Addendum 52.212-2 Eval

Addendum to 52.212-2 Evaluation (Rev 1)

HSCETC-11-R-00002

52.212-2 -- Evaluation -- Commercial Items. (Jan 1999)

(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: Management, Technical, Past Performance and Price.

Management, Technical and past performance, when combined, are significantly more important when combined, when compared 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 52.212-2 EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JAN 1999)

Competitive, Best Value Source Selection

This source selection is a best-value competitive source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, as supplemented by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Acquisition Regulations HSAM 3015.606-2 guidance. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Management, Technical, Past Performance, and Cost/Price factors. To be eligible for award, the Offeror must be deemed responsible IAW FAR 9.1; meet all requirements of the solicitation; conform to all required terms and conditions; and include all required certifications, unless a proposed exception is accepted by the Government. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who provides the best value in meeting and/or exceeding the requirements. Even though price is a substantial factor in source selection, best value trade-off 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 technical superiority and/or overall business approach and/or superior past performance of the higher price Offeror outweighs the price difference. 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. Offerors who have a deficiency identified will not be considered for award. Offerors with identified deficiency(ies) will not be considered for award. Proposals with unbalanced pricing may be determined to be ineligible for award.

The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is not evaluated. The subcontracting plan will be reviewed and determined acceptable or not acceptable (Go/No Go).

IAW HSAR 3052.209-72 Organizational Conflict of Interest, if an Offeror represents that it has included information in its proposal, providing all current information bearing on the existence of any actual or potential organizational conflicts of interest, and has included a mitigation plan in accordance with paragraph (d) of this provision and submits a proposed Mitigation Plan, the proposed plan shall be evaluated and may or may not be approved. Award of a contract where an actual or potential conflict of interest exists shall not occur before Government approval of the mitigation plan.

Factors Overview

In evaluating proposals, the Government will make tradeoffs among the factors, and select the proposal that is most advantageous to the Government. The SSA will select the Offeror whose proposal is considered the best value to the Government consistent with the factors listed below. When combined, non-cost/price factors are significantly more important than the cost/price factor.

NON PRICE FACTORS

Evaluation Factors/Subfactors

FACTOR – MANAGEMENT VOLUME II

Tab 2: Program Management Plan

Tab 3: Teaming/Subcontracting Management

Tab 4: Risk Management

Tab 5: Small Business Subcontracting Plan

Tab 1: Technical Approach

Tab 2: Contract Management and Operations Plan

-Transition Plan

-Records Management and Reporting Plan

-Communications Plan

-Emergency Readiness Plan -Quality Control Plan

-Security Plan

-Training Plan

-Staffing Plan

FACTOR – PAST PERFORMANCE VOLUME IV

VOLUME V – TO#1

Tab 1: Management and Technical Proposed Approach

Factor Rating Information Each proposal will be measured against the solicitation and its stated evaluation factors for award. Proposals will not be compared or measured against each other during the evaluation. The evaluation focuses on compliance with solicitation requirements, objectives, considerations, constraints and the proposal strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and other factors identified in the solicitation. For the factors Management and Technical, evaluators will evaluate risks associated with each factor. Evaluators will assess the potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, and the need for increased Government oversight, as well as the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Each of the technical and management subfactors will receive one of the Proposal Risk ratings defined in the table below.

The Government will use specific evaluation discriminators in assessing the Offeror’s proposal for meeting ITFO requirements as stated in the Statement of Work (SOW). These discriminators are captured in table titled: Proposal Evaluation Definitions.

The Government will assign color ratings to Technical and Management factors.

