Attachment_03_52_212-2_Addendum.docx

52.212-2 Addendum Evaluation Factors for Award Instructional System Development and Training Services (ISDTS)

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This acquisition will utilize procedures in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12 - Acqusition of Commercial Items and FAR Part 13 - Simpified Acquisition Procedures, to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government will select the lowest priced, technically acceptable Offeror, based upon an evaluation of technical, past performance, and price. A contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by 52.212-2, and this Addendum, of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the best value to the Government. Technical tradeoffs will not be made, and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability requirements. The Government intends to award one firm-fixed price, commercial Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract for for training needs analysis, instructional system design, courseware development, training support, and instructional process improvement services at at Hill Air Force Base (AFB) Utah, their customers, and geographically separated units (GSUs). Contract terms and conditions consistent with customary commercial practices are specified in the solicitation/contract, with otherwise tailored terms and conditions specified in the solicitation attachments.

1.1. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to select one small business contractor within the 8(a) program to support the ISDTS Program; however, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals, prices submitted, and the availability of funds, or if the Contracting Officer (CO) determines it is in the Government’s best interest. The CO will consider the Government’s expected volume of work, available funding, adequate competition, and the availability of best value proposals. If the Government determines to not award a contract, the Government is not liable for any proposal costs incurred . The Government intends and reserves the right to award a contract without interchanges; therefore, it is imperative that Offerors submit their best pricing and proposal terms initially. If during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold interchanges, written Offeror responses to interchanges will be considered in making a decision.

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 – Program Management Plan Sub-factor Two – Resource Managanement Plan Sub-factor Three – Transition Plan Factor Three – Past Performance This acquisition is being conducted subject to FAR part 12 and 13 in which the Government will select the lowest priced, technically acceptable Offeror, based upon an evaluation of technical, past performance, and price, whereby trade-off between non-price factors and price will not be permitted. Accordingly, the relative importance of non-price evaluation factors to price, does not pertain to this acquisition.

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 a TEP cannot be calculated, the Government may elect to set the Offeror aside and continue evaluating other Offerors with TEPs which 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 two lowest priced Offerors.

2.1.2.1. If a sufficient number of Offeror(s) as evaluated by the Government as technically acceptable, have acceptable past performance and meet all other requirements of this solicitation, award may be made to such Offeror without interchanges.

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 CO may:

2.1.2.2.1. Continue evaluating additional offers and award to the next lowest priced technically acceptable Offeror with acceptable past performance; or

2.1.2.2.2. Enter into interchanges with the Offeror(s) that are not technically unacceptable or do not have acceptable past performance. The Government may conduct interchanges with some, none, or all Offerors at its discretions. However, the offeror is reminded that it is the Government’s intent to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without interchanges.

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 receive an award if the TEP cannot be calculated.

3. VOLUME I - FACTOR ONE - PRICE

3.1. The Government will rank all technically acceptable offers by the proposed Total Evaluated Price (TEP) as calculated below. The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the following:

3.1.1. Reasonableness - Price reasonableness is generally established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through cost or price analysis techniques. The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable. For additional information, see FAR 31.201-3. In general, price reasonableness is an assessment of whether or not the price is too high. Unreasonably high pricing may give the Government cause to eliminate a proposal from consideration.

3.1.2. Balance - Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items or unit ordering quantities is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced. A proposal may be rejected if it is determined that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable program risk to the Government. The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are balanced. An offer 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 ordering period. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only; evaluation shall not obligate the Government. Government determined elements of the notional formula WILL NOT be disclosed to Offerors. A no proposal 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 Section J Attachment #7 TEP Worksheet, 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

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 copy and paste, 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.

4.1.1. The Government technical evaluation team will 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:

4.1.2. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of interchanges, will be considered for award. Offerors are reminded that the Government intends to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without interchanges; however, the Government may hold interchanges if necessary.

4.2. Sub-Factor One: Program Management 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 for ISDTS Program Management or a similar type of training program, PWS paragraph 2.0 and subparagraphs 2.1-2.4. The Offeror’s proposal also includes verifiable past examples of:

4.2.1.1. Multiple-site program and personnel management, PWS paragraph 2.0

4.2.1.2. Outsourcing with commercial training organizations, industrial companies, colleges, universities and agencies, PWS paragraph 2.2

4.3. Sub-Factor Two: Resource Management 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 manage retention, recruitment, hiring, and turnover processes, in new and existing workload conditions IAW PWS paragraph 2.5 and Appendix B.

4.3.2. 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 and is able to maintain the appropriate security measures and protocols upon the start of the Task Order period of performance IAW PWS paragraph 5.15 and all subparagraphs.

4.3.3. The professional employee compensation plan and supporting information will be evaluated per FAR 52.222-46 to assure it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. Failure by the offeror/populated joint venture/each joint venture partner in an unpopulated joint venture to submit this professional employee compensation plan will result in the offeror being considered as failing to meet the request for proposal (RFP) terms and conditions.

4.4. Sub-Factor Three: Transition Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable).

4.4.1. The proposal is technically acceptable when the Offeror provides a level of detail and supporting documentation of a clear methodology which clearly demonstrates how the Offeror will provide all staffing needs necessary to meet all requirements of an orderly 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 plan for contract Phase-In and Phase-Out procedures IAW PWS paragraph 6.0 and all subparagraphs

5. VOLUME III - FACTOR THREE - PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR (Acceptable/Unacceptable).

5.1. Past performance information will be gathered from Offeror submissions and Contractor Performance Assessment Reports System (CPARS). , Based on the CO’s discretion, past performance may also be gatheredthrough 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.

5.1.4.

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. 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 completed sections; Supplies or Services and Prices/Cost, all required prices shall be proposed in the Section J Attachment #7 TEP Worksheet; Contract Clauses; Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of Offeroros; 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. The Offeror’s proposal will be reviewed for submission of Total Case Incident Rate (TCIR) and Days Away, Restricted and Transferred (DART) rates, or, injury and illness rates for North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 611430. 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. INTERCHANGES

7.1. The Government intends to award without interchanges. 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 interchanges, written Offeror responses to interchanges will be considered in making an award 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.