FA8517-21-R-0001 Section M_Final.pdf

SECTION M PROVISION

TRADEOFF PROCEDURE

(PAST PERFORMANCE AND PRICE TRADEOFF)

FA8517-21-R-0001 – 8(a)

M-900. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will use the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS

215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award up to three of the contracts in the 8(a) pool of 3PEP providers, and there will also be 3PEP program reserves established as described in paragraph Phase 1. Tradeoffs may be made between past performance and price, with past performance considered significantly more important than price, although price remains an important consideration in the evaluation. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. “Offerors” are considered to be distinct, separate, legal entities regulated by their state of incorporation and possessing either 8(a) or small business status as determined by the Small Business Association. These distinct, separate, legal entities may propose on either FA8517-21-R-0001 8(a) or FA8517-21- R-0002 (SB) but not both. Award will be made to the responsible offeror(s) whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph II below.

Note: Offerors are instructed to propose on either FA8517-21-R-0001 (8(a)) or FA8517-21-R-0002 (Small Business), but not both. Offerors submitting a proposal under both RFPs may be determined noncompliant with the terms and conditions of the RFPs and may be determined to be not eligible for award under either RFP.

NOTICE TO OFFERORS: The Government intends to award up to three contracts for 8(a) as a result of the Third Party Equipment Purchasing (3PEP) solicitations. To ensure the Government maintains effective competition throughout the contractual period of performance, the PCO may use two phases in the 3PEP acquisition process.

Phase I: The 3PEP Program intends to award up to three contracts to the 8(a) Program participants, and identify at the time of award Program Reserves. Program Reserves will consist of up to three contractors that provide the best value to the Government of all the non-awarded offerors, in accordance with the Evaluation Basis for Award provision, as stated in paragraph I.A. If the PCO determines at any point within the contract period of performance that it is in the best interest to increase the current pool of 3PEP Program participants, the Government will offer contract(s) to the Program Reserves until the 3PEP Program participant pool is at a level deemed acceptable by the PCO. The PCO has the sole and full discretion in determining the number of Program Reserve contracts to award based upon the need for increased competition, excessive workloads, poor performance, reduction in participant pool, and/or other bases deemed appropriate by the PCO. Also, if deemed appropriate by the PCO, 3PEP providers in the 8(a) pool that graduate from the 8(a) program during performance of this contract will be afforded the opportunity to be included into the Small Business Set Aside (SBSA) Program Reserve pool. This Program Reserve process will be bilateral, requiring contractor acceptance for contract formation. The resulting contract will not exceed the remaining period of performance for this contract, will include the same terms and conditions of the resultant contract, and will share in the aggregate ceiling of the 3PEP Program. The award of a contract to a Program Reserve only entitles that contractor to the minimum award as outlined within this contract. The identification of a contractor as a Program Reserve does not create any obligation for the Government or the contractor and will not be the basis for a claim of equitable adjustment. Likewise, the awarding of a contract to a Program Reserve contractor is a contemplated future action and not a basis for challenge, claim, or protest by the existing 3PEP Acquisition Program participants. If Program Reserves are no longer able to participate, the

Government reserves the right to add new contractors into the 3PEP Program Reserve pool through a new competition.

Note: Immediately upon elevation of a Program Reserve to Program Participant, the Contractor is eligible to submit a proposal in response to subsequent Price Lists and receive task order awards with the same rights and obligations as any other Contractor.

Phase II: The PCO will determine whether it would be in the Government’s best interest to initiate an open season to add additional Contractors to any of the 8(a) pools at any time, subject to the following conditions:

1. An open season notice is published in https://www.beta.sam.gov in accordance with FAR Part 5, Publicizing Contract Actions.

2. An open season Solicitation is issued under current Federal procurement law.

3. The Solicitation identifies the total anticipated number of new contracts that the Government intends to award.

4. Any Offeror that meets the eligibility requirements set forth in the open season Solicitation may submit a proposal in response to the Solicitation.

5. The award decision under the open season Solicitation is based upon requirements and the same evaluation factors/sub-factors as the original Solicitation, subject to minor differences determined necessary by the contracting officer.

6. An Offeror’s proposal must meet all of the requirements of the original Solicitation.

7. Although the award decision regarding the open season Solicitation will be based upon the evaluation factors set forth therein, C. Volume II, Past Performance Factor, the overall terms and conditions of any resulting awards will be identical to the existing version of the 3PEP 8(a) Pool and,

8. The period of performance term for any new awards is equal to, and not to exceed, the existing current term for all other awardees.

Note: The current 3PEP awardees are exempt from the open season competition in Phase II.