The evaluators will use four (4) color codes to assign a color rating to each evaluation factor that results from applying the evaluation criteria to each Offeror’s proposal. The following definitions for color ratings will apply:

Technical and Management Color Rating Definitions

Proposal Evaluation Definitions

EVALUATION

Management Factor

Management IDIQ Approach. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s management approach to determine the degree to which the information provided by the Offeror demonstrated the Offeror’s ability to efficiently describe how its management approach will lead to and control the successful execution of this contract; the full range of business and technical management services that assist in the development, implementation, and continuous improvement of procedures to the ITFO IDIQ. These services encompass all areas of program management office support. The evaluation will focus on compliance with solicitation requirements, proposal strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and performance confidence. The color ratings will be based on the evaluated strengths, weaknesses, and/or deficiencies of each Offeror’s proposal as they relate to each of the Management elements. Each Management element is of equal importance.

MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Management Approach. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s management approach to determine the degree to which the information provided by the Offeror demonstrated the Offeror’s ability to provide management functions to perform ITFO Support Services at multiple locations through out CONUS and OCONUS concurrently in accordance with the contract requirements and the following:

Organizational Structure. Demonstrated managerial and supervisory ability to provide required Field Operations and related program management support services IAW the contract SOW and Attachment 1 – Special Contract Requirements, including management control and supervision of the organization; operational control; cost control methods (identify, monitor, and report contract costs); risk management lines of authority for coordination; interface/communication with the Government for performance of the requirements; manage an integrated team, inclusive of subcontractors/teammates, staffing to perform multiple requirements concurrently, resumes for key personnel.

Program Management Plan and Capability. Demonstrated management capability to efficiently deliver ITFO services and support across ICE; support increasing workload; ability to temporarily increase staffing to respond to emergent or technically challenging assignment(s); adherence to compliance with DHS and OCIO regulations, instructions.

TECHNICAL

The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the overall technical capability of each Offeror. The evaluation will focus on compliance with solicitation requirements and the SOW, proposal strengths, problems, deficiencies, and performance confidence. Each technical element is of equal importance.

The Contract Management and Operations Plan and all elements of that plan shall be evaluated to assess the Offeror’s overall approach to the ITFO program, for consistency and overall logic.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposed Technical Approach demonstrates understanding of, and the ability to efficiently meet ITFO requirements, objectives, considerations, constraints, and incorporation of phased requirements. Leverages existing Tools (i.e. SharePoint, web-based applications, etc.) and executability of the Offeror’s proposed Technical Approach. The extent the Quality Control Plan provides for appropriate Contractor oversight and surveillance, conducting internal reviews of deliverables, services and other work products. Approach and plan for managing, controlling and continuing to provide high quality deliverables/services to meet the relevant performance and quality standards that encompass the scope of requirements in the IDIQ SOW and subsequent task orders. Identification of performance measures, and corrective actions.

An assessment of the Staffing, Records Management, Communications, Security, and Training Plans will include the following: The logic of the Staffing Plan, how well it correlates with the work requirements to demonstrate an acute understanding of the contract requirements, recruitment and retention of contractor personnel and Key Personnel Resumes.

The offerors approach to training, retraining and refresher training of personnel in the Training Plan. The Offeror’s approach to ensuring effective communication of program requirements to all of the program’s stakeholders and participants.

The logic and executiability of the proposed Emergency Readiness Plan to maintain continuity of operations.

The Government will conduct an over all assessment of the Offeror’s Transition Plan to ensure the proposed strategy provides a logical process and methodology to provide adequate and timely training of contractor personnel, obtain required personnel security clearances and/or cleared personnel and deploy personnel in a manner that provides an orderly transition from the incumbent within 60 days from date of award without degradation of services.

Past Performance Factor The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an Offeror’s ability to perform. The Government will conduct an overall assessment of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to fulfill the solicitation requirements while meeting budget, schedule, and performance requirements. Both the prime Offeror and teammate’s/subcontractor’s past performance will be evaluated. The Government will evaluate each Offeror's past performance conducting projects of similar dollar value, scope and complexity, as proven by the successful management of current and previous contracts of a similar scope, magnitude, and complexity during the last three (3) years. In performing this evaluation, the Government will consider the Offeror's past performance information provided by the Offeror (3 – 5 past performance references) and may consider information obtained from other sources.

