GAMT III - DRAFT Evaluation Criteria.pdf

ADDENDUM TO

52.212-2 EVALUATION – Commercial Items (Oct 2014)

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 Basis of Contract Award. The Government will award one contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation is determined to be the lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) proposal with acceptable past performance. The

Government may award without discussions, reserving the right to hold discussions if deemed necessary by the CO.

The Evaluation Factors are:

(A) Factor 1 – Price

(B) Factor 2 – Technical

Subfactor 1 – Past (Technical) Experience

Subfactor 2 – Management Approach

Subfactor 3 – Quality Control Plan

(C) Factor 3 – Past Performance

Notice to Offerors: Funds are not presently available for this effort. No award will be made under this solicitation until funds are available. The Government reserves the right to cancel this solicitation, either before or after the closing date. In the event the Government cancels this solicitation, the Government has no obligation to reimburse an Offeror for any costs.

1.2 Factor 1 – Price. Proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in the SF 1449 Continuation Sheet by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number

(CLIN) to confirm the extended amount and the total amount. The price evaluation will document the reasonableness and completeness of the total evaluated price.

1.2.1 Arithmetic Discrepancies. For the purpose of initial evaluation of offers, the following will be utilized in resolving arithmetic discrepancies found in pricing as submitted by the Offeror.

(A) Obviously misplaced decimal points will be corrected;

(B) Discrepancy between unit price and extended price, the unit price will govern;

(C) Apparent errors in extension of unit prices will be corrected;

(D) Apparent errors in extended prices per CLIN will be corrected.

1.2.2 For the purpose of the offer evaluation, the Government will proceed on the assumption that the

Offeror intends its offer to be evaluated on the basis of the unit price. The totals arrived by resolution of arithmetic discrepancies listed above will be so reflected on the abstract of offers. The correcting procedures shall not be used to resolve any ambiguity concerning which offer is low.

1.2.3 The Government Evaluation Team will present a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) to the Source

Selection Authority (SSA) for award decision purposes. The TEP will be derived from an Offeror’s proposal by multiplying the quantities or months identified in the solicitation by the proposed unit price for each CLIN as follows:

Period CLINS (incl. TEP) Unit

Price

Quantity Extended

Total

Phase-

In

0001 Provided by

Offeror

X As stated in RFP = Not separately

Priced;

shall be covered under

CLIN

Base 0002 Provided by

Offeror

X As stated in RFP =

0003 Provided by

Offeror

X As stated in RFP =

Option

1002 Provided by

Offeror

X As stated in RFP =

1003 Provided by

Offeror

X As stated in RFP =

Option

2002 Provided by

Offeror

X As stated in RFP =

2003 Provided by

Offeror

X As stated in RFP =

Option

3002 Provided by

Offeror

X As stated in RFP =

3003 Provided by

Offeror

X As stated in RFP =

Option

4002 Provided by

Offeror

X As stated in RFP =

4003 Provided by

Offeror

X As stated in RFP =

*FAR

52.217-

4003 Provided by

Offeror

X 6,200,000 =

Total Evaluated Price Sum of all above

*For evaluation purposes of the six months extension of services clause, the extended total will be calculated by multiplying the proposed unit price for CLIN 4003 by 6,200,000 kilograms.

Failure by the Offeror to propose all applicable CLINs will render the proposal as non-responsive.

1.2.4 Price Reasonableness. The information submitted in the Offeror’s price proposal, as required by the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 – Instruction to Offerors – Commercial Items, will be evaluated to determine, if proposed prices are fair and reasonable IAW FAR 15.404. A contract will not be awarded to an Offeror whose price is not determined to be fair and reasonable. The Government may use any of the price analysis techniques IAW FAR 15.404-1(b) to determine price reasonableness. In addition, proposed unit prices may be evaluated for unbalanced pricing IAW

FAR 15.404-1(g), if the proposal analysis techniques listed above are insufficient to make a determination of price reasonableness or, if the CO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, the CO may request submission of data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, and/or may use other proposal analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404, to the extent necessary, in order to make a determination of price reasonableness.

1.2.5 The six-months extension of services clause found at FAR 52.217-8 will only be utilized, if necessary. Inclusion of the aforementioned clause in the TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. The six-months extension of services is not to be considered part of option four. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

1.2.6 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 evaluation 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.

(A) A written notice of award acceptance of an Offeror, emailed 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 required by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer, whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

1.3 Factor 2 – Technical. The technical criteria below will be used to evaluate proposals. The ratings applied to the Technical Proposal will be ‘Acceptable’ or ‘Unacceptable’. Offerors must have an Acceptable rating on Subfactor 1 (Past Experience), Subfactor 2 (Management Approach) and Subfactor 3 (Quality Control Plan) to receive an overall ‘Acceptable’ rating for Factor 2.

