Att._6-_52.212-2_Evaluation--Commercial_Items_ _Addenda_(amendment_3).pdf

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Attachment 6- 52.212-2 Evaluation- Commercial Items & Addenda

RFP- N66604-16-R-0071

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:

FACTORS SUBFACTORS

Technical Capability Technical Subfactor 1 – Technical Approach

Technical Subfactor 2 – Sample Tasks

Technical Subfactor 3 – Personnel Management

Small Business

Participation

None

Past Performance None

Price None

Technical and past performance, when combined, are significantly more important than price. The Subfactors of

Technical Capability are listed in descending order of importance. All evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. Price will increase in importance as competing proposals approach Technical Capability/Past Performance equality or when it is so significantly high as to diminish the value of technical superiority to the Government.

(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:

52.212-2 -- Evaluation -- Commercial Items (OCT 2014)

1.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

1.1 General Information

(a) The Government intends to make a single award as a result of this RFP. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror meeting all Pass/Fail requirements of the solicitation and whose proposal contains the combination of those factors offering the best overall value to the Government. The best overall value to the

Government will be determined by comparing the difference in value of technical (non-price) features of proposals with the difference in the price to the Government. All CLINs will be awarded to one offeror. Offers, therefore, must be on the basis of furnishing all CLINs in order to be eligible for award.

(b) The Government intends to award a contract without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions to permit Offerors to revise their proposals.

1.2 Relative Importance

The following table indicates all factors and subfactors that will be considered for award.

FACTORS SUBFACTORS

Technical Capability Technical Subfactor 1 – Technical Approach

Technical Subfactor 2 – Sample Tasks

Management Technical Subfactor 3 – Personnel Management

Small Business Participation None

Past Performance None

Price None

The relative importance of factors is as follows: The Subfactors of Technical Capability are listed in descending order of importance. All evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. Price will increase in importance as competing proposals approach Technical Capability/Past

Performance equality or when it is so significantly high as to diminish the value of technical superiority to the

Government.

2.0 PASS/FAIL REQUIREMENTS

The Government will evaluate offers based on a Pass/Fail rating of the requirements listed below. Offerors must receive a Pass rating under each Pass/Fail requirement to be eligible for award. NOTE: The Pass/Fail

Requirements will not be assigned an adjectival rating.

EVALUATION

REQUIREMENTS

PASS FAIL

Plan for Obtaining

Personnel Clearances

The plan for obtaining personnel clearances includes confirmation of existing personnel clearances, details the Offeror’s process for obtaining personnel clearances, and outlines the schedule for obtaining any required new personnel clearances by the time of proposal submission, as specified in the

DD254.

The plan for obtaining clearances does not include confirmation of existing personnel clearances at the

SECRET level, details of the

Offeror’s process for obtaining personnel clearances or outline of the schedule for obtaining any required new clearances at the

SECRET level by the time of proposal submission, as specified in the DD254.

Facility Clearance The Offeror provides proof of a valid Facility Clearance at the TOP

SECRET level by the time of proposal submission.

The Offeror fails to provide proof of a valid Facility Clearance at the

TOP SECRET level by the time of proposal submission.

Certification The Offeror provides proof of all required certifications for the personnel listed by providing a

LENEL Certification ID Number and Full Name of all proposed employees.

The Offeror does not provide proof of all required certifications by failing to provide a LENEL

Certification ID Number and Full

Name of all proposed employees.

Small Business

Subcontracting Plan

NOTE: This solicitation requirement only applies to Large

Business Offerors. An

Offeror is considered a

Large Business if it exceeds the small business size standard of $20.50M under

NAICS 561621.

Offerors that are considered a small business under NAICS

561621 are not required to submit a

Subcontracting Plan.

The Small Business

Subcontracting Plan complies with the requirements at FAR 52.219-9

“Small Business Subcontracting

Plan”, DFARS 252.219-7003

“Small Business Subcontracting

Plan (DoD Contracts)”, and HQ L-

2-0009 “Small Business

Subcontracting Plan”.

The Small Business

Subcontracting Plan fails to comply with the requirements at

FAR 52.219-9 “Small Business

Subcontracting Plan”, DFARS

252.219-7003 “Small Business

Subcontracting Plan (DoD

Contracts)”, and HQ-L-2-0009

“Small Business Subcontracting

Plan”, OR the Large Business

Offeror does not submit a Small

Business Subcontracting Plan.

3.0 NON-PRICE FACTORS

The Government will evaluate offers and assign one of the adjectival ratings indicated in paragraph 5.0 of this provision for each of the following non-price factors.

3.1 Technical Factors

3.1.1 Factor 1 – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

3.1.1.1 Subfactor 1 – Technical Approach

3.1.1.2 Subfactor 2 – Sample Tasks

3.1.1.3 Subfactor 3 – Personnel Management

3.2 Technical Capability (Consists of the following three subfactors):

3.2.1 Technical Approach:

(a) The Government will evaluate proposals to assess each offeror's understanding of the work and its ability to accomplish the stated tasking. The Government will evaluate key personnel based on the minimum qualifications stated in the solicitation. The Government will evaluate each offeror’s ability to propose the hardware/material part numbers listed in the LENEL System Hardware and Materials Price

Listing, (Attachment 3). If the offeror proposes an equivalent LENEL-compatible substitution of hardware/material component on this listing, the Government will evaluate the equivalent LENE-compatible substitution to determine its compatibility with LENEL systems.

