Attachment 4 LSS Addendum 52.212-2 Evaluation Factors.doc

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2, EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

Addendum to 52.212-2, Evaluation -- Commercial Items

1. This acquisition will utilize the Performance Price Trade-Off (PPT) technique to make a best value award decision in which competing offerors’ past performance history will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to cost or price considerations. All proposals timely received will be evaluated in three (3) separate areas:

- Mission Capability

- Price

- Past Performance

a. Initially, the government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable, Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable, or Unacceptable.

b. Next, the government shall rank all technically Acceptable and Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable offers by price, including any option prices if applicable. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in Section B by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number to confirm the extended amount for each. Note: Unrealistically low proposals may be eliminated from competition and not considered for award.

c. An Integrated Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating of: Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, and Unknown Confidence will be accomplished as set forth in paragraphs d and e below.. The Integrated Past Performance Assessment Rating will be determined by combining two individual components: Relevancy and Quality of Past Performance.

d. If the lowest evaluated price, technically acceptable offeror is judged to have a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment that offer represents the best value for the government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers. The Government reserves the right to award only one or no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposal(s) submitted.

e. If the lowest priced, technically acceptable offeror’s Integrated Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating is less than substantial, the Government will consider a tradeoff between Price and Past Performance to determine which offer represents the best value to the Government. In these cases, the Source selection Authority shall use good business judgment in making the best value award decision.

f. The Government anticipates making award (s) without conducting 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 to be necessary by the Source Selection Authority.

2. MISSION CAPABILITY:

a. A decision on the technically acceptability of each offeror’s Mission Capability Proposals shall be made. Each proposal will be assigned a rating of:

(1) Acceptable: The Mission Capability Proposal meets all the minimum mandatory Mission Capability Proposal requirements in the solicitation. Only those proposals determined acceptable, either initially or as a result of exchanges will be considered for award.

(2) Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable: This Mission Capability Proposal does not meet some of the minimum mandatory Technically Proposals requirements in the solicitation; however, there is reason to believe that through exchanges an acceptable Mission Capability Proposal could result. For award without discussions these proposals are considered “unacceptable”.

(3) Unacceptable: The Mission Capability Proposal substantially fails to meet the minimum mandatory Mission Capability Proposals requirements in the solicitation. Mission Capability Proposals with an unacceptable rating will not be considered for award.

b. Each offeror must show evidence of a capability to provide the mandatory requirements set forth in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and elsewhere in this solicitation. A technical review team composed of key Government personnel will use their technical skills, knowledge and experience to thoroughly review the adequacy of the proposals. In evaluating the Mission Capability Proposal, the Government will use the following evaluation criteria:

(1) Compliance with the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and this entire solicitation.

(2) Understanding of the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and this entire solicitation.

(3) Compliance and understanding of the requirements of the PWS as applied specifically to each factor/sub factor listed below.

c. The following specific factors and sub factors will be evaluated in the Mission Capability Proposal. Any factor or sub factor determined unacceptable will render the entire Mission Capability Proposal as unacceptable. Upon final determination that a proposal is unacceptable, the Contracting Officer (CO) shall promptly notify the firm submitting the proposal that it will not be considered for award and shall indicate in general terms the basis for the determination. All offerors determined to be technically acceptable will receive an Integrated Past Performance Confidence Rating.

d. Mission Capability Evaluation Factors and Sub Factors are as follows:

SUB-FACTOR 1: Base Supply Description: This Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to providing effective and efficient Base Supply Operations in accordance with the requirements of the PWS and the Addendum to 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors.

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror:

1) The offeror shall demonstrate a comprehensive and clear understanding of the requirement by submitting a description of their approach to performing the Base Supply functions as outlined in the Performance Work Statement;

2) The offeror shall demonstrate a comprehensive and clear understanding of the requirement by submitting a brief description on how they intend to provide personnel that have all the qualifications, licenses and certifications to operate the Base Supply function as outlined in the Performance Work Statement;

3) Provides a workable organizational chart identifying positions and names of individuals likely to fill positions within the organization. The offeror shall provide a comprehensive narrative of qualifications for each individual.

