03_Atch_2_52.212-2_v13.pdf

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 – ATTACHMENT 2

FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

a. Basis for Contract Award This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS).

These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical, Past Performance, and Price.

One contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with 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 FAR 52.212-1 of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government.

The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. Offerors' past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price considerations. Technical acceptability of all technical subfactors is a prerequisite to the tradeoff. The tradeoff will occur only between the past performance factor and the price factor, with performance being significantly more important than price. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below).

While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

b. Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award one (1) contract for the 377 LRS Base Supply Requirement.

c. Competitive Advantage from Use of GFP. The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror's proposed use of Government-furnished property (GFP) by providing a list of available GFP with the RFP.

d. 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 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

EVALUATION FACTORS

a. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

(1) The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Staffing Plan Subfactor 2: Individual Protection Equipment Element (IPE) Subfactor 3: Equipment Accountability Element (EAE) Subfactor 4: Nuclear Weapons Related Materials (NWRM)

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

(2) Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors.

For this solicitation, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the tradeoff between price and past performance. Technical subfactors are of equal importance and must all be found acceptable for an overall finding of technical acceptability. For all technically acceptable proposals, Factor 2-Past Performance is of equal importance to Factor 1-Technical.

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are:

significantly more important than price.

b. Technical Factor Each subfactor within the technical factor will receive one of the ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table C-1 – Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method, excerpted below.

Table C-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

To be determined technically acceptable at the factor level, the offeror must be rated acceptable in each subfactor. A subfactor will be rated acceptable when: all the corresponding elements of the subfactor are met within the parameters of the stated assumptions; and the proposal does not contain a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which are likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance such that it is unlikely to overcome any difficulties with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR15.DOC#b15304 performance. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Subfactor 1: Staffing Plan

An Offeror shall provide a description of its approach to and demonstrate its understanding of the Staffing Plan requirements as described in PWS paragraphs

1.1.6 through 1.1.10.

Specifically, an offeror shall describe its approach to and understanding of:

• An organizational chart which clearly defines lines of authority both local and at a company level

• A table which relates proposed positions with proposed labor categories.

• The proposed staffing plan shall provide evidence that the offeror understands the manning requirements as described in the PWS and the AFMAN/AFI 23 Series guidance.

• Cross-utilization of personnel shall not be allowed.

• The Offeror shall fully describe their plan for recruitment of initial and replacement of personnel to include how they determine recruits are fully qualified for the positions they are being considered for.

• The offeror shall identify their proposed method to recruit qualified personnel in order to reduce any gaps in service to a minimum as well as finding suitable replacements within 30 days of position vacancy

Subfactor 2: Individual Protection Equipment Element (IPE) The Offeror shall provide a description of its approach to and demonstrate its understanding of the tasks associated with management of Small Arms and a Light Weapons (SA/LW) secured vault as described in PWS paragraph 2.13 and 2.14,

2.14.2. and 2.14.3.

Specifically, an offeror shall describe its approach to and understanding of:

• 100% Positive Control of firearms IAW AFI AFMAN 23-122, Materiel Management Procedures, AFMAN 36-2655, AFI 31-101 (FOUO), AFI 31- 117, Arming and Use of Force by Air Force Personnel, AFI 36-2654, Combat Arms Program, AFCAT 21-209, AF Munitions Facilities Standard

Guide, DTR 4500.9-R Pt I, Defense Transportation Regulation, Passenger Movement, DoD 5100.76, TO 11W3-3-5-4 and TO 11W3-5-5-42.

• What qualifications are required for personnel to be fully qualified on Arming Procedures (IAW Reg Reference and the PWS paragraphs listed above) and how the offeror intends to comply with these described procedures in order to assure personnel maintain these qualifications and proficiency.

• Methods and procedures to issue and return deployment weapons

Subfactor 3: Equipment Accountability Element (EAE) understanding of the equipment management processes and responsibilities as described in PWS paragraph 2.6.

Specifically, an offeror shall describe its approach to and understanding of:

• Inventorying equipment maintained on Custodian Authorization/Custody Receipt Listing (CA/CRL)

• Date of Last Inventory (DOLI) as it pertains to Equipment/Details and the process of updating and managing the equipment details

• Surveillance methods, accountability, discrepancy reporting process and report follow-up

• Tracking of all other accountable assets not listed on CA/CRL in possession of responsible organizations

Subfactor 4: Nuclear Weapons Related Materials (NWRM) understanding of NWRM processes and responsibilities as described in PWS paragraph 2.16 and AFI 20-110, Nuclear Weapons-Related Materiel Management, AFI 23-101, AF Materiel Management, AFMAN 23-122, Materiel Management Procedures, AFH 23-123, V2, PT , ILS-S, Materiel Management Operations Specifically, an offeror shall describe its approach to and understanding of:

• Detail Transactions processes required to Ship and Receipt NWRM

• Handling and Storage of NWRM asset

c. Past Performance Factor The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

(1) Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one (1) of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA007183-10-DPAP.pdf

Confidence Assessments, excerpted below.

Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method Adjectival Rating Description

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 reasonable 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.

(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 contract’s requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in paragraph 2 of the Evaluation Factors. 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; interviews 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, have a performance record of at least one year, and must have been performed during the past five (5) 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 in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price factor, including their relative order of importance

(reference paragraph 2 of the Evaluation Factors). 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). In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information forms (PIFs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts (DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4):

Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the 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 past performance citation reviewed, information will be gathered from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. The quality of past performance information independently identified by the Government will also be considered. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory 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.

A separate quality assessment rating will not be assigned; rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating will be based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

d. Price Factor

(1) The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes, based upon the total price proposed for basic requirements (basic award) and all options.

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

(3) The following methods for price evaluation will be used

(a) All offers will be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced IAW FAR http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA007183-10-DPAP.pdf

15.404-1(g).

(b) Comparison of proposed prices of other offerors and the historical and Independent Government Estimate data.

Price will be evaluated on the basis of reasonableness, realism and balance. nrealistically low or high proposed prices, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement or has submitted an unrealistic proposal.

Additionally, unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal. Offers should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their reasonableness. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed prices rests with the offeror.

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.

(End of provision)

d. Price Factor