Past performance will be assessed for recency, relevancy, and scope. Evaluators may augment questionnaire responses through dialogue with contact persons completing the questionnaires. Assessment may include Government site visit(s) and surveys of identified sources to validate performance information.

If there is no relevant past performance information, past performance will be rated as neutral.

The Performance Confidence will receive one of the following ratings:

Satisfactory

Confidence Past performance is at least somewhat applicable in terms of content, scope and complexity and at least satisfactory in quality. The Offeror's record of past performance indicates there is some potential risk associated with receiving quality products, timely delivery of services, and contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Offeror's experience indicate that the Offeror may have some problems during performance of the requirements of the task.

Recency Assessment The Government will assess past performance information to determine if it is recent. For evaluation purposes, “recent” is defined as an effort that is ongoing or being performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance. For example, for a contract completed two years ago, the Government may also consider the Phase-In portion of that contract that occurred more than three (3) years ago. Past performance information that does not meet the above conditions will be considered not recent and will not be considered for evaluation.

Relevancy Assessment The Government will evaluate recent performance information, including but not limited to past performance information and past performance questionnaires data, to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical, Management, and Cost/Price factors. In assessing relevancy, consideration will be given to, but not limited by, such items as similarity of the size, scope, complexity, and contract type. Additionally, the Government will consider the Offeror’s cited contract’s magnitude in terms of contract value, technical content and complexity, problem resolution, lessons learned, and customer satisfaction. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The Government may consider as relevant, efforts performed for other agencies of federal, state, or local governments, and commercial customers.

More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the performance confidence rating than less relevant efforts. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a neutral/unknown confidence rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

Adverse Findings

The assessment of past performance information 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 for which the Offeror has not had an opportunity to respond. The Offeror will be given an opportunity to respond to any adverse past performance information obtained by the Government, which the Offeror did not previously have an opportunity to address. Any 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. If the Offeror clearly demonstrates management actions employed to overcome problems and the effects of those actions, in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified, this may allow the Offeror to be rated higher than might otherwise be indicated.

Cost/Price Factor

The Cost/Price proposal will be reviewed for compliance with the requirements specified in the Instructions to Offerors (Addendum to 52.212-1) of the solicitation. The Offeror’s price proposal will be assessed, as appropriate, for completeness, affordability, price reasonableness, and realism using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404. This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed prices indicate a clear understanding of the solicitation requirements, reflect a sound approach to satisfying those requirements, and are consistent with the various methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s overall proposal. If the reasonableness assessment indicates the proposed price is excessively high or low, the Government may consider the Offeror to have a lack of understanding of the technical requirements and the proposal may be considered unreasonable and/or unrealistic and may be excluded from further consideration for award. The Government reserves the right to make award based upon price in the event that the technical, management, and past performance factors and subfactors of all the Offeror’s proposals are substantially the same.

Price proposals submitted by the Offeror will be evaluated for completeness based upon the submission requirements contained in the solicitation instructions. In addition, the Offeror’s price proposal including subcontractor(s) data will be evaluated based on the traceability to the performance of the requirements addressed in the technical and management proposals.

The CO will make a determination of price reasonableness based upon receiving adequate competition in response to this solicitation. In the case that a determination of reasonableness cannot be made based upon competition, other procedures as defined in FAR 15.4 will be utilized.

When the Government evaluates an offer as unrealistically low and the Offeror fails to adequately explain these underestimated prices, the Government will consider, under the Proposal Risk evaluation, the Offeror’s possible lack of understanding of the technical requirements of the applicable Technical and/or Management factors. The Offeror is advised to clearly show justification for unique practices that significantly lower prices.

Compensation for Professional Employees:

The Government will evaluate Compensation for Professional Employees IAW FAR 52.222-46, - Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, offerors are required to submit for evaluation a total compensation plan setting forth proposed salaries and fringe benefits for professional employees working on the contract. Supporting information will include data, such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in establishing the total compensation structure. Plans indicating unrealistically low professional employee’s compensation may be assessed adversely as one of the factors considered in making an award.

Additional Definitions: