Updated 52.212-2 Evaluations 02Dec24.pdf

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212‐2 -- Evaluation -- Commercial Products and Commercial Services

1. Basis for Contract Award: The Government may award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, presents the best value to the Government, price and other factors considered. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by 52.212-1 addendum to this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the CO reasonably determines that the technical and/or overall business approach of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference. While the Government selection evaluation team and the Contracting Officer will strive for maximum objectivity, the fair opportunity process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

The government will award one (1) 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.

2. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

Award will be based upon an integrated assessment of the following evaluation factors:

Technical Factor 1: Technical Competency and Standards Compliance o Subfactor 1: Development of Air Force Industrial Processes IAW Commercial Solicitation Para 4.4.7.1 o Subfactor 2: Development of a Statement of Work for Facility Engineering Projects IAW Commercial Solicitation 4.4.7.1.

Technical Factor 2: Personnel and Administrative Capability o Subfactor 1: Personnel Qualifications and Training IAW Commercial Solicitation 4.4.7.2 o Subfactor 2: Operational Structure and Responsiveness IAW Commercial Solicitation 4.4.7.2

Past Performance Factor: Past Performance Evaluation Criteria IAW Commercial Solicitation 4.4.8

Price: IAW Commercial Solicitation 4.4.9 o Subfactor 1: Price Reasonableness o Subfactor 2: Balance o Subfactor 3: Completeness o Subfactor 4: Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

3. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD/EVALUATUION METHDOLOGY:

The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals based upon the rating structure below. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The Offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions. The government reserves the right to have discussions with none, one, some or all offerors at its discretion.

Technical Factors and Past Experience are significantly more important than price.

3.1 Evaluation Criteria for Technical Factors 1 and 2

The Technical Proposals will be evaluated for acceptability in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section. The Technical Volume must convey to the Government that the offeror is capable, possesses adequate technical expertise and experience, possesses sufficient resources, and is able to plan, organize, and use those resources in a coordinated and timely fashion to meet the needs of the Government. The offeror’s proposal shall NOT simply copy and paste, rephrase or restate the PWS language for the Technical Volume.

Table 1-1

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Each Proposal will be given a color technical rating based on the following:

Technical Ratings:

The Offeror’s Technical Proposal will be evaluated using the table above for the degree to which they meet the requirements of the following sub-factor criteria, combined with an assessment of risk as defined at Table 1-2 below. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with significant strengths and weaknesses.

Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating. These two ratings have approximately equal impact for the evaluation of each Technical subfactor. The Government’s evaluation will determine the extent to which an Offeror meets, exceeds, or fails to meet each subfactor, and combined with the importance of each subfactor as indicated above, including risk assessment as defined in Table 1-2, an overall color-rating assigned to each offeror’s Technical Proposal.

The Technical Rating includes consideration of proposal strengths and deficiencies, defined below:

Significant Strength: An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Strength: An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

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 (See FAR 15.001).

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 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, 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 not awardable, or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

The Technical Risk Rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with proposal weaknesses, defined below:

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

(See FAR 15.001)

Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (See FAR 15.001)

Technical risk shall be rated using the ratings listed in Table 1-2.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach and capabilities explanation and how they will use their approach and capabilities to accomplish/satisfy requirements, and not merely restate requirements.

4. TECHNICAL FACTORS

4.1 Factor 1: Technical Competency and Standards Compliance

4.1.1 Sub Factor 1 Technical Competency Industrial Process Engineering Practices: This sub-factor is met when the offeror demonstrates a detailed, thorough and comprehensive approach to the development of an Air Force industrial process order in compliance with the

Table 1-2

Adjectival Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

program PWS, including substantiating their understanding by describing the research and analysis necessary to develop a process order containing all warnings, cautions, steps, figures, and references necessary to clearly outline the industrial process.

4.1.2 Subfactor 2 Technical Competency Facility Engineering Practices: This sub-factor is met when the offeror demonstrates a detailed, thorough and comprehensive approach to the development of a statement of work for a facility engineering project (new construction or renovation) that includes all major facility features such as building and room dimensions, spatial usage, utility service requirements and locations.

4.2 Factor 2: Personnel and Administrative Capability

4.2.1 Subfactor 1 Personnel Qualifications and Training: This sub-factor is met when the offeror demonstrates an effective approach for staffing, including how the contractor intends to search and identify qualified personnel, how these qualifications are verified, and how the contractor will ensure these personnel are on-site and ready to work within the timeframe described in the PWS. This includes background checks and security clearances as required for working in secure environments.