4) Provides comprehensive and clear procedures and methods for accomplishing staffing a 24-hour per day, 7 day per week contingency operation in conjunction with normal day-to-day operations.

SUB-FACTOR 2: Transportation:

Element 2-1: Personal Property

Description: Personal Property: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to providing effective and efficient Personal Property in accordance with the requirements of the PWS and the Addendum to 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors.

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror:

1) Demonstrates a comprehensive and clear understanding of the requirement by submitting a description of their approach to performing personal property shipment/warehouse inspections;

2) Demonstrates a comprehensive and clear understanding of the requirement by submitting a brief description on how they intend to provide personnel that have all the qualifications, licenses and certifications to operate the Base Supply function as outlined in the Performance Work Statement;

3) Provides a workable organizational chart identifying positions and names of individuals likely to fill positions within the organization. The offeror shall provide a comprehensive narrative of qualifications for each individual.

Element 2-2: Freight Traffic Description: Freight Traffic: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to providing effective and efficient Freight Traffic in accordance with the requirements of the PWS and the Addendum to 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors.

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror:

1) Demonstrates a comprehensive and clear understanding of the requirement by submitting a brief description on how they intend to provide personnel that have all the qualifications, licenses and certifications to operate the Base Supply function as outlined in the Performance Work Statement;

2) Provides a workable organizational chart identifying positions and names of individuals likely to fill positions within the organization. The offeror shall provide a comprehensive narrative of qualifications for each individual.

3) Provides comprehensive an clear procedures and methods for accomplishing staffing a 24-hour per day, 7 day per week contingency operation in conjunction with normal day-to-day operations Element 2-3: Combat Readiness

Description: Combat Readiness: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to providing effective and efficient Combat Readiness in accordance with the requirements of the PWS and the Addendum to 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors.

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror:

1) Demonstrates a comprehensive and clear understanding of the requirement by submitting a brief description on how they intend to provide personnel that have all the qualifications, licenses and certifications to operate the Combat Readiness function as outlined in the Performance Work Statement;

2) Provides a workable organizational chart identifying positions and names of individuals likely to fill positions within the organization. The offeror shall provide a comprehensive narrative of qualifications for each individual.

3) Demonstrates a comprehensive and clear understanding of the Air Force Mobility process by describing adequate and executable procedures to be followed during a Mobility Mission.

4) Provides a comprehensive and clear procedures and methods for accomplishing staffing a 24-hour per day, 7 day per week contingency operation in conjunction with normal day-to-day operations.

5) Provides a comprehensive and executable procedures for to tracking the Deployment Sequence of Events (DSOC) to ensure on-time departures.

Element 2-4: Military Passenger Terminal

Description: Military Passenger Terminal: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to providing effective and efficient Military Passenger Terminal in accordance with the requirements of the PWS and the Addendum to 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors.

Measure of Merit: The element is met when the offeror:

1) Demonstrates a comprehensive and clear understanding of the requirement by submitting a brief description on how they intend to provide personnel that have all the qualifications, licenses and certifications to operate the Military Passenger Terminal functions;

2) Provides a workable organizational chart identifying positions and names of individuals likely to fill positions within the organization. The offeror shall provide a comprehensive narrative of qualifications for each individual.

Element 2-5: Commercial Travel Office Description: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to providing effective and efficient Commercial Travel Office Support in accordance with the requirements of the PWS and the Addendum to 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors.

Measure of Merit: This element will be met when the contractor provides a comprehensive plan for providing commercial travel office services in accordance with the PWS and the instructions provided in the Addendum to 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors.

SUB-FACTOR 3: Transient and Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE) Maintenance Element 3-1: Managing Multiple Concurrent Events Description: Managing Multiple Concurrent Events: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to manage simultaneously occurring events, including the offerors scheduling methodologies; mix of management, quality control personnel, support personnel, technicians to include skill types and levels; and equipment.

Measure of Merit: This element will be met when the offeror accurately and clearly demonstrates the ability to effectively manage multiple events that may occur simultaneously at different locations and adequately demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirement by describing their approach to scheduling methodologies; mix of management, quality control personnel, support personnel, technicians to include skill types and levels; and equipment in accordance with the PWS and the instructions provided in the Addendum to 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors.