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by volume):

A. General

1. Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions, however the Government reserves the right to hold discussions as outlined FAR 15.306. If the PCO determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the PCO, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. Completed RFP: Volume I, Completed RFP shall be evaluated to ensure the RFP and any amendments issued are signed, and all “fill-in” clauses and provisions are completed as required. The cover letter shall be evaluated to determine the number, types, and accompanying rationale of exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions. The Government reserves the right to determine any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions as being non-compliant with the stated solicitation requirements and thus render the proposal not eligible for award.

C. Volume II, Past Performance Factor

1. General: The past performance assessment, limited to four (4) active or completed efforts in the past five (5) years, will assess the offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture members’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. For purposes of this https://www.beta.sam.gov/ evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

2. Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

a) Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume.

Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).

The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

b) Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror and/or joint venture member has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

c) Critical Subcontractors: The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture members’ present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any subcontractor(s) even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement or be considered critical to the delivery of timely 3PEP orders.

d) 4. Key Personnel: The evaluation of offeror’s/joint venture members will not consider key personnel.

e) Confidence Assessments: Subsequent to the Government’s assignment of relevancy ratings to each effort identified in the offeror’s Volume II, the Government will make a confidence determination of the offeror’s capabilities to successfully perform the 3PEP effort. Confidence assessments will be determined from all the information provided by the offeror, as well as information that the Government obtains from their customers, Government databases, and other credible sources. The Government may consider an offeror’s contracts in the aggregate in the assessment of a confidence rating should the past and present performance data lend itself to this approach. That is, if an offeror performed multiple contracts concurrently (in part or in whole), such may be considered in the assignment of the overall confidence rating. Then considering the offeror’s respective role and their work in aggregate, a confidence assessment rating will be assigned for the team as a whole.

3. Ordering Type Contracts Submission: In an ordering type contractual vehicle, performance is demonstrated at the order level (i.e. a delivery/task order). Therefore, in accordance with Section L, if the contract you are submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, including but not limited to an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), the offeror should have submitted an individual delivery/task order (or series of orders) for evaluation, in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. An IDIQ/Requirement basic contract in itself is not relevant because it does not include an approved funding obligation. The Government shall use the information submitted for each order (or series of orders) to evaluate the effort’s recency, relevancy, and quality.

3.1 Series of Orders: If a series of orders was submitted for evaluation, in lieu of the basic ordering contract, the offeror should have provided the total dollar value, total period of performance, and total quantity produced.

• The Government shall add up all total dollar values in the series of orders to arrive at a Total Dollar Value for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

• The Government shall add up the period of performance of each order to calculate the Total Period of Performance for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

• The Government shall add up the total quantity for each order to calculate the Total Quantity Produced for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

The Total Dollar Value, Total Period of Performance, and Total Quantity Produced/Managed, for the series of orders, will be used to evaluate the submitted effort’s programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, as described in Section M, Paragraph II.C.4 Note. As explained in Section M, Paragraph II.C.4. Note, the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort and complexities will be evaluated to arrive at a Relevancy Rating for the effort. The more orders in the series of orders, the higher the potential programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort could be. There is no limit of orders an offeror may submit.

Caution: All orders within the series of orders being submitted should contain the same continuous scope. These orders within the series of orders should demonstrate relevance to the instant acquisition. The Government reserves the right to request additional information from the offeror of POC provided, in order to verify that the series of orders is for the same continuous scope.

4. Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of each contract submitted for evaluation. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent four (4) submitted contracts. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s Volume III of its proposal:

• VERY RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Each very relevant effort shall demonstrate at a minimum:

o Sourcing of at least 300 items or more that demonstrate the same, or similar, Federal Stock Classes, as identified in the 3PEP Statement of Work, and included o A pool of at least 50 vendor and/or subcontractors, and, o An accumulative period of performance of at least 5 years.

o Estimated Per Unit Minimum Cost: $40

• RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Each relevant effort shall demonstrate at a minimum:

o Sourcing of at least 100 - 299 items or more that demonstrate the same, or similar, Federal Stock Classes, as identified in the 3PEP Statement of Work, and included o A pool of 20 - 49 vendor and/or subcontractors, and, o An accumulative period of performance of at least 3 years and up to 5 years.

o Estimated Per Unit Minimum Cost: $30

• SOMEWHAT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved limited scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Each somewhat relevant effort shall demonstrate at a minimum:

o Sourcing of at least 25 - 99 items or more that demonstrate the same, or similar, Federal Stock Classes, as identified in the 3PEP Statement of Work, and included o A pool of 1 - 19 vendor and/or subcontractors, and, o An accumulative period of performance of at least 1 year and up to 3 years.

o Estimated Per Unit Minimum Cost: $20

• NOT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

A contract is defined as an agreement between two parties that includes a period of performance, scope of work, and an approved funding obligation. An IDIQ/Requirement basic contract in itself is not relevant because it does not include an approved funding obligation. However, an IDIQ/Requirement order, or series of orders, may be considered relevant based on the above definitions of relevancy.

