Attach_14_FAR_52.212-2_01JUL19.docx

HQ0147-19-R-0006

TEAMS

Visual Information and Production Center

Attachment 14 – FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation, Commercial Items

01 July 2019

HQ0147-19-R-0006

Table of Contents

HQ0147-19-R-0006

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

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.

This attachment will be removed upon award of the contract.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Government will evaluate the offerors’ proposals in accordance with (IAW) the criteria specified in this section. The Government intends to award without discussions. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms for each factor/subfactor. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). The Government reserves the right to make an award or no award.

2.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

2.1 Best Value Tradeoff

This acquisition utilizes Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12 in conjunction with FAR Part 15, which will result in the award of one hybrid contract with Firm-Fixed-Price and Cost Reimbursable type CLINs. This is a best value, competitive source selection conducted IAW FAR subpart 15.3, as supplemented by Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) subpart 215.3; Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy memorandum dated April 1, 2016 that issues the Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures dated March 31, 2016; and MDA Manual 5013.06-M, Source Selection Procedures. To be eligible for award, the offeror must: be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR subpart 9.1; meet the requirements of the solicitation; conform to the required terms and conditions; and include all required certifications.

2.2 The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic, including contract terms and conditions, program commitments, unrealistically high or low price, or a proposal that is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of understanding/competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of all stated requirements. Further, the Government may reject any proposal that is incomplete (e.g., missing Volume).

2.3 The Government will select for award the most advantageous proposal representing the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of Mission Capability, Past Performance and Cost and Price. Mission Capability includes two subfactors: Technical Approach (MCS1) and Program Management (MCS2).

Relative Importance of the Criteria: At the subfactor level, MCS1 is equal in importance to MCS2. At the factor level, Mission Support is more important than Past Performance; and when combined, Mission Support and Past Performance are substantially more important than Cost and Price. However, the significance of Cost and Price as an evaluation factor will increase with the degree of equality in overall merit of competing proposals in meeting solicitation requirements. Cost and Price will not be scored, but will be evaluated as part of the integrated assessment of best value. The Small Business factor will be evaluated as either Acceptable or Unacceptable. Any proposal with an Unacceptable Small Business factor rating is not eligible for award.

2.4 Award may be made to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical superiority of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price differential. The selection decision will document tradeoffs between Mission Capability, Past Performance, and Cost and Price for offers with an “Acceptable” rating for Small Business.

2.5 MDA Intent to Award without Discussions

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal shall contain the offeror’s best terms for Mission Capability, Past Performance, Small Business, and Cost and Price. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the PCO later determines them to be necessary.

Discussions (if required) may be conducted either orally or in writing. The scope and extent of the discussions are a matter of PCO judgment as set forth in FAR 15.306. Responses from offerors may be required within two business days.

Should the Government need to conduct written exchanges with offerors, they will be in the form of an evaluation notice (EN). Page format and limitations will be placed on responses to ENs in the event they are issued. The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the offerors. The ENs may be sent electronically (i.e., via e-mail) at the discretion of the PCO. Offerors must submit responses by the time and date specified in the PCO letter accompanying the ENs.

2.6 Competitive Range

If discussions are conducted, the PCO will establish a competitive range based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria. If the PCO determines that an offeror’s proposal should not be included in the competitive range, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award. A written notice of the decision will be provided to the unsuccessful offeror in accordance with FAR 15.503, whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505 and 15.506, respectively. If the PCO determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the PCO may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

2.7 Final Proposal Revisions (FPR)

If discussions are deemed necessary with offeror(s), upon completion of those discussions, the PCO will request that the offeror provide a FPR.

The offeror is advised that any changes to the proposal in the FPR shall be fully addressed and/or explained and reflected in the proposed price. Failure to comply with this requirement can adversely influence the evaluation of the proposal. The PCO will establish a common due date and time for submission of the FPR.

Any proposal changes not clearly identified in the offeror’s FPR will not be considered.