Element 3-2: Maintenance and Utilization of Powered and Non-Powered Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE) Description: Maintenance and Utilization of Powered and Non-Powered Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE): The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to manage and utilize the AGE facility and equipment, including the appropriate mix of management, quality control personnel, support personnel, and technicians to include skill types and levels.

Measure of Merit: This element will be met when the offeror accurately and clearly demonstrates the ability to effectively manage multiple events that may occur simultaneously at different locations and adequately demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirement by describing their approach to management, quality control personnel, support personnel, technicians to include skill types and levels; and equipment in accordance with the PWS and the instructions provided in the Addendum to 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors.

Element 3-3: Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) Program Management Description: Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) Program Management: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to manage the Transient Maintenance organization’s HAZMAT program, including the appropriate mix of management, quality control personnel, support personnel, and technicians to include skill types and levels in accordance with the PWS and the instructions provided in the Addendum to 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors.

Measure of Merit: This element will be met when the offeror provides comprehensive and clear procedures and methods to effectively manage the Transient Maintenance organization’s HAZMAT program in accordance with the PWS and the instructions provided in the Addendum to 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors.

SUB-FACTOR 4: Precision Measurement Equipment Laboratory (PMEL) Element 4-1: Lab Certification by AFMETCAL.

Description: Lab certification by AFMETCAL. The Government will evaluate this element based on the offeror ability to obtain AFMETCAL certification as required in the PWS.

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the contractor provides clear procedures and methods for obtaining AFMETCAL certification as required in the PWS and the instructions provided in the Addendum to 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors.

Element 4-2: Transportable Field Calibration Unit (TFCU) and Jet Engine Test Cell Support (JETS).

Description: Transportable Field Calibration Unit (TFCU) and Jet Engine Test Cell Support (JETS). The Government will evaluate this element based on the offerors approach for performing calibration and repair of Test Measurement and Diagnostic Equipment (TMDE), using TFCU and JETS, for geographically separated units as specified in the PWS.

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the contractor provides clear procedures and methods for performing on-site calibration and repair of TMDE using TFCU and JETS as required in the PWS and the instructions provided in the Addendum to 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors.

Element 4-3: Onsite Calibration at WPAFB.

Description: Onsite Calibration at WPAFB. The Government will evaluate this element based on the offerors approach for performing onsite calibration and repair of TMDE for units located on WPAFB as specified in the PWS. Include in your approach the appropriate mix of personnel, equipment, supplies and vehicles to perform this service.

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the Contractor clearly and effectively demonstrates the ability to effectively perform onsite calibration and repair of TMDE at WPAFB and provides in accordance with the PWS and the instructions provided in the Addendum to 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors.

Element 4-4: Production Description: Onsite Calibration at WPAFB. Offeror shall provide approach for performing onsite calibration and repair of TMDE for units located on WPAFB as specified in the PWS. Include in your approach the appropriate mix of personnel, equipment, supplies and vehicles to perform this service.

Measure of Merit: The sub factor is met when the Contractor demonstrates the capability to timely calibrate and repair the inventory of TMDE supported by the WPAFB PMEL in accordance with the PWS and adequately demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirement by describing their appropriate mix of personnel, equipment, supplies and vehicles to perform the functions in accordance with the PWS and the instructions provided in the Addendum to 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors.

2. PAST PERFORMANCE:

a. If no past performance information is submitted as a part of the offeror’s proposal, the entire proposal will be considered non-responsive and will not be considered for award.

b. For those offerors who do not have any relevant past performance information to submit, a statement to that effect will satisfy the requirement for a past performance volume. In such a case, that offeror may be considered to have an unknown integrated past performance confidence assessment rating for evaluation purposes. However, if the Government has knowledge or gains knowledge through other sources regarding what the Government believes to be relevant past performance for an offeror who states they have none, such information may be used by the Government for evaluation purposes and a past performance confidence assessment rating will be assigned to that offeror’s proposal.

c. Responsive offerors will receive an Integrated Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating based on the offeror’s past and present performance as it relates to the probability of successfully accomplishing the required effort. The Integrated Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will be determined by combining two individual components: Relevancy and Quality of Past Performance.

