ATTCH 4 - Commercial FAR Part 52.212-2 Addendum FINAL.pdf

RFP ATTACHMENT 4, – ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS

MILITARY FREE FALL (MFF) SUPPORT SERVICES

1. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

This section outlines the manner in which the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s capabilities and proposals for the contract. The Government will compare each Offeror’s capabilities and proposal elements against the predetermined evaluation criteria related to the Government’s requirement defined herein. This is a competitive, best value, source selection that will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15 and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 215.

Discussions. IAW FAR 15.306, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their Technical, Past Performance and Price proposal. Exchanges conducted with regard to adverse past performance, or to resolve minor or clerical errors in any of the proposal volumes will not constitute discussions, and the Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO) reserves the right to award a contract without granting an opportunity to revise the original proposal.

2. EVALUATION:

The Government will evaluate Volume 1 – Introduction to ensure compliance with System for Award Management (SAM) and FAR 52.212-3 Alt I. Volume 1 includes Technical Qualifying Criteria which will receive an acceptable/unacceptable rating. Only acceptable proposals will be further evaluated against Technical (Factor 1), Past Performance (Factor 2), and Price (Factor 3). A combined technical/risk rating technique will be used to evaluate Factor 1. The Government will conduct evaluations at the subfactor level, however an individual rating for each subfactor within Factor 1 will not be assigned. Instead, the Government will assign a single rating (one at the Factor 1 level) based on the evaluation findings and risk associated with each of the subfactors. The subfactors within Factor 1 are of equal importance. Volume 2 - Past Performance, will be assigned a Confidence Assessment Rating, and Volume 3 Price will not be given a rating but will be assigned a Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Technical is more important than Past Performance and Past Performance is more important than Price. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined are significantly more important than price. The Government is willing to award to a higher priced proposal that represents a lower risk for successful performance as delineated below. As proposals approach equality across all factors, the price area plays a more important role in the Best Value Award Decision.

Table 1, Evaluation Criteria

Volume 1, Introduction N/A Acceptable/Unacceptable

Volume 2, Technical Factor 1 Technical /Risk Rating

Technical/Management Approach Subfactor 1 Not Assigned an Individual Rating Qualifications and Experience of

Personnel Subfactor 2 Not Assigned an Individual Rating

Volume 3, Past Performance Factor 2 Confidence Assessment Rating Volume 4, Price Factor 3 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

3. Volume 1 – Introduction:

The offeror indicated that it is eligible for a Government contract based on System for Award Management (SAM), and the offeror’s responses to FAR 52.213-3 with Alt I - Offeror Representations and Certifications -- Commercial Items and other statements required by the RFP.

**QUALIFYING CRITERIA** In order to technically qualify for evaluation under Factors 1-3, the Government will verify the offeror, inclusive of subcontractors/teaming arrangements, is a Commercial Airlift Review Board (CARB) certified or a Department of Defense (DoD) approved Commercial Paratroop Operator Certified as of the solicitation closing date. Offeror or subcontractors/teaming vendor must appear on the Paratroop Commercial Operator Listing” for the duration of the contract period and be inspected and approved by USSOCOM J-31. USSOCOM J-31 approval will appear under the “Inspector” column of the paratroop carrier listing. If the offeror lacks such approvals, the offeror (inclusive of subcontractors/ teaming arrangements) will be considered technically “Unacceptable” and will not be evaluated further. Qualifying criteria should not be construed as part of a responsibility determination.

4. Volume 2, Factor 1 – Technical:

Under the Technical Factor, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s proposal demonstrates a sound, practical approach for satisfying the requirements stated in the solicitation. The Government will utilize the combined Technical/Risk rating methodology contained within Table 2 below, which includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the evaluation findings; strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of the offeror’s proposal when determining the Technical rating. Evaluation of risk will assess the degree to which the offeror’s proposed approach for meeting the requirements outlined in this solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the increased likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Risk is one aspect of the technical evaluation and contributes to determining the Factor level rating. If an offeror’s proposal demonstrates a material failure to meet a Government requirement, it is a deficiency in the offeror’s proposal. The Government will determine if the proposal meets or exceeds requirements, to what degree the proposed approach indicates an understanding of the requirements, and the level of risk to unsuccessful performance per the rating definitions contained within Table 2 below.

Sub Factor (1), Technical/Management Approach: The government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed approach demonstrates technical knowledge, management capabilities, expertise and understanding of the requirements of the PWS and this solicitation; as well as demonstrating the offeror’s understanding, procedures, and implementation of requirements for MFF; as its capability to successfully perform. Safe operations are imperative to this requirement. The risk management plan will be evaluated to the extent to which the plan demonstrates an understanding of governing safety instructions and identifies appropriate risk controls. The mitigation plan will be evaluated to the extent to which the plan adequately demonstrates a clear plan of action to eliminate, reduce and/or controls the impact to the mission in cases of failed inspection results, availability of aircraft and/or qualified personnel.

