Attachment_5-Addendum_52_212-2_Evaluation.pdf

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

ADDENDUM FAR 52.212-2

EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

1 SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with 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, 04 March 2011 and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 04 May

2011. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (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 who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Addendum to FAR

52.212-1 of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, 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.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The government intends to award one contract for the Kirtland Air Force Base (KAFB) Nuclear Surety Scheduling

Program. However, the government also reserves the right to make no award at all.

1.4 Discussions

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. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

1.5 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers

The government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in price when compared to government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

1.6 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

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 factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

2 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability, but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors or subfactors.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Integrated Scheduling

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

2.2 Technical Factor

The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

To be considered technically acceptable and ultimately eligible for award, the proposal must be rated Acceptable in all subfactors. The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1: The offeror shall provide a narrative or capability description, not to exceed two (2) pages, describing the offeror’s knowledge and experience in developing and maintaining complex, resource loaded integrated master schedules and in performing schedule risk assessments. The narrative shall describe:

Knowledge and experience developing and maintaining complex integrated master schedules between two (2) or more entities or Government agencies using Microsoft Project containing at least 500 lines of scheduling event data;

and

Knowledge and experience determining the probability of schedule impact(s); and communicating identified failure points with recommended mitigation courses of action

In addition to the narrative, the offeror shall also provide the following:

A screen shot, milestone chart, or other schedule documentation, not to exceed two (2) pages, that clearly shows multiple agencies, total events, and/or critical path determination for a schedule containing at least 500 lines of scheduling event data.

2.3 Past Performance Factor

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Offerors must receive a past performance rating of “Acceptable” to be eligible for award.

(1) Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the ratings described below.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL 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.

TABLE 2- PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 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

(2) Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the solicitation requirements. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the

Government, to include, but not limited to: the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); Federal

Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System

(eSRS), or other databases; and interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee

Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

(i) Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(ii) Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price factor.

For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor or teaming partner.

The past performance information forms (PIFs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

TABLE 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

(iii) Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will also consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 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.”

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/dfars/dfars215.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_215.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm

52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports an unsatisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

TABLE 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Quality Assessment/Color Description

SATISFACTORY (S)/GREEN During the contract period, contractor performance is substantially meeting (or substantially met) contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

UNSATISFACTORY(U)/RED During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

NOT AVAILABLE(N)/WHITE Quality and/or performance information is not available.

(3) Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated past performance rating at the factor level (see Table 2). More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Past Performance rating than less recent effort.

2.4 Price Factor

Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable, unbalanced, or unaffordable may not be considered for award.

(1) The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated...

..., for award purposes, based upon the total price proposed for basic requirements (basic award).

(2) Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

(3) Reasonableness: The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

(4) Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices, variable quantity matrix factors, and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(5) Affordability: The Government will evaluate whether each offeror’s Cost/Price proposal is affordable by comparing the total proposed price (or for FPI contracts the maximum contract Government liability) to the budgetary information included in the solicitation. The evaluation shall be made on the basis of a separate comparison for each fiscal year of the contract as well as a comparison between the total price (or proposed maximum contract Government liability) and the total budgetary information included in the solicitation.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_215.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_215.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/31.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm