Attachment_5_-_52.212-2_Addendum_dated_5_FEB_15.docx

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION - COMMERCIAL ITEMS

1. GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing offerors past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price considerations. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors. All technically acceptable offers will be considered technically equal. The tradeoff will occur only between the past performance factor and the price factor. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows.

1.2. Two Awards: The Air Force intends to award two separate contracts as a result of the issuance of this solicitation. Proposals for either Technical Order Support (Attachment 1) or Logistics Management Administrative Support (Attachment 2) will be evaluated separately. If a single offeror is awarded both efforts, two separate contracts will still be issued.

1.3. The government intends to evaluate proposals and award the two contracts without clarifications/discussions. The government reserves the right to conduct clarification/discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

1.4. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in FAR 52.212-1 Addendum. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their offer (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

1.5. 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.

2.0. EVALUATION CRITERIA

2.1. For each effort, the government intends to evaluate the three lowest total evaluated priced offers first. Technical Acceptability will be evaluated next. If at least three, technically acceptable offers have not been identified, then the next lowest total evaluated price offer will be evaluated. The next lowest total evaluated priced offer will continue to be evaluated until there are at least three technically acceptable offers. Finally a Performance Confidence Assessment will be accomplished for each technically acceptable offer. The Source Selection Authority reserves the right to continue the evaluations until more than three technically acceptable offers have been identified.

2.2. If the lowest priced evaluated, technically acceptable offer 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. In the event, the lowest priced technically acceptable offer has less than a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment the Source Selection Authority shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision, considering the proposals that have been evaluated.

2.3. The government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offer if the lowest priced offer is judged to have a performance confidence assessment of "Satisfactory Confidence" or lower. In that event, the Source Selection Authority shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

2.4. Price Evaluation. Initially, offers shall be ranked according by Total Evaluated Price, including all option prices. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in price list by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number or Subcontract Line Item Number to confirm the extended amount for each. The Total Evaluated Price includes the extend price for each CLIN, stated price for Travel CLINs, and all options. Offerors whose total evaluated price is unreasonable (in accordance with FAR 15.404 and FAR 31.201-3), or unbalanced (in accordance with FAR 15.404-1) may not be considered for award. Offerors proposal must comply with 41 U.S.C. Chapter 67, Service Contract Labor Standards. If applicable, offerors proposal adequately justified use of non Department of Labor Wage Determination labor categories.

2.5. Technical Acceptability. Next, the government shall evaluate the technical proposals submitted by the lowest priced offerors, following the process identified in paragraph 2.1 above, on a pass/fail basis, assigning a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable described below to each subfactor. The proposals shall be evaluated against the following sub-factors. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable; therefore, unawardable. The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

2.5.1. .Sub-factor 1: Management

2.5.1.1. The offeror’s staffing plan adequately addressed all required elements identified in FAR 52.212-1 Addendum Paragraph 2.3.1.1. (including sub paragraphs) and clearly demonstrated how the offeror’s proposed staff adequately supports the requirements of the PWS.

2.5.1.2. The offeror’s Transition Plan clearly and adequately demonstrated how full performance will be achieved by 1 MAY 15, including how all security clearance requirements will be met.

2.5.1.3. The offerors subcontracting plan, if required to submit, demonstrated compliance with all requirements identified in FAR 19.704 and 52.212-1 Addendum paragraph 2.3.1.3.

2.5.1.4. The offeror affirmatively asserted that they have a Top Secret Facility Clearance as required by Attachment 3, DD254 DoD Contract Security Classification Specification.

2.5.2. Sub-factor 2: Technical Approach The offerors’ technical approach clearly and adequately demonstrated how all requirements described in the PWS will be accomplished with specific attention addressing the requirements identified in FAR 52.212-1 Addendum para 2.3.2 for the appropriate Attachment.

2.6. Performance Confidence Assessment. Finally, the contracting officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information on the lowest priced, technically acceptable offers (IAW Paragraph 2.1 above) for each effort based on (1) the past efforts provided by the offeror, critical subcontractors, teaming partners and/or joint venture partners and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources.

2.6.1. 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 (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails these conditions will not be evaluated.

2.6.2. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving Firm Fixed price Technical Order Support or Logistics Management Administrative Support service contracts that involved similar scope, magnitude of effort and complexities that this solicitation requires. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5, excerpted below. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be assessed as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. Offerors with no recent/relevant performance history or if the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating "Unknown Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably (neutral).

TABLE 5- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Substantial Confidence Based on the offerors 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 reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) 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

2.6.3. In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation.

Attachment 5 - Page 4 of 4