(1) RELEVANCY OF PAST PERFORMANCE: Determined by comparing the offeror’s current and recent past performance (contracts that have not expired more than five (5) years ago) to the scope and complexity of the effort required by the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The Government is not bound by the offeror's opinion of relevancy.

(a) Relevancy information will be obtained from:

1. A review of each questionnaire submitted from Offeror’s sources assessing work which has been performed within the last five (5) years.

2. A review of contract performance information from electronic posting systems such as Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and information independently obtained by the Government through other sources.

3. A review of the information in the offeror’s past performance proposal.

(b) Each contract evaluated for Relevancy will receive one of the following ratings:

Highly Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved much of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant: Present/past performance contractual effort involved some of the magnitude of effort and complexities than this solicitation requires.

Not relevant: Present/past performance effort did not involve any of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(2) QUALITY OF PAST PERFORMANCE: Determined by examining documentation to identify how well the offeror actually performed on current and recent past contracts.

(a) Quality of Past Performance information will be obtained from:

1. A review of each questionnaire submitted from Offeror’s sources assessing work which is being or has been performed within the last five (5) years.

2. A review of contract performance information from electronic posting systems such as Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and information independently otherwise obtained by the Government through other sources.

3. A review of the information in the offeror’s proposal.

(b) Each contract evaluated for Quality will receive one of the following ratings:

Excellent: Performance meets all contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements.

Satisfactory: Performance meets all contractual requirements.

Marginal: Performance does not meet some contractual requirements.

Unsatisfactory: Performance does not meet most contractual requirements.

(3) INTEGRATED PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATING: Determined by subjectively integrating the overall Relevancy and Quality of Past Performance ratings. This final assessment rating of the offeror's past performance will be used by the Government in any price/performance tradeoff or best value award decision. Each offeror will receive one of the following Integrated Past Performance Confidence Ratings:

Substantial Confidence: Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence: Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence: Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has

A low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence: Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has

No expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully

Perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence: No performance record is identifiable or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. (See FAR

15.305(a)(2)(iv)

4. PRICE:

a. For evaluation purposes, the total evaluated price shall be the sum of all line items for the base period and both option years. Specifically, the total evaluation price will be the sum of CLINs 0001 –2026. Note: The proposed price for the Commercial Passenger Movements CLINS (0027, 1026 and 2026) will be the proposed transaction fee multiplied by the passenger movements quantity specified in each CLIN. For example, the evaluated price for CLIN 0027 will be calculated by multiplying proposed transaction fee by the 48,600 passenger movements identified in the CLIN. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

b. Price will be a substantial factor in the Contracting Officer’s decision. Selection will be based upon the most advantageous offer (price and other factors considered) and, though not necessarily the determinative factor, price will contribute substantially to the award decision. The basis of the proposed price must be compatible with all other elements of the proposal.

c. No advantage will accrue to an offeror who submits an unrealistically low price proposal. Such a proposal may be viewed as lacking understanding of the Government’s desired objective and may not be considered for award.

d. Since discussions are not contemplated, the offeror should submit his best price upon initial submission of the proposal.

5. SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACT PLAN.

a. The offerors proposed subcontracting plan shall include the elements required by FAR 19.704 and DFARS 219.704-2. The plan shall describe a realistic plan for maximizing the participation of small business, small disadvantaged business, women owned business, HUBZone small businesses, veteran-owned small business and HBCU/MI.

b. The offerors proposed subcontacting plan shall achieve goals of 30% for small business DoD goals of 5% for small disadvantaged business, 5% for women-owned business, 2% for HUBZone small business and 5% for veteran-owned small business.

c. The offerors proposed subcontracting plan shall include the targets for small disadvantaged business participation required by FAR 19.202-4 and identification of the small disadvantaged business concerns planned for use, the extent of commitment to those SDB concerns and the complexity and variety of the work planned for those small disadvantaged business concerns.

FA8601-10-R-0012, Attachment 4, 12 May 2010