OPS_Evaluation_Criteria_52.212-2.pdf

52.212-2 Addendum

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Overhead Production Services (OPS)

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15, 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, Appendix A. These regulations are available electronically at the AF FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the proposal with the lowest evaluated price from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors. Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror(s) who is deemed responsible IAW FAR Part 9.1 whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by 52.212-1f of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and sub-factors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal. While the Government 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. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award approximately five contracts for the OPS requirement.

However, the Government reserves the right to award more or fewer total contracts—or no contract at all—if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) 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.

If the Government determines to not award a contract, the Government will not be liable for costs incurred by offeror(s). The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make award(s) without discussions; however, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions if it determines that doing so would be 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) and the Final Proposal

Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

1.2. 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 sub-factors described below:

Factor One – Price

Factor Two – Technical

Sub-factor One – Technical Staffing Plan

Sub-factor Two – Security Staffing Plan

Sub-factor Three – Management Plan

Sub-factor Four – Transition Plan

Factor Three – Past Performance

2.1. Evaluation Methodology

2.1.1. An intial price evaluation will be performed for all offerors IAW this section and section 3.1 below. Proposals will be ranked from lowest to highest price based on a

Total Evaluated Price (TEP). In the event that a TEP cannot be calculated, the

Government may elect to set the offeror aside and continue evaluating other offerors with TEPs that can be calculated as detailed below, or to continue on with evaluations as described below without a TEP being calculated for the offeror.

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 a sufficient number of offeror(s) as determined by the Government are technically acceptable, have acceptable past performance and meet all other requirements of this solicitation, award may be made to those offeror(s) without discussions.

2.1.2.2. If a sufficient number of offeror(s) as determined by the Government are not technically acceptable or do not have acceptable past performance, then evaluations may continue and the SSA may:

2.1.2.2.1. Continue evaluating additional offers and award to the next lowest price technically acceptable offeror(s) with acceptable past performance; or

2.1.2.2.2. Establish a competitive range and enter into discussions. The contracting officer may determine the number of most highly rated proposals exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted. The competitive range may be limited for purposes of efficiency.

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. It is possible that higher priced offers may receive an award if lower priced offers are not technically acceptable, or do not have acceptable past performance. It is also possible that offeror(s) may not be considered for award if the TEP cannot be calculated.

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. VOLUME I - FACTOR ONE - PRICE FACTOR

3.1. The pricing criteria used for evaluation are (1) Reasonableness, (2) Balance, and (3) Total

Evaluated Price.

3.1.1. 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.

3.1.2. Balance - 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 sub-line 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.

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 52.217-9, Option to Extend the Term of the Contract). To determine the price for the period covered by FAR clause 52.217-9, 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. Government determined elements of the notional formula WILL NOT be disclosed to offerors. A no bid or an omitted rate may result in an incomplete price submission. An omitted rate may result in proposal elimination. The TEP is for evaluation purposes only, however all proposed rates are contractually binding as Not-to-Exceed prices for issuance of task orders.

3.1.3.1. The rates submitted in a Section J Attachment will also be evaluated to ensure they meet or exceed the rates in the applicable Service Contract

Labor Standards Wage Determination.

3.1.3.2. The Government will also evaluate whether the clause 52.222-43 -- Fair

Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Labor Standards -- Price

Adjustment (Multiple Year and Option Contracts) was followed in that the contractor warrants that prices in a Section J Attachment do not include any allowance for any contingency to cover increased costs for which adjustment is provided under 52.222-43. SCLA base labor rates shall not include inflation.

4. VOLUME II - FACTOR TWO - TECHNICAL FACTOR

4.1. The Technical Volume will be evaluated for acceptability IAW the criteria set forth in this section. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding requirements. 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

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. The offeror’s proposal shall not merely copy and paste, rephrase, or restate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

4.1.1. 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.” Technical factors will be rated on an “Acceptable” or

“Unacceptable” basis using the following ratings:

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

4.1.2. 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.

4.2. Sub-factor One: Technical Staffing Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable).

4.2.1. The proposal is technically acceptable when the offeror provides a level of detail and supporting documentation of a clear methodology, which demonstrates how use of identified techniques and procedures will result in qualified personnel possessing the capabilities and experience at a skill level which accomplishes the

Minimum Team Complement (MTC), PWS para 2.3., and the requirements outlined in following PWS sections:

4.2.1.1. Depot Maintenance Management Support – PWS paragraph 3.1.

(Overview), 3.1.1., 3.1.1.1- 3.1.1.3., 3.1.3., 3.1.5. Depot Maintenance

Production Support – PWS paragraph 3.2. (Overview), 3.2.1. (Planning)

3.2.2. (Scheduling), 3.2.3. – 3.2.3.3. (Material Support)

4.2.1.2. Depot Maintenance Controlled/Serialized Material Support – PWS paragraph 3.3. (Overview), 3.3.2., 3.3.3., 3.3.11., 3.3.15

Note: Appendices E & F are provided for informational and duty familiarization purposes.

4.3. Sub-factor Two: Security Staffing Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable).

4.3.1. The proposal is technically acceptable when the offeror provides a level of detail and supporting documentation of a clear methodology which clearly demonstrates and substantiates how the offeror will provide a workforce that possesses the appropriate security clearance upon the start of the Task Order Period of

Performance IAW PWS paragraph 10.0.( Overview), 10.1., & 10.2.

4.4. Sub-factor Three: Management Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable).

4.4.1. The proposal is technically acceptable when the offeror provides a level of detail and substantiates how the offeror will adequately and effectively manage and supervise its workforce and provide a quality standard reporting and deficiency resolution plan IAW PWS paragraph 2.1., 2.2., 6.1.2., & 6.2.2. (QSP)

4.5. Sub-factor Four: Transition Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable).

4.5.1. The proposal is technically acceptable when the offeror provides a level of detail how the offeror will meet all staffing needs necessary to meet all requirements of an orderly transfer or stand up of new workload and continuous operation without negative impact on Government operations in the time frame required. The methodology shall be comprehensive and include an overall transition strategy to include timeframes, training and security considerations IAW PWS paragraph

6.3.(Overview), 6.3.1. – 6.3.1.1.4.

5. VOLUME III - FACTOR THREE - PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

(Acceptable/Unacceptable).

5.1. Past performance information will be gathered from offeror submissions and Government databases (e.g., Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contractor

Performance Assessment Reports System (CPARS), and/or through the use of

Government and commercial customer interviews and questionnaires, etc.). Only recent and relevant past performance information will be considered. Performance as subcontractor may be included; the offeror shall include contract number and prime contractor. Offeror may use past performance of subcontractor to satisfy recent and relevant past performance. 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. Recency - is defined as performance within the last three years from the date of the issuance of the solicitation. The Government will not consider performance on contracts where performance was concluded more than three years prior to the solicitation issue date or contracts awarded. The contract/task order in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance if any part of the contract performance falls within the three year timeframe.

5.1.2. Relevancy - is defined as work that involves approximately the same type(s) of services described in the RFP, PWS, 52.212-1 Addendum, and 52.212-2

Addendum. The offeror shall address any performance problems/issues as instructed in 52.212-1 Addendum and explain the corrective action taken or current status.

5.1.3. 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.

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) 541611. 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. The Government intends to award without discussions. Therefore, it is imperative that offerors submit their 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.