Sub Factor (2), Qualifications and Experience of Personnel: The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed personnel collectively demonstrates the expertise required to perform all contract requirements. The qualifications and experience of personnel will be evaluated on how well the offeror’s narrative response, including providing qualified personnel to meet all requirements outlined in the PWS and specific documentation clearly demonstrates the requisite qualifications, certifications, and experience of key personnel to accomplish the service requirements set forth by the standards of the PWS. The Government will favorably evaluate proposed personnel exceeding the minimum qualifications. SOF experience will also be favorably evaluated.

Table 2, Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Color Rating Adjective Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

5. Volume 3, Factor 2 - Past Performance:

The Government will evaluate past performance to assess how well the contractor performed work relevant to the type of effort and type of requirement described in the solicitation, as an indicator of an offeror’s ability to perform this contract successfully. The Government will place more weight and consideration on more relevant past performance information. As noted in 52.212-1 Addendum, the Government requires three submissions from the prime on this effort acting as the prime on the submission. While not automatic, the lack of any such submissions may negatively impact the Offeror’s past performance evaluation. The rating for the past performance factor is the Government’s assessment of confidence, based upon the Offeror’s performance record, that the Offeror will successfully perform the requirements of this acquisition as proposed, based on the overall past performance record.

The Government will assign a performance confidence assessment rating based on the recency, relevancy, and quality of the Offeror’s past performance record at the Factor 2 level. The Government will assign a recency rating to each past performance submission. Those submissions that are determined recent will also receive a relevancy rating. The Government will assess quality as part of the performance confidence assessment rating at the Factor 2 level, and not assign a separate Quality rating to each submission.

The Government will not evaluate past performance of subcontractors who are proposed to perform less than 25% of the TEP. However, the Government retains discretion to consider past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement (or any other relevant entity) when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition, regardless of proposed percentage of work to be performed.

Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving requirements that are similar to the effort described in this solicitation in terms of the type of support, complexity, dollar value, and the use of key personnel. The Government will give greater consideration to performance on those contracts deemed more relevant to the effort described in this RFP. If the information is available and determined appropriate to consider, the Government, at its discretion may consider the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror or subcontractor in relation to the effort or portion of the effort being performed on the past performance submission. As noted in 52.212-1 Addendum, the Government retains broad discretion regarding the scope of its past performance evaluation, including but not limited to information it may consider and sources of information it may contact.

Table 3, 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 has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

ADVERSE PERFORMANCE INFORMATION: Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation aspect or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. When relevant performance records indicate performance problems, 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, then the Offeror will be given the opportunity to provide clarifications concerning the adverse information.

NEUTRAL RATING: Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and as a result, will receive a “neutral” rating. A strong past performance record may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a neutral/unknown confidence past performance rating. Offerors are advised that the Source Selection Authority may determine, that a "Substantial Confidence" or "Satisfactory Confidence" past performance rating is worth more than a "Neutral Confidence" past performance rating in a best value tradeoff.

6. Volume 4, Factor 3 - Price:

The Offeror’s Price Volume will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine reasonableness of the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). All proposed prices for the contract will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness, which may be determined based on prices submitted by the competition, historical pricing, current market conditions, comparison to the Independent Government Estimate, and/or other proposal analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1. The inclusion of option prices in arriving at a "total price" does not obligate the Government to exercise all or any part of the options. The Government may reject an offer as materially unbalanced if prices for the basic requirement or prices for the option quantities are unreasonable in comparison to each other. An unbalanced offer or proposal is one that is based on prices significantly less than cost for some work and/or significantly overstated for other work.

The Government may require submission of information other than certified cost or pricing data to the extent necessary to evaluate price reasonableness. A contract will not be awarded to an offeror whose proposed price is not determined reasonable. PLEASE NOTE: The Pricing Spreadsheet (Attachment 2) MUST be submitted in MS Excel format. Submissions of this Attachment in formats other than MS Excel may be grounds for rejection of offer without further consideration or evaluation.

The total evaluated price will be calculated by adding the totals from the Attachment 2 – ELIN Table (Tab 2); inclusive of the option at FAR 52.217-8, combined with the total Firm-Fixed price of Task Orders 0001 and 0002 (Tab 1). The option provision at FAR 52.217-8 will be calculated by taking 50% of the value of the final ordering period. Attachment 2 will auto-calculate values.

(End of provision)