If FPRs are requested, any revisions or non-compliance with contract terms and conditions submitted in the FPR may not be subject to further discussion or negotiation and may render the offer unacceptable to the Government. This provision is not intended to restrict the offeror’s opportunity to revise figures (e.g., prices, discounts, or percentage rates) but is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government (that could result if new or revised terms and conditions submitted in the FPR have not been fully disclosed, discussed, and understood during discussions or negotiations). Thus, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the FPR, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

2.8 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 and subfactors to be eligible for award. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation, and instructions contained in Attachment 13, FAR 52.212-1, may result in the offeror being removed from consideration for award; this includes incomplete proposal submission (e.g., missing Volumes in hard copy and electronic format).

2.9 Contracting Officer’s Responsibility Determination

Prior to awarding a contract, the PCO must perform a responsibility determination for the selected contractor. The standards of contractor responsibility and the requirement for the PCO to make and document a responsibility determination are set forth in FAR 9.104 and 9.105. To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must:

· Have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them.

· Be able to comply with the required or proposed delivery or performance schedule, taking into consideration all existing commercial and governmental business commitments.

· Have a satisfactory performance record. A prospective contractor shall not be determined responsible or non-responsible solely on the basis of a lack of relevant performance history, except as provided in FAR 9.104-2.

· Have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics.

· Have the necessary organization, experience, accounting and operational controls, and technical skills, or the ability to obtain them (including, as appropriate, such elements as production control procedures, property control systems, quality assurance measures, and safety precautions applicable to materials to be produced or services to be performed by the prospective contractor and subcontractors).

· Have the necessary production, construction, and technical equipment and facilities, or the ability to obtain them.

· Be otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations.

· Have addressed and resolved all OCIs.

3.0 Evaluation Factors and Rating Methodology/Definitions

TABLE M-1: Evaluation Factors/Subfactors (Trade-off) Evaluation Factors

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 4: Cost and Price

The Factor 1 Subfactors, MCS1 and MCS2, will be evaluated using the definitions at Table M-3 and the ratings at Table M-4. The combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in M-4 in conjunction with the risk descriptions set forth in Table M-5. The Factor 2 will be evaluated using the Relevancy, Quality, and Confidence Level ratings set forth in Tables M-7, M-8, and M-9.

TABLE M-2: Acceptable/Unacceptable Factor Acceptable/Unacceptable Factors

Factor 3: Small Business

Factor 3 will be evaluated on an “Acceptable/Unacceptable” basis using the ratings at Table M-10.

TABLE M-3: Evaluation Definitions

Deficiency

A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

TABLE M-4: Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

TABLE M-5. Technical Risk Rating Method

4.0 FACTOR 1: Mission Capability

The Government will evaluate the Mission Capability approach of each offeror. The evaluation will focus on compliance with solicitation requirements. Each subfactor within the Mission Capability factor will receive one of the combined technical/risk color ratings in Table M-4. The combined technical/risk ratings include consideration of risk, in Table M-5, in conjunction with strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies, in Table M-3, in determining technical ratings. The Government will also evaluate the realism of offeror’s proposed resources (hours/skill mix) for addressing the requirements of the PWS to assess the offeror understanding of the requirements. The Government will not roll up the Mission Capability subfactor ratings into an overall factor adjectival/color rating.

Evaluation of the offeror’s Technical Approach and Program Management Approach shall be based solely on information furnished by the offeror. To ensure sufficient information is available, the offeror must furnish, as part of its proposal, all descriptive material necessary for the Government to determine if the offeror’s approach meets the requirements of the solicitation. In a case where an offeror fails to provide enough information to determine their proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation, deficiencies or weaknesses may be assessed.

4.1 Subfactor MCS1: Technical Approach

The Government will assess the Offeror’s approach to the following three performance objectives, to include skill mix as set forth in Tab 13M. Specifically, the Offeror’s staffing approach (including skill mix) for each of the three performance objectives below will be assessed to determine technical understanding and sufficiency. Note, for price realism purposes, (as set forth in Factor 4: Cost/Price), the offeror’s overall skill mix for all PWS requirements will be considered.

Performance Objective #2: Visual Information Design and Production

The Government will evaluate offeror’s approach to, and understanding of, providing graphic design services as described in PWS 3.2.1.

The Government will evaluate offeror’s approach to, and understanding of, management of high speed digital print services and production, as identified in PWS 3.2.2, utilizing the hardware listed in PWS 3.1.5.c., including:

· High speed print coordination/scheduling/job cueing

· Quality control checking

· Efficient production steps utilizing digital color press printing methodology

· File preparation

· Efficient use of dedicated front-end raster image processors (RIPs)

· Document finishing configuration (automatic punching, binding, folding, etc.).

