Solicitation FA303022R0014 Attachment 8 Section M (16 JUN 2022).pdf

52.212-2 and Addendum – Evaluation Factors for Award

FAR 52.212-2- EVALUATION—COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JUN 2022)

(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:

(1) TECHNICAL

(2) PAST PERFORMANCE

(3) PRICE

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

(b) A written notice or acceptance of an offer, mailed 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.

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 – EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JUN 2022)

1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

1.1 This is a Subjective Tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Parts 12 and 15, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and Air Force FAR Supplement (AFFARS). Award will be made based on the Best Value, meaning the Government seeks to award to an offer who provides the greatest confidence that they will meet the Government’s required affordably. The Best Value technique chosen for this acquisition will be Subjective Tradeoff, where Technical and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Price IAW FAR 15.101(b)(2). No contract award shall be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility in accordance with FAR 9.104.

1.2 By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications. The Government intends to award a contract to the offeror deemed responsible in accordance with Federal Acquisition regulation (FAR), as supplemented, whose offer conforms to solicitation requirements including all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the solicitation and is judged, based on the evaluation criteria, to represent the best value to the Government.

1.3 The Government intends to evaluate offers and make an award without discussions. Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their written proposals (e.g., defining the relevance of the offeror’s technical information and adverse past performance information to which an offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor clerical errors. Any such exchange between the offeror and the Government will be for clarification only and will not constitute discussions within the meaning of FAR 15.306(a). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical, past performance and price standpoint.

1.4 Although discussions are not intended, if at any time during the evaluation process it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to open and hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the selection decision.

1.4.1 Any revision or non-concurrence to contact 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, percentages, rates, etc.), rather it is intended to preclude any

Solicitation FA303022R0014 Attachment 8 misunderstandings by the Government, which could result if new or revised terms and conditions are submitted in the FPR that have not been fully disclosed or discussed, and understood during discussions or negotiations. Hence, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the FPR, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

Below is a synopsis of the evaluation steps; the evaluation process is defined in more detail immediately following the synopsis.

2.0 SYNOPSIS OF EVALUATION:

The Government intends to award one (1) contract from this solicitation.

2.1 Step 1: Review all timely proposals for completeness.

2.2 Step 2: The cover page will be reviewed and if applicable, any proposed Team Arrangements/Joint

Venture documentation for completeness. Teaming Arrangements shall conform to all requirements identified in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 of this solicitation and including all elements stated in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items. If an offeror is claiming this business approach, failure to submit Teaming Arrangement/Joint Venture documentation will render the offerors proposal unacceptable.

2.3 Step 3: Evaluate proposals for technical acceptability.

2.4 Step 4: Evaluate Past Performance for each offeror. The Government will only evaluate the 10 most current efforts that are deemed recent and relevant for each offeror.

2.5 Step 5: Evaluate price. The evaluation process is to evaluate prices for reasonableness, balance, and rank all acceptable proposals by overall total evaluated price (TEP) from lowest to highest. The TEP shall be the sum of:

(1) The total price of solicitation Attachment 2 – BTS Pricing Worksheet for each ordering period.

(2) The FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services will be added/calculated to the offeror’s price proposal by utilizing the proposed pricing discount coefficient for the final option year. The increased amount will be based on 50% of the last option year. This amount will be added to (1) above to become the TEP.

2.6 Step 6: The Government may request clarifications, communications, or discussions for proposals through Evaluation Notices (ENs).

2.7 Step 7: The Source Selection Evaluation Board will compile a Source Selection Decision Document for the Source Selection Authority to assess the integrated best value to the Government. The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment to render the best value award decision.

2.8 Responsibility: In addition to the evaluation factors noted above, the offeror must be determined responsible according to the standards in FAR Subpart 9.1 Responsible Prospective Contractors.

3.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY:

Proposals will be evaluated using the following evaluation factors and subfactors:

(I) Technical Subfactor 1: Quality Control Plan Subfactor 2: Management/Manpower Subfactor 3: Mission Essential Services Plant

(II) Past Performance

(III) Price.

All offeror cover pages and teaming arrangements (if applicable) will be reviewed for completeness in accordance with the requirements stated in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors—Commercial Items to determine the offeror acceptable or unacceptable.

3.1 FACTOR I: TECHNICAL

The Government’s Technical Evaluation Team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor listed below.

3.1.1 The rating assigned to this technical evaluation factor will be based on the offeror’s proposed technical volume. The validity and thoroughness of the offeror’s technical volume will be evaluated as specific evidence of the offeror’s understanding and capability to perform this requirement. An overall rating will be assigned; failure to be assigned an acceptable rating in any technical subfactor will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, ineligible for award. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

3.1.2 Evaluators will assign a rating as outlined below in Table C-1.

Table C-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation

3.1.3 Technical Subfactor 1: Quality Control Plan

Offerors shall submit a Quality Control Plan that clearly demonstrates offerors understanding of the quality control requirements of the Performance Work Statement. The Quality Control Plan will be rated acceptable if it meets the following minimum requirements:

3.1.3.1 Offerors Shall submit a Quality Control Plan that:

a. Address methods to be used for identifying and preventing defects before the offerors performance becomes unacceptable.

b. Includes procedures to identify unfavorable performance trend, problem areas, and the corrective actions that would be taken.

