RFP Atch 17 - FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation.pdf

FA9401-24-R-0002

Attachment 17

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Items

1.0. Basis for Contract Award

This acquisition will utilize the subjective tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and the Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS) to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Government the greatest confidence that it will best meet the requirements affordably in a way that will be advantageous to the Government. This 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 and present performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this provision. The tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, technical requirements, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation described below. The Government intends to award one contract, or to not award any contracts, depending on the quality of proposals submitted and availability of funds. No partial awards will be made. Contract terms and conditions consistent with customary commercial practices are specified in the solicitation/contract, with otherwise tailored terms and conditions specified in the solicitation.

It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to engage in discussions if during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal will be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306.

If the Contracting Officer 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 Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, 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.

2.0. Factors and Subfactors and Relative Importance

A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror’s proposal will be performed. The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors and subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Logistics Support Services

Attachment 17

Subfactor 2: Staffing Plan Subfactor 3: Mission Essential Service Plan

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

Technical and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Price.

Please note that Price will still contribute substantially to the selection decision.

3.0. Proposal Evaluation

3.1. Factor 1 – Technical

Each offeror’s written technical proposal will be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets all of the requirements of the Performance Work Statement, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The technical proposals must address each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail. For each subfactor, the offeror must identify risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degraded performance, the need for increased government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation shall address the Source Selection Team’s identification of any weakness as well as the offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation (if applicable) and document why that is or is not manageable.

Subfactor 1: Logistics Support Services (PWS 2.6, 2.13, 2.14, 2.16): This subfactor is met when the submitted approach is sound, feasible, effective, and clearly demonstrates evidence of the full capability of the contractor to meet all the requirements and specifically addresses:

Individual Protection Equipment (IPE) How the offeror will ensure 100% Positive Control of firearms

The method for ensuring that personnel are fully qualified on Arming Procedures and how the offeror intends to maintain these qualifications and proficiency

The methods and procedures to issue and return deployment weapons

Equipment Accountability Element (EAE) The approach to inventorying equipment maintained on Custodian Authorization/Custody

Attachment 17

Receipt Listing (CA/CRL)

A description of Date of Last Inventory (DOLI) procedures as it pertains to Equipment/Details, including the process of updating and managing the equipment details

A description of surveillance methods, accountability, discrepancy reporting process and report follow-up

A discussion of tracking of all other accountable assets not listed on CA/CRL in possession of responsible organizations

Nuclear Weapons Related Materials (NWRM) Detail Transactions processes required to Issue, Turn-in, Ship, and Receipt NWRM

Handling and Storage of NWRM asset

Subfactor 2, Staffing Approach (PWS 1.1.6, 1.1.7): Each offeror’s proposal will be evaluated based on the proposed staffing approach. This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates adequate:

Staffing to perform the required services

Processes and procedures to recruit, select, train, and hire qualified personnel

Organizational and management structure

Subfactor 3, Mission Essential Services Plan: This subfactor is met when the offeror’s written plan addresses all of the requirements listed in DFARS provision 252.237-7024, Notice of Continuation of Essential Contractor Services.

Each Technical subfactor identified above will receive one of the color ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures excerpted below in Table 3.1, which focuses on the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal.

The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings will not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor. All technical subfactors are of equal importance.

Attachment 17

Table 3.1 – Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Color Rating Adjectival

Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, 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 or significant 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 is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

3.2. Factor 2 – Past Performance

The past performance assessment will assess the confidence in the offeror to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record.

The Government will conduct a past performance evaluation that examines an offeror’s recent and relevant past performance record to assess the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to perform as proposed. The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy and quality.

3.2.1. Past Performance Rating. For the Past Performance factor, each proposal will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in Table 2.4.1. below.

Table 3.2.1 – Performance Confidence Assessments Adjectival Rating Definition

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.

Attachment 17

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 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 be able to successfully perform the required effort.

3.2.1.1. Neutral Confidence Rating. In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is 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 and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral”. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

3.2.1.2. Limited Confidence Rating. The Government may have a low expectation that an offeror will successfully perform the required effort EITHER because of concerns with the scope, magnitude, and/or complexities of recent, relevant present/past-performance AND/OR concerns with the quality of this performance.

3.2.2. Past Performance Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent, relevant, and quality record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the food services requirements. 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, to include, but not limited to, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), System for Award Management (SAM), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases;

interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

3.2.2.1. 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 during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. The Government will only consider performance on efforts that have been in performance for at least 6 months prior to the issuance of the solicitation. Past performance information that fails to meet these conditions

Attachment 17 will not be evaluated.

3.2.2.2. Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the PWS requirements. Relevant contracts are defined as contracts which are similar or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation. The Government will also consider contract type, contract value, contract term, etc.

In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration will be given to those aspects of an offeror’s history of contract (or subcontract) performance that would provide the most context and give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will successfully satisfy the current requirement. Examples: similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming.

In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, only being proposed to be performed by the offeror. Joint venture partners’ past performance shall be part of the aggregate performance evaluation. When the joint venture itself does not demonstrate it has the required experience, the Government will evaluate the past performance of each joint venture member individually. The past performance information forms and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance.

The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

Table 3.2.2.2 – Performance Relevancy Assessments Rating Definition

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.