The Government will also evaluate the offeror’s digital product sample submissions and the extent to which the offeror’s product samples demonstrate its technical capability to provide:

· Highly refined finished products

· Original artwork

· Inventive/imaginative ideas and concepts

· Use of color, creative topography, and layout balance

Performance Objective #3: Motion Media Services: Video Support, Design and Production, Photography; Animation and Modeling; Audio Visual Support

The Government will evaluate offeror’s approach to, and understanding of, providing motion media services as described in PWS 3.3.1, paragraphs a through g.

The Government will evaluate offeror’s approach to, and understanding of, providing dedicated A/V support (Unclassified and Classified) to execute requirements as described in PWS 3.3.4.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which proposed product sample demonstrates the offeror’s technical ability to provide:

· High production value;

· Professional creative editing and transitions;

· Shot composition and subject lighting;

· Attention to high resolution layout and design;

· Detail/fidelity in 3-D models with texturing and/or articulation, animated with realistic lighting/shadowing, high quality effects, accurate background topology and environmental effects;

· Effective use of audio/effects, music selection, quality of sound editing

· Professional voice quality and integration with video elements.

Performance Objective #4: Documentary Flight Test Support

The Government will evaluate offeror’s approach to, and understanding of, coordinating and executing ancillary photo and video support for a documentary flight test as described in PWS 3.4.

4.2 Subfactor MCS2: Program Management

Performance Objective #1: Delivery of Support Services for the BMDS

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Program Management Plan (CDRL A007) detailing its approach to, and understanding of, providing Delivery of Support Services for the BMDS as described in PWS 3.1.6 and CDRL A007.

Performance Objective #5: VIPC Operations Administration

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to, and understanding of, oversight and management of the high speed digital video editing systems and SAN storage system as described in PWS 3.5.4.

5.0 Factor 2: Past Performance

The past performance evaluation determines the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s probability of successfully performing the required effort based on the demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance, and quality of performance, in supplying services that meet the contract’s requirements.

The Past Performance evaluation will result in a Performance Confidence Assessment as defined in Table M-9. Offerors assessed with a Performance Confidence Assessment of “No Confidence” after the communications described in FAR 15.306(b)(4), if the Contracting Officer deems them necessary, will be removed from consideration for award.

In conducting this evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use past performance information provided by the offeror, obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition, and data obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not be 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, PCOs, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

The Government will conduct a performance assessment on recent and relevant contracts based upon the quality of the offeror’s past performance as well as that of its subcontractors. Based on an evaluation of recency, relevancy, and quality of past performance information from the identified contracts, the Past Performance Evaluation Team will determine an overall Performance Confidence Assessment Rating at the factor level.

5.1 Recency Assessment

The Government will only consider recent work, which is defined as work performed during the five-year period preceding the date of this solicitation release. If any part of the performance falls within this five-year period, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance.

5.2 Relevancy Assessment

If the past performance information is recent, the relevancy assessment will be conducted on the offerors’ past contracts. Relevancy as it pertains to past performance information is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontractor(s). This area demonstrates the depth and breadth of relevant experience of the offeror.

The Past Performance Evaluation Team will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all performance data obtained to determine whether those efforts relate to the proposed effort. A single relevancy rating will be assessed for each recent PPI.

In assessing relevancy, consideration will be given to the following:

· Experience in management of personnel and resources in geographically dispersed locations;

· Experience in visual information production and professional quality graphic design requirements;

· Experience in Motion Media (MM) requirements;

· Experience in providing ancillary professional-quality documentary (photography and HD video) support

· Experience in providing enterprise-wide operations administration for requirements similar to VIPC.

Relevancy for the offeror’s past contracts will be assigned in accordance with the definitions outlined in Table M-7 below.

TABLE M-7: Factor 3 Past Performance Relevancy Rating

5.3 Quality Assessment

The quality assessment is an evaluation that determines how well the offeror performed on recent and relevant past contracts. The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to the Past Performance factor evaluation. A quality assessment will only be conducted against the offerors’ contracts assessed as recent and relevant.