3.1.4 Technical Subfactor 2: Management/Manpower Plan

Offerors shall submit a Management/Manpower Plan that clearly demonstrates the offerors understanding of management and staffing requirements of the Performance Work Statement. The Management/Manpower Plan will be rated acceptable if:

3.1.4.1 Offerors shall submit a Management/Manpower Plan that:

a. Provides a management staffing approach that adequately provides personnel qualified to perform the services required by the Performance Work Statement. This shall include retention of personnel, organizational structure, and related commercial and/or government experience supporting Base Telecommunication Services.

b. Provide a realistic manpower schedule that adequately depicts personnel by labor/skills to include hiring and retention objective enabling contract performance at Goodfellow AFB, TX. This includes:

i. A description or reference to the minimum acceptable qualifications;

include licensing certification and training required for assigned employees by skill classification.

ii. Defining the required training for site-specific systems and how assigned personnel will be replaced on short notice due to extend absences of any kind.

3.1.5 Technical Subfactor 3: Mission Essential Services Plan

3.1.5.1 Offerors shall submit a Mission Essential Services Plan that:

a. Addresses at a minimum, challenges associated with maintaining essential contractor services during an extended event; the time lapse associated with the initiation of the acquisition of essential personnel and resources and their actual availability on site;

components, processes, and requirements for the identification, training, and preparedness of personnel who are capable of relocating to alternate facilities or performing work from home; any established alert and notification procedures for mobilizing identified “essential contractor services” personnel; the approach for communicating expectations to contractor employees regarding their roles and responsibilities during a crisis.

3.2 FACTOR II: PAST PERFORMANCE

Offers will be evaluated for past performance. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The Government will evaluate the recency, relevancy, and quality of the offeror’s past performance by analyzing offeror provided past performance information, past performance questionnaires received, and other past performance information data independently obtained from Government and/or commercial sources which may include, but not limited to: the PPIF, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS); and data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources or other databases. The Government will assess if past performance is deemed recent and relevant for the requirements of this RFP. Recent and Relevant is defined in the subparagraphs below:

3.2.1 Recency Assessment: Past Performance will first be evaluated for recency. Recent past performance information includes contracts performed and/or being performed for any customer within the last three (3) years prior to the issuance date of the solicitation. Recency will be evaluated as “meets” or “does not meet”. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

3.2.2 Relevancy Determination: Past Performance will then be evaluated for relevancy. The determination of the identified and demonstrated relevancy elements of each contract will be the decision of the Government. Relevant past performance requires performance of BTS contracts similar in scope, magnitude (dollar value), and complexity to the requirements defined in this solicitation. The Government will only evaluate the 10 most current efforts that are deemed recent and relevant for each offeror. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, joint venture, or teaming partner whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. Higher relevancy will be assigned for contracts that are most similar to the effort for which that Offeror is proposing. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing past performance:

Adjectival 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 required.

3.2.3 Finally, Past Performance will be evaluated for quality and assigned an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Performance confidence assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood that the offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements based upon the offeror’s past performance information. This integrated assessment may include the recent and relevant present/past performance of the Prime Contractor, and joint ventures, and/or teaming partners. An offeror’s overall confidence assessment will be impacted by past performance findings to include the amount and type of work proposed to be performed by each entity of the offeror’s team. More recent performance or more relevant past performance may have greater impact on the performance confidence assessment. Performance confidence will be assessed as one of the following rating categories:

Past Performance Confidence Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Substantial confidence Based on the offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will

**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 performance.

Limited Confidence

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will

No Confidence

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will

**NOTE: 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 may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (See FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determine to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance.

3.2.4 Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will not be considered as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror.

3.2.5 Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had the opportunity to respond.

Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory confidence rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the Contracting Officer reserves the right to award without the opportunity to for proposal revisions.

3.3 Factor III: Price

Offers conforming to all requirements of the solicitation will be ordered from lowest to highest according to Total Evaluated Price (TEP). TEP will be calculated as follows:

3.3.1 TEP = Total evaluated price of Attachment 2, BTS Pricing Worksheet for a base plus two option years plus the amount calculated under paragraph 2.5 (2) above based on any extension under FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services.

3.3.2 Attachment 2 BTS Pricing Worksheet shall be completed fully. Prices will be evaluated for the base plus option year pricing, to include the 52.217-8, six (6) month extension of services. The six (6) month extension of service prices will be the prices utilized during the option year in which the 52.217-8 clause is exercised. For pricing evaluation purposes on this solicitation, the increased amount will be based on 50% of the last option year.

3.3.3 Reasonableness: The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

3.3.4 Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze each offer to determine whether item prices are unbalanced with respect to prices proposed for similar items. An offer may be rejected if the Source Selection Authority determines prices are significantly unbalanced or if the unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Other techniques and procedures, if deemed necessary, may be used to ensure a fair and reasonable price and will be IAW FAR 15.404-1.

(End of provision)