3.2.2 Sample Tasks:

The Government will evaluate the responses to each sample task to assess the Offeror’s understanding of the issue(s), requirement(s), personnel required, and the approach to handling each sample task.

3.2.3 Personnel Management

The Government will evaluate the proposed Senior Technical Representative’s (STR) qualifications to manage tasks, including their authority, ability to independently commit company resources to performance under this contract and their line of communication to senior company management. The Government will also evaluate the proposed STR’s previous experience managing similar efforts.

If personnel outside the commuting area are proposed, the Government will evaluate the Contractor’s submission on how the personnel can be used effectively and efficiently, and how there would be adequate management control.

3.3 SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

The Government will evaluate the Small Business Participation in the following areas:

(a) The extent of first-tier small business participation which the Offeror credibly proposes to subcontract with

U.S. small business (SB) concerns throughout the performance of this contract. For the purpose of this evaluation, the extent of Offeror (or joint venture partner/teaming arrangement) participation in proposed contract performance, where the Offeror is a U.S. small business concern for the applicable NAICS code and size standard for this procurement will also be considered small business participation.

(b) The extent for which the proposal identified challenging goals for participation by U.S. small business concerns and the adequacy of the rationale that supports those goals. The extent of participation of such concerns will be evaluated in terms of the percentage of the Offeror’s total contract value.

(c) As assessment of the feasibility and adequacy of the approach proposed to the proposed Small Business participation percentage.

3.4 PAST PERFORMANCE

The past performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance. The

Government may consider past performance information contained in the Past Performance Information

Retrieval System (PPIRS) and the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS).

The Government may also contact all or some of each Offeror’s customers to obtain past performance information. The Government reserves the right to limit or expand the number of references it decides to contact, and contact references other than those provided by the Offeror. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

4.0 PRICE

(a) The offeror’s proposed price will be evaluated for reasonableness. The Government will use price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(a)(2).

(b) Total Evaluated Price:

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s Total Proposed Price. The Total Proposed Price includes the sum of the Total Price of All CLINs submitted under the CLIN Schedule Pricing (Attachment 2) and the Total Price of LENEL System Hardware and Materials Price Listing (Attachment 3). However, the Total Award Value of the resulting contract will be based solely on the CLIN Schedule Pricing (Attachment 2) since the Government has specified the value of CLIN 0006 in the CLIN Schedule Pricing (Attachment 2).

(c) CLIN Schedule Pricing (Attachment 2):

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed prices (Unit Price, Extended Price, and Total Price of All

CLINs) stated in its submission of the CLIN Schedule Pricing, Attachment 2.

(d) LENEL System Hardware and Materials Price Listing, (Attachment 3):

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed prices (Unit Price, Extended Price, and Total Price of

Hardware/Material Items Listed) stated in its submission of the LENEL System Hardware and Materials Price

Listing, (Attachment 3). This price list will be used for evaluation purposes under the Total Evaluated Price.

After contract award this price list will be used by the Government to place hardware/material orders at the delivery order level under CLIN 0006. The total proposed price of this list will not be considered part of the total award value of the resulting contract since the Government has specified the value of CLIN 0006 in the

CLIN Schedule Pricing (Attachment 2).

5.0 ADJECTIVAL RATINGS

The Government will perform an evaluation of the non-price evaluation factors and subfactors based on the

Offeror’s proposal. This evaluation focuses on strengths and weaknesses of the Offeror’s proposal, resulting in the assignment of an adjectival rating for each factor and subfactor. Price will not be assigned an adjectival rating.

5.1 Ratings: Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

Definitions:

Weakness is defined as a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See

FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Deficiency is defined as 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. See FAR 15.001.

Risk, as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased

Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. (For firm-fixed-price contracts, the reference to increased cost may be removed from the risk definition.)

Strength is an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

5.2 Past Performance Evaluation

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror's probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each offeror after evaluating the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements.

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the offeror's past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. The criteria to establish what is recent and relevant shall be unique to each source selection and shall be stated in the solicitation. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of an offeror's contract history that would give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will satisfy the current procurement. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity; dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

There are four levels of relevancy as shown below. When source selections require a greater level of discrimination within the past performance evaluation, the source selection team shall use all four of the relevancy ratings identified below. However, for those source selections requiring less discrimination in the past performance evaluation, the team may use, as a minimum, "Relevant" and "Not Relevant" past performance ratings. The solicitation, and if required the SSP, shall clearly identify the treatment of relevancy within past performance evaluation. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Rating Description

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat

Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the 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.

Definitions:

Recency, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant.

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 subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror's past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. Requirements for considering history of small business utilization are outlined at FAR

15.304(c)(3)(ii) and DFARS 215.305(a)(2).

Sources of Past Performance Information for Evaluation are as follows: Past performance information may be provided by the offeror, as solicited.

Past performance information may be obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition. Past performance information shall be obtained from any other sources available to the

Government, to include, but not 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, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining

Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

The evaluation team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

Performance Confidence Assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in shown below. (Reference FAR 15.305(2) for information on assigning an unknown/neutral confidence rating.)

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.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the requirement.

Unknown Confidence

(Neutral)

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.