NOTE: The Scope of effort in the above definitions not only includes the NSN complexities identified for each effort within the 3PEP RFP, but also includes, but not limited to, quantity managed and length of effort, along with a track record of delivering equipment items commensurate to those required under the 3PEP program, per the SOW.

The main elements of the scope and magnitude shall include, but not be limited to, the demonstrated ability to do the following:

a. Manage qualified vendors to ensure they meet performance and quality requirements.

b. Evaluate adequacy of data/drawings as they relate to sourcing the items.

c. Shall provide electronic ordering and tracking of items with the Government.

d. Increase the utilization of qualified SB manufacturers and vendors to the maximum extent practical.

e. Respond to pricing actions on the buy list.

When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the complexities, and the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort as separate aspects. If both of these aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract effort, the overall relevancy rating assigned to that contract may be affected. For example, if the submitted contract meets essentially the same complexities, but involves only limited scope and magnitude of effort, a lesser relevancy rating may be assigned.

5. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below.

Adjectival Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a moderate expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no 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 and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral”. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

6. Small Business Compliance in Past Performance Efforts: Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated the offeror’s/joint venture member’s compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns. That is, on the four (4) respective contracts submitted for evaluation by the offeror/joint venture member, when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the offeror/joint venture member award subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. (Please note that FAR 52.219.8 does apply to ALL offerors). If none of the contracts submitted by the offeror/joint venture members included this clause, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror/joint venture member policy to use small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

D. Price Factor. The offeror’s proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance in accordance with paragraphs A and B below. A Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated in accordance with paragraph C.

A. Reasonableness: The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government-obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.4 may be required to support the proposed price.

B. Balance: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. An overstated or understated CLIN price may be due to (a) illogical progression of rates, factors or unit prices, (b) unit prices that do not take into account quantity variations, or (c) the “front loading” of CLINs; either of these situations would reflect an inaccurate “true” cost for that CLIN. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced line items or sub-line items. Prices submitted will be compared and evaluated to ensure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each offeror’s response to the pricing structure in RFP Attachment 7 (Price Proposal Matrix). Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

C. TEP: The sum of the evaluated prices for each Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLIN will represent the TEP. The evaluated CLIN prices will be calculated as follows:

a. All dollar amounts provided shall be rounded to the nearest whole dollar.

b. Proposals shall be evaluated, for award purposes only, based upon the total price proposed for the basic requirements (basic award) and other price-related issues. The TEP shall include all costs associated with providing the final item to the Government. Each item will have two (2) firm fixed prices: Freight on Board (FOB) origin (no transportation costs (TC)) and FOB destination (to include TC). The unit price of each item will include the offeror’s service cost, commercial packaging and associated transportation costs as applicable, and any costs associated with Unique Identification (UID), as appropriate. The prices shall be identified as FFP for each item as identified below. No additional cost for items will be paid by the Government at the time of evaluation or during contract performance.

c. Offerors are to submit pricing for following:

i. 8(a): The Government will release ninety (90) items for offerors to price. Each offeror must submit a price for a minimum of seventy percent (70%) of the items (63 items). Offerors submitting a price for less than 70% of the items may cause their proposal to be determined to be noncompliant with the terms of the RFP and determined to be not eligible for award. After reviewing all 90 items, the Government will create a subset consisting only of items that all offerors have priced. Any items with a Technical Support Request (TSR) submission will not be included in the subset. The Government will then use for evaluation purposes only the subset, consisting only of items that all offerors have priced, to calculate unit prices in accordance with the formula in the paragraph below. Offerors are advised that the evaluation of item prices shall not obligate the Government to award each item.

d. For evaluation purposes only, unit prices will be calculated using the following formula:

i. Total evaluated unit price = ((B+C)/2).

ii. Total evaluated item cost = total evaluated unit price * E.

Note: Column A in the example below consists only of items that all offerors have priced.

The example above is provided for demonstration purposes only. The Government-estimated quantities and prices contained within are arbitrary numbers. The example is in no way reflective of the actual/total requirements as defined in the RFP. It is provided only as a means of identifying how the various types of calculations will be performed.

A B C D E F

NSN

FOB Origin

(No TC)

FOB Destination* (First destination TC within CONUS)

Total Evaluated Unit Price

Government Projected Quantity

Total Evaluated Item Cost

1234-00-123-9876 $ 1,200 $ 1,250 $ 1,225 5 $ 6,125 1234-00-123-9877 475$ 490$ $ 483 12 $ 5,796 1234-00-123-9878 52,125$ 54,250$ $ 53,188 1 $ 53,188 1234-00-123-9879 20,650$ 22,400$ $ 21,525 9 $ 193,725

Total Evaluated Price (TEP) = 258,834$ *Second destination Transportation Account Code (TAC) provided for USAF OCONUS shipments.