2.1, 2.4.2.2.2, 2.4.2.3, and 2.4.2.5)

iv. Adequate and readily available storage / staging area(s) to restock levels in 1 business day. (PWS Para 2.1)

(b) Quality Control Plan (QCP): The offeror’s proposed QCP will address Quality Control requirements outlined in PWS Section 11. QCP is acceptable when the offeror provides a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate: (A) a methodology to ensure quality effectiveness and comprehensive management; (B) an established, and comprehensive, process to identify, track, report on, and analyze quality issues, risks, and trends; and (C) a strategy to identify and resolve deficiencies, identify potential improvements, maintain inspection documentation, and make quality control inspections and corrective actions available to the Government.

i. Quality Control Plan, (PWS Para. 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3)

2.4.5 Sub-factor Two: Resource Management Approach

2.4.5.1 The Resource Management and Staffing Plan are acceptable when the offeror provides a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate:

(A) a methodology for staffing to meet all requirements in the time frame required; (B) a comprehensive, realistic, overall strategy to include timeframes, training and security considerations.

2.4.5.2 Adequately address Resource Management and Staffing requirements in the PWS to clearly demonstrate ability to:

(a) Staff at a level which accomplishes requirements outlined in the PWS Sections 2 and 9 to include functions outlined below: Orientation/Transition Period- Ramp-Up Phase and

i. A reasonable methodology to maintain the availability minimum stock levels of 98% on day 1 after transition is complete.

ii. Illustrated how the Ramp-Up Phase will be achieved with time-lines and risk levels that would take no more than 60 calendar days to fully implement. IAW PWS Para. 9.1.1

iii. Methodology to meet all requirements of an orderly transition without impact on system operations at Hill AFB and Davis Monthan AFB in the time frame required.

iv. Provide a methodology of how initial inventory of expendable tools and consumable supplies (PWS Section 9.1.7) Hill AFB and Davis Monthan AFB are accounted for.

2.4.5.3 Demonstrated management approach must reflect a clear understanding of all management requirements, be capable of satisfying requirements, and be realistically achievable.

2.4.6 Sub-factor Three: Experience

2.4.6.1 Demonstrated experience in Tools and Consumable Management key elements listed below:

i. Maintain minimum individual item stock levels (PWS Para. 2.1,)

ii. Adding, deleting or changing POU machine Inventory (PWS Para. 2.2.3, 2.2.3.4, 2.2.4.2, and 2.2.4.3)

iii. Maintenance Support (PWS Para. 2.4.2.2, 2.4.2.2.1, 2.4.2.2.2, and

2.4.2.3, )

2.5 FACTOR THREE-PAST PERFORMANCE (Volume III)

2.5.1 Past performance information will be gathered from offeror submissions, Government databases such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and/or through the use of Government and commercial customer interviews and questionnaires.

Only recent and relevant past performance information will be considered.

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

2.5.1.2 Relevancy is defined as work that involves approximately the same types of services described in this RFP as well any work performed under a Federal Government Contract.

2.5.2 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/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “Acceptable.”

2.6 CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION (Volume IV)

2.6.1 This volume will be reviewed for completeness. The Offeror’s proposal shall include a signed copy of the Model Contract, Sections A through K, signed amendments to the solicitation (if any), and all other information required by FAR 52.212-1 Addendum, ITO ITO, Volume IV-Contract Documentation. An incomplete package may be excluded from the competitive range and/or no award.

2.6.2 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.

2.6.3 The proposal shall contain evidence that the offeror will be able to comply with the limitations on subcontracting in accordance with FAR 52.219-14.

2.6.4 Total Case Incident Rate (TCIR) and Days Away, Restricted and/or 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 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.

2.6.5 The Minimum Guarantee, in the amount of $1,000, will be satisfied through the award of the first task order.

3.0 DISCUSSIONS

3.1 It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions; 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 Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

4. SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

4.1 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.