4.2.2 Subfactor 2 Operational Structure and Responsiveness: This sub-factor is met when the offeror clearly describes their administrative and operational framework for effectively and efficiently managing the contract, including the lines of authority, program management, and the capability to maintain a close working relationship with Contracting Agency and Air Force personnel.

5. PAST PERFORMANCE Factor and Evaluation Criteria

5.1 Past Performance shall be rated based on past experience relevancy as shown in table 1-3 and combined with a quality assessment to provide a confidence score as shown in table 1-4.

The past performance evaluation will result in an assessment of the offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation will consider each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying services that meet the contract’s requirements. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the recency and relevancy of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These will be combined to establish a performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror, as described below in tables 1-3 and 1-4.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information). All three aspects will be considered.

5.2 Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant. Recency for this effort is established at 60 months or less. Each project will be deemed recent or not recent based on when the effort occurred.

Relevancy for this effort is defined as successfully completed projects involving engineering services provided for the government, emphasizing facilities engineering, industrial process engineering and related engineering disciplines. See table 1-3 below.

5.3 The Evaluation Team will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance. The offeror provides references for previous work completed including contract numbers, United States Government points of contact and any related data to assist in validating the offeror’s past performance. Offeror shall provide no more than three (3) past performance examples. The Government evaluation team may use information gathered from Government reference points of contact to determine quality but will not rely solely on this information. The sum of this information will be evaluated to determine general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. See table 1-4

Table 1-3

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 similar 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.

Table 1-4

Adjectival 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.

5.4 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.

6. PRICE Factor Evaluation

6.1 Price Reasonableness

The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 (Proposal Analysis Techniques). Generally, adequate price competition will satisfy the criteria for price reasonableness.

6.2 Balance

Offers will be evaluated for balance. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items or sub-line items. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the FODA determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

6.3 Completeness

Offers will be evaluated for balance. The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with clause 52.212-1 of the RFP. Incomplete price submissions (i.e. not all CLINs filled in) will NOT be evaluated

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.

and the proposal may be eliminated from the competition (if edits to this factor are needed, I can/will finalize before release.

6.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the proposed prices for the base period of all CLINs and the option years (FAR clause 52.217-9, Option to Extend the Term of the Contract) listed on the TEP Worksheet. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. The TEP is for evaluation purposes only; evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. A no bid or an omitted CLIN price may result in an incomplete price submission. An omitted CLIN price may result in proposal elimination. The TEP is for evaluation purposes only, however all proposed CLIN prices are contractually binding as prices for the contract and options.

Normally, competition establishes price reasonableness. The Government reserves the right to conduct price analysis required to establish reasonableness of the otherwise successful offerors price.

For the purposes of Government evaluation, the Government will utilize pre-determined blocks of hours as structured on the draft contract CLINs to develop the respective offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The offeror’s fully burden labor rates will be multiplied by the blocks of hours for each CLIN for each year of contract performance. The TEP will be used by the Government for making a determination of best value. For the purpose of developing the TEP and for contract execution, one (1) FTE equals 1920 hours per year.

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.

7. Other Applicable Clauses

Applicable clauses are included in the draft SF1449 included as an attachment to this solicitation.

8. Offer Submission Instructions

If the offeror is capable of meeting the requirements of this solicitation, please submit proposals no later than 13 April 2025 at 05:00PM Mountain Standard Time to the Contracting Officer (CO): Jason Neering at jason.neering@us.af.mil and the Contracting Specialist (CS): Devin Laughter at devin.laughter@us.af.mil / Willie Little at willie.little@us.af.mil. Ensure your proposal addresses the requirement in the Instructions and Notices to Offerors and your ability to mailto:jason.neering@us.af.mil mailto:devin.laughter@us.af.mil mailto:willie.little@us.af.mil meet the selection criteria in the award evaluation. Please submit any questions concerning this requirement to Jason Neering at jason.neering@us.af.mil and Devin Laughter at devin.laughter@us.af.mil / Willie Little willie.little@us.af.mil no later than 13 April 2025 at

05:00PM.

9. Attachments

• Performance Work Statement dated 14 January 2025

• 52.212-1 Instructions

• 52.212-2 Evaluation Factors

• CDRLs A001 – A004

• Davis-Monthan AFB WD

• Contract Security Classification Specification DD254

• TEP Worksheet

10. Contracting Office Address

6038 Aspen Ave

Hill AFB, UT 84056

11. Point of Contact

Contracting Officer:

Jason Neering

801-586-8885 jason.neering@us.af.mil

Contracting Specialist:

Devin Laughter

801-777-2502 devin.laughter@us.af.mil mailto:jason.neering@us.af.mil mailto:willie.little@us.af.mil mailto:jason.neering@us.af.mil