Attachment_9_-_BATMAn_52.212-2_Eval_10_Feb_17.pdf

FA9451-15-R-0029

FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Items

Attachment 9

FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation -- Commercial Items (Oct 2014)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

Price Technical

Past Performance

Technical and past performance, when combined, are approximately equal to price.

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of Provision)

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Items

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This section defines the criteria the Government will consider in its evaluation of an offeror’s proposal submitted for the Business and Technology Management Administration (BATMAn) acquisition. This is a 100% 8(a) small business set-aside competitive acquisition. The applicable NAICS is 561110, Size Standard $7.5M. The Government’s intent is to award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror with the lowest price and technically acceptable proposal with an acceptable past performance rating in accordance with the factors of this solicitation. The Government intends to award one contract, or to not award any contracts, depending on the quality of proposals submitted and availability of funds. No partial awards will be made. The offeror’s proposal shall be composed of the completed Technical, Contract Documentation, and Price volumes. Responses to any additional information requests from the Government will also be evaluated.

1.1 Compliance with Terms and Conditions

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information in the format specified in the proposal preparation instructions located in FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors -- Commercial Items and addendum. See Attachment 8 to the RFP. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for award.

Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation’s terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale in appropriate volumes in addition to the Contract Documentation volume.

2.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

This acquisition is in accordance with FAR Part 12 utilizing a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) approach. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. Award will be made to the offeror with the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price and an acceptable past performance rating.

The proposal must conform to all solicitation requirements and the offeror must be deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR to be eligible for award.

The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by FAR 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors – Commercial Items and addendum. See Attachment 8 to the RFP. While the Government Evaluation Team will strive for maximum objectivity, the evaluation process, by its nature, is subjective, therefore;

professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. 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.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon the LPTA assessment of the evaluation factors. The Government will evaluate proposals based upon the following factors:

• Factor 1 –Price

• Factor 2 –Technical o Sub-Factor 1: Quality Control Plan o Sub-Factor 2: Technical Capability

• Factor 3 – Past Performance

Technical and Past Performance, when combined are approximately equal to price.

3.1 Evaluation of Factors

3.1.1 In arriving at the LPTA decision, the Government will do the following:

(a) Step 1: The Government will conduct a price evaluation. The price evaluation will document the reasonableness of the proposed price including option prices. The Government’s lowest price determination will consider the sum of the price for all task orders, including the base plus four option years. The Government will rank offers from lowest to highest price.

(b) Step 2: At the contract level, the Government will evaluate technical proposals on an acceptable/unacceptable basis starting with the lowest priced offer. Sub-factors are of equal importance, and the offeror must receive an acceptable rating in all sub-factors to have an overall acceptable technical rating.

(c) Step 3: The Government will evaluate the lowest priced acceptable proposal from Step 2 for past performance on acceptable/unacceptable basis. If the lowest priced Step 2 acceptable offeror does not have acceptable past performance, then steps 2 and 3 will continue (in order by price) until an offeror has acceptable technical and past performance.

(d) Evaluation will end and award will be made on the basis of the lowest priced proposal meeting the acceptability standards for non-cost factors.

3.2 Factor 1: Price

3.2.1 Price Evaluation: The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness and balance, as defined below:

3.2.1.1 Completeness: All price information/data required in the RFP has been submitted in accordance with the solicitation pricing instructions. The proposed task labor categories and proposed labor rates shall match those proposed for Company-site and/or Government-site (as applicable) in the Commercial Services Task Order Rate Schedule Template (Attachment 24).

All task order pricing shall be completed on Attachment 25, Commercial Services Task Order Pricing Template.

3.2.1.2 Reasonableness: Price is fully justified and supported and is considered fair and reasonable under current market conditions. Reasonableness may be determined by one or more of the proposal analysis techniques identified in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). Furthermore, the Offeror’s price proposal shall be traceable to the PWS and information presented in the Offeror’s technical proposal. In accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b) and 15.403-3(a), information other than cost or pricing data may be required to support price reasonableness. Information shall be provided IAW FAR 15.403-5. If after receipt of proposals, the CO determines that there is insufficient information available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1 apply, the offeror shall be required to submit data other than certified cost or pricing data. The burden of proof for price reasonableness rests with the offeror.

3.2.1.3 Balance (applicable to two or more priced CLINS/SubCLINS): Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g)(2) price analysis will be conducted on the individual CLIN/SubCLIN to determine whether unbalanced pricing occurred.

3.2.2 The total Evaluated Contract Price will be the total CLIN prices for the base and all option years for all tasks orders. Travel costs will not be evaluated in the LPTA determination. The firm-fixed-price travel CLIN total will be negotiated and priced at time of award.

3.2.3 Prime offerors are permitted to propose whatever mix (prime vs. subcontractor) they choose provided the offeror meets the requirements of FAR 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting. The offeror must meet the required 50% percentage to meet the requirements of FAR 52.219-14. The offeror shall provide information in the Price volume of their proposal indicating which positions will be held by prime contractor employees and subcontractor employees and provide the percentage of work each will perform over the life of the contract (base and four option years). For the requested format, see Attachments 24, 25, and 26 of the

RFP.

3.2.4 Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

3.3 Factor 2: Technical

Each offeror’s technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror meets the minimum requirements of the Performance Work Statement, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements. The technical proposal must address each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail. The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable in accordance with Table 1 of this section. The offerors must be acceptable in both subfactors to be technically acceptable.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE 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.

3.3.1 Subfactor One: Quality Control Plan

This subfactor is met when the offeror provides a Quality Control Plan that meets all aspects of PWS paragraph 3.1.2.1.1 through 3.1.2.1.4.

3.3.2 Subfactor Two: Technical Capability

This subfactor is met when the offeror demonstrates to the Government the offeror’s ability to:

3.3.2.1 Manage a security program that adequately addresses training, facilities, communications, personnel, and the handling of classified information.

3.3.2.2 Effectively and efficiently manage security resources and personnel.

3.3.2.3 Provide a transition planning approach that will provide a fully functional team with knowledge of the task to support the contract and task orders to include: effectively and efficiently transition resources and personnel onto this contract and ensure full continuity of mission support and contract performance 30 days after contract award.

3.3.2.4 Provide written documentation in the form of a plan that details how the offeror intends to meet and maintain the Program Manager requirements. The Program Manager must have at minimum the following qualifications:

• 10 years of experience; and

• Master’s Degree in one of the following areas:

Business Administration Finance Science in Management Engineering Management Management

3.4 Factor 3: Past Performance

In accordance with paragraph 3.1.1, the Government will evaluate the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal for past performance on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. The Government will evaluate and assess the information from the Past Performance Project Sheet (PPPS) submitted by the offeror with the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal for recent relevant past performance information. Evaluations will cease when the lowest priced offeror is determined to be technically acceptable and receives an “acceptable” rating for past performance.

The Government may obtain information from other sources, to include calls and/or questionnaires to contacts provided on the PPPS, to determine the degree to which the past performance demonstrates the ability to successfully perform the PWS tasks. The Government may also utilize the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee

Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (ESRS), and other data bases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials information provided by the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) or other sources known to the Government. The Contracting Officer will determine whether the past projects and contracts submitted by the offeror are relevant, of similar size, and/or of similar scope. PPPSs submitted that are not relevant will not be evaluated.

TABLE 2 – ACCEPTABILITY RATINGS

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 offeror’s performance record is unknown.*

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. In this case the offeror will be determined to have unknown past performance and in the context of “acceptability/unacceptability” “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

3.4.1 Recent and Relevant Information

a. Recent: ongoing contracts with a performance history, and contracts completed or near completion within five (5) years from the issue date of this RFP (see SF 1449, Block 6).

b. Relevant: The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information provided or obtained. Relevance is defined by the degree of similarity between the Offeror’s present/past performance and the current BATMAn requirement in terms of scope, magnitude, and complexity. Relevant contracts include experience as a prime contractor and/or Joint Ventures in the area of Administration Support Services.

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.

3.4.2 Adverse Performance Information

When relevant performance records indicate adverse past performance information, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the offeror’s overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends. If adverse performance information is provided to the Government, and the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to comment on the finding(s), the offeror will be given the opportunity to provide clarifications concerning the adverse information.

3.4.3 Confidentiality of Performance Information

Past performance information, including CPARS, questionnaires, etc., is confidential and is not to be released to anyone outside the Government source selection process. Offerors are cautioned that contacting or seeking out source(s) of past performance information is strictly prohibited. Any attempts to influence past performance ratings will be perceived negatively and could impact the overall performance rating. Any questions should be addressed directly to the CO only and not to any other individual(s). Offerors are responsible for ensuring that all their subcontractors and teaming partners are aware of this information and are in compliance.

3.5 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. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerer’s must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale in the cover letter located in the Contract Documentation Volume.