Rating Definition

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Subfactor 1 – Past (Technical) Experience. The Offeror shall demonstrate evidence of past experience providing similar services of a similar magnitude within the last three (3) years on contracts lasting at least one (1) year. Any proposal not demonstrating evidence of past experience as set forth above will be technically unacceptable.

Offerors shall submit a list of contracts meeting the above criteria. Contract listing shall contain the following elements:

Contract Number

Period of Performance

Number of kilograms processed annually

Points of Contact (POCs)

POC title

Telephone number/Email address

Subfactor 2 – Management Approach. The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed

Management Approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Addendum to 52.212-1 - Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items. In order to be considered technically acceptable, the Offeror’s Management Approach shall clearly meet the below parts and successfully demonstrate:

(A) Location of Mail Handling Facility - The Program Management Plan shall provide the location of the facility where performance will be conducted, located in Germany at the

Frankfurt am Main International Airport (FRA). The Offeror shall provide a delivery point on FRA for USPS-contracted airlines to offload and upload mail for the contractor to receive and dispatch mail to the GAMT IAW PWS paragraph 14.

(B) Process Prograde and Retrograde Mail: The Management Approach Plan shall address how the Offeror plans to satisfy the processing of Prograde and Retrograde Mail in accordance with PWS paragraph 5.

(C) Interface - The Management Approach Plan shall clearly identify lines of communication and explain how the Offeror plans to interface with Government Mail

Control Activities and the onsite COR Staff on U.S. Army Transportation Liaisons, or

DHL/DP Transporters issues, in accordance with PWS paragraphs 4 and 5.

1.3.1 Maintaining GAMT Facility on FraPort Property to prevent disruption of mail movement due to German customs concerns IAW PWS paragraph 14.

1.3.2 Management Approach to responsibilities of parties for any possible relocation of GAMT facilities IAW PWS paragraph 14.

1.3.3 Management Approach to ensure Subcontractor actions for change to procedures IAW PWS paragraphs 4 and 5.

1.3.4 Management Approach and Quality Control Plan for ensuring facility security IAW PWS paragraph 14.1.

1.3.5 Management Approach to ensure Subcontractor timelines of mail processing IAW PWS paragraphs 4 and 5.

1.3.6 Quality Control Plan controls to maintain mail accountability, safety, security and integrity of mail at all times within the Mail Handling Facility IAW PWS paragraph 5. Government QASP

Inspection performed by the COR will validate this process against the Offeror’s Quality

Control Plan.

1.3.7 The Offeror need to show how they will ensure a direct line of communication with the onsite

COR Staff if the GAMT processes of mail handling and processing, and with the Mail Control

Activity Staff for mail movement concerns to and from the Air Carriers, and Airline Ground

Handlers IAW PWS paragraphs 4 and 5.

1.3.8 The Offeror shall identify their Organizational structure to show how accountability of the work to be performed, to include any applicable subcontractor(s) tasks to be performed.

1.3.9 The Offeror shall provide a comprehensive approach to identification, and proposed mitigations or controls to prevent reoccurrences.

1.3.10 The Offeror shall define their processes to ensure the designated Critical Entry/Exit

Timelines, and STMR Dispatch Schedule are met. Government QASP Inspection performed by the COR will validate this process against the Offeror’s Quality Control Plan.

Subfactor 3 – Quality Control Plan.

(A) How the Offeror will ensure a direct line of communication with the onsite COR Staff of the

GAMT processes of mail handling and processing, and with the Mail Control Activity Staff for mail movement concerns to and from the Air Carriers, and Airline Ground Handlers IAW PWS para 4 & 5

(B) Offeror shall identify their Organizational structure to show accountability of the work to be performed, to include any applicable subcontractor(s) task to be performed.

(C) A comprehensive approach to identification, and proposed mitigations or controls to prevent reoccurrences.

(D) Offeror shall define their process to ensure the designated Critical Entry/Exit Timelines, and

STMR Dispatch Schedule are met. Government QASP Inspection by the COR will validate this process against the Offeror’s Quality Control Plan.

(E) Offeror shall define their process to ensure the Security, Safety, Integrity, and Accountability of the mail at all times within the Mail Handling Facility. Government QASP Inspection by the

COR will validate this process against the Offeror’s Quality Control Plan.

1.4 Factor 3 – Past Performance. (Past Performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime Offeror without the subcontractor’s consent). If applicable, provide with the proposal a letter from all subcontractors that will perform major aspects of work.

1.4.1 Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance. 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. The offeror’s past performance efforts will be assessed for: Recency, Relevancy and

Performance Quality (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). The Government will only evaluate Performance Quality on past efforts that are determined to be both recent and relevant.

Offerors must receive an Acceptable rating to receive an award.