Very Relevant – Has performed commercial or government logistics or supply chain management contracts that have MICAP operations managing at least 80 MICAPS daily, IPE operations managing at least 600 weapons and 6,000 tactical gear assets daily, NWRM operations managing at least 1 transaction or movement over the span of the contract

Attachment 17 performance period, Classified Material Storage Operations managing classified assets/commodities in storage over the span of the contact performance period, EAE operations managing at least 80 equipment accounts and at least 10,000 equipment assets daily, Inventory operations managing at least 30,000 line items daily, Hazardous Material Management operations managing at least 150 hazardous items in warehouse storage daily and at least 10 customer transactions daily, Customer Service operations managing at least 40 customer transactions daily and managing 110 customer accounts, Quality Assurance operations managing at least 91 inspection checklist procedures daily, Warehouse Operations managing at least 120 receipt transactions, 60 storage transactions and 90 retrievals from stock for outgoing issues and shipments daily, Information Technologies Support for at least 160 personnel daily and managing the inventory requirements for 150 computers and 400 computer accessories.

Relevant – Has performed commercial or government logistics or supply chain management contracts that have MICAP operations managing at least 40 MICAPS daily, IPE operations managing at least 400 weapons and 4,000 tactical gear assets daily, Classified Material Storage Operations managing classified assets/commodities in storage over the span of the contact performance period, EAE operations managing at least 60 equipment accounts and at least 7,000 equipment assets daily, Inventory operations managing at least 15,000 line items daily, Hazardous Material Management operations managing at least 80 hazardous items in warehouse storage daily and at least 5 customer transactions daily, Customer Service operations managing at least 25 customer transactions daily and managing 75 customer accounts, Quality Assurance operations managing at least 60 inspection checklist procedures daily, Warehouse Operations managing at least 80 receipt transactions, 40 storage transactions and 65 retrievals from stock for outgoing issues and shipments daily, Information Technologies Support for at least 120 personnel daily and managing the inventory requirements for 130 computers and 300 computer accessories.

Somewhat Relevant – Has performed commercial or government logistics or supply chain management contracts that have MICAP operations managing at least 20 MICAPS daily, IPE operations managing at least 200 weapons and 1,500 tactical gear assets daily, Classified Material Storage Operations managing classified assets/commodities in storage over the span of the contact performance period, EAE operations managing at least 60 equipment accounts and at least 3,000 equipment assets daily, Inventory operations managing at least 8,000 line items daily, Hazardous Material Management operations managing at least 40 hazardous items in warehouse storage daily and at least 5 customer transactions daily, Customer Service operations managing at least 15 customer transactions daily and managing 30 customer accounts, Quality Assurance operations managing at least 25 inspection checklist procedures daily, Warehouse Operations managing at least 40 receipt transactions, 20 storage transactions and 30 retrievals from stock for outgoing issues and shipments daily, Information Technologies Support for at least 75 personnel daily and managing the inventory requirements for 80 computers and 150 computer accessories.

Not Relevant – Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOTE: Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the above definitions not only includes the technical features and characteristics identified for each effort, but also the logistical

Attachment 17 and programmatic considerations including but not limited to quantity produced, length of effort, dollar values, type and complexity of products supported. When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical complexities, and the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort as separate aspects. If both of these aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract effort, the overall relevancy rating assigned to that contract will be affected. For example, if the submitted contract meets essentially the same technical complexities, but involves only some of the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, a lesser relevancy rating may be assigned.

3.2.2.3. Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant references (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). The quality assessment will consist of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance volume responses, CPARS, interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials and, if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government.

The quality assessment 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 from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements, and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

3.2.3. Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating in accordance with the ratings in Table 2.4.1. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the requirements in the PWS, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a “neutral” rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. 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. The SSA may determine that a Substantial Confidence or a Satisfactory Confidence performance rating is worth more than a Neutral Confidence past performance rating when making the best value trade-off decision.

3.2.4. Confidentiality of Performance Information. Past performance information, including CPARS, is confidential and is not to be released to anyone outside the Government source selection process. Offerors are cautioned that contacting or seeking out source(s) of past performance information is strictly prohibited. Any attempts to influence past performance ratings will be perceived negatively and could impact the overall performance rating. Any

Attachment 17 questions should be addressed directly to the CO only and not to any other individual(s).

Offerors are responsible for ensuring that all their subcontractors and teaming partners are aware of this information and are in compliance.

3.3 Factor 3 – Price

The offeror’s proposed price will be evaluated for reasonableness, balance, and Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

3.3.1. Reasonableness: Proposed prices for all contract periods will be evaluated for reasonableness. Adequate price competition is expected to support the determination of reasonableness. The price analysis techniques listed at FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) may be utilized to further validate price reasonableness. If the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition does not exists, the Contracting Officer may request submission of other than certified cost or pricing data and may use other proposal analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) to the extent necessary, in order to make a determination of price reasonableness.

3.3.2. Unbalanced Pricing: In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or underestimated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques.

The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether unbalanced separately priced line items exist. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3.3.3. Total Evaluated Price. A Total Evaluation Price (TEP) will be calculated for evaluation purposes only and used to assist in determining the best value to the Government. Proposals shall be evaluated, for award purposes, based upon the TEP, which consists of the pricing for the base year and the four option years. Additionally, the 6-month extension in accordance with FAR clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, is also considered part of this overall evaluation.

(End of Provision)