The Past Performance Evaluation Team will utilize the quality definitions in Table M-8 in assessing quality of performance relative to contract performance information obtained from other sources to include but not limited to: PPQs, PPIRS, FAPIIS, eSRS, or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, PCOs, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency. A single quality rating will be assessed for each PPI.

TABLE M-8: Factor 3 Past Performance Quality Definitions

5.4 Past Performance Rating

Based on the Recency, Relevancy, and Quality ratings assessed for each PPI, an overall Past Performance rating (as defined at Table M-9) will be assessed for each offeror.

TABLE M-9: Factor 3 Performance Confidence Assessments Ratings

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of recent and 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 “Neutral Confidence.” A record of “Substantial” or “Satisfactory” Confidence will be considered more advantageous to the Government than a record of “Neutral Confidence.”

5.5 Adverse Past Performance

Adverse past performance information is defined as past performance information that supports a less than acceptable rating on any evaluation aspect or verifiable unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. When a recent and relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness.

In accordance with FAR 15.306(b)(1)(i), communications must be held with any offeror whose adverse past performance information is the determining factor preventing it from being included in the competitive range, unless the offeror has previously had the opportunity to comment on such information. Furthermore, the PCO must discuss adverse past performance with each offeror still being considered for award.

6.0 Factor 3: Small Business (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

Small Business Participation Plan (Large and Small Businesses)

The Government will evaluate the Small Business Participation Plan of each offeror as either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” (as defined at Table M-10).

TABLE M-10: Small Business Acceptable/Unacceptable Definitions

To receive an “Acceptable” rating in this factor, the offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan must:

a. Provide a narrative of the offeror’s plan to comply with FAR 52.219-8.

b. Include all items required by Attachment 13, FAR 52.212-1.

c. Meet the percentages as identified in Attachment 13, FAR 52.212-1 and clearly identify the percentage of Small Business participation in all the appropriate categories.

d. Provide the basis for and efforts associated with establishing proposed percentages, to include initiatives and tools that will be employed under the contract to enhance Small Business participation.

e. Provide a description of the offeror’s commitment to use Small Businesses in terms of the type of work to be performed, the extent to which specific companies are named in the proposal and whether documented commitments are demonstrated in the proposal.

7.0 Factor 4: Cost and Price

The Cost and Price Factor will not receive a color rating and the Government will only evaluate the Cost and Price Factor for proposals that are substantially complete and compliant with the RFP instructions for all volumes. The Government will only evaluate the Cost and Price Factor for selection purposes on technically acceptable proposals. The Government will evaluate each such proposal using one or more of the proposal analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404 and FAR 52.222-46. Information in the proposal and information from sources outside the proposal, such as Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) or Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), may be considered under the Cost/Price Factor in its evaluation.

Prices that are insufficient to cover direct labor costs and benefit costs plus other burdens and profit, is a failure to comply with the provisions in FAR 52.222-46 Paragraph a and will result in the proposal being rejected by the PCO in accordance with FAR 52.222-46 Paragraph d.

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistically high or low [price] when compared to the Independent Government Estimate, or when considering unrealistically low hours, skill mix, or labor rates. As part of its realism assessment, the Government will consider the proposed skill mix (Tab 13M) for all PWS requirements.

As part of price evaluation, the Government will evaluate its option to extend services (see FAR Clause 52.217-8) by adding one-half of the offeror's final labor option period fixed price, to the offeror's total price. Thus, the offeror's total price for the purpose of evaluation will include the base period, 1st option, 2nd option, and one-half of the 2nd option.

7.1 Cost and Price Factor Evaluation Results

The total evaluated price is calculated as follows:

· The Offeror’s proposed prices for the Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs, plus;

· The Offeror’s proposed price for the Firm Fixed Price Level of Effort (FFP LOE) Labor Option CLINs 0005, 1005, and 2005, plus;

· The offeror’s proposed prices for the FFP option CLINs, plus;

· One-half of each of the 2nd FFP option CLINs to represent the price of extending services for 6 months if required, plus;

· The Government specified amounts for the FMS, Travel, and ODC CLINs.

8.0 Other Contracting Considerations

The PCO shall review and determine whether the offeror selected for award has addressed and resolved all OCIs in its OCI Mitigation Plan before making an award, IAW FAR Subpart 9.5.

image1.png