The Government will evaluate the quality of the offeror's performance deemed relevant to the requirements of this RFP. The Government will use information submitted by the Offeror and other sources such as other Federal Government offices and commercial sources, to assess past performance. If services were performed as a subcontractor, teaming partner, key personnel, and joint venture state the overall contract value and associated subcontract value. In addition, the

Offeror shall provide past performance information on any subcontractor, teaming partners, or joint venture partner who is anticipated to perform 25 percent or greater of the effort based on the total estimated cost, or who will perform efforts that are critical to the overall successful performance.

1.4.2 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 within the last five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

Past Performance Recency Rating

Recent Past Performance effort involved similar services performed within the last five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

Not Recent Past Performance effort did not provide similar services performed within the last five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

1.4.3 Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine the services performed under those contracts. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed “as to the relevancy of the effort” as defined in the table below. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s), major and critical subcontractor(s), and key personnel. 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 and Present Performance

Questionnaire and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Relevant Past performance effort involved both a similar scope as that identified in the

PWS, and magnitude greater or equal to 3,000,000 kilograms of mail processed annually.

Not Relevant Past performance effort did not provide both a similar scope as that identified in the

PWS, and magnitude of greater than or equal to 3,000,000 kilograms of mail processed annually.

Offerors shall ensure that Past and Present Performance Questionnaires provided as Attachment X, are sent to all Points of Contact (POCs) listed in each of the Offeror’s Past Performance submission’s list in the Past Performance Volume. Respondents to the Past and Present

Performance submissions shall be instructed to email completed questionnaires to Mr. Thomas

Collins at thomas.collins.16.de@us.af.mil and Ms. Christin Grub at christin.grub.de@us.af.mil.

Respondents to the Questionnaires shall not send the completed information sheets back to the

Offeror. The Government will conduct any follow-up required with the POCs as necessary. Offerors shall not follow-up with respondents to ensure they have completed the questionnaires. The Past

Performance Volume may also include any other metrics, recognitions or the like to support the

Past Performance evaluation. The Government may contact references other than those identified by the Offeror.

Offeror’s shall also submit a summary page. If applicable, provide with the proposal a letter from all subcontractors that will perform major aspects of work (Past Performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime Offeror without the subcontractor’s submission).

1.4.4 The Government will determine how well the Offeror performed on past contracts that are both recent and relevant, and, based on an integrated assessment, assign a rating of “Acceptable or

“Unacceptable” as described in the table below.

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. (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 or unacceptability, “Unknown” shall be considered “Acceptable.”

1.4.5 The quality assessment consists of an evaluation of recent and relevant past performance information available, regardless of its source. The quality assessment may reveal positive or mailto:thomas.collins.16.de@us.af.mil mailto:christin.grub.de@us.af.mil adverse past performance information. Adverse past performance 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. Multiple ratings of less than “Satisfactory” in Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and/or

Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) may result in a performance quality assessment rating of

“Unacceptable.” Offerors may be given an opportunity to respond to adverse past performance information for which they have not previously had an opportunity to address in accordance with

FAR 15.306.

1.5 Award Process. The Government intends to award to the lowest price, technically acceptable

Offeror with an acceptable past performance rating. The evaluation process is as follows;

discussions may or may not be held, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions at any point during the evaluation:

1.5.1 Price. The evaluation process will begin with a ranking based on the Total Evaluated Price

(TEP) from the lowest to highest price of all proposals.

1.5.2 Technical. The lowest priced proposal will then be evaluated for Technical Acceptability.

Proposals must be rated “Acceptable” for all technical subfactors in order to be determined technically “Acceptable.” (A) If the lowest priced Offeror’s technical proposal is “Unacceptable”, the next low Offeror’s technical proposal will be evaluated, continuing until an “Acceptable” technical rating with acceptable performance is identified.

1.5.3 Past Performance. The lowest priced, technically acceptable Offeror’s Past Performance will be evaluated. The Government reserves the right that:

(A) If the lowest priced, technically acceptable Offeror’s past performance is determined to be

“Acceptable,” the evaluation process may stop and the award may be made to that Offeror.

(B) If the lowest priced, technically acceptable Offeror’s past performance is determined to be

“Unacceptable,” the Government will evaluate the technical proposal of the next lowest Offeror.

This process will continue, as needed, until an Offeror is rated “Acceptable” for Past Performance.

1.5.4 Fair and Reasonable Determination. Determination will be made IAW paragraph 1.2.4 prior to contract award.

1.6 The Government may consider to review individual past performance of joint venture partners, teaming arrangements, or subcontractors. In order to facilitate the past performance assessment process a subcontractor consent form, Attachment 4, shall be completed to allow the Government to discuss past and present performance information with the prime contractor during the selection process.

2.0 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).

3.0 AWARD

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.