B08_ATT 0004_Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation.docx

Attachment 0004

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Products and Commercial Services (NOV 2021).

FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Products and Commercial Services is tailored as followed:

52.212-2(b) Options: The existing language in (b) is deleted. There are no options in this IDIQ procurement. There are only ordering periods in this RFP. The Government will evaluate the prices according the M.4 Volume 4 – Price Factor.

52.212-2-(c) is tailored as follows: The existing language in (c) is deleted. When the Government determines the apparent successful Offeror, the Government will take further action by awarding one IDIQ contract as the result of this procurement.

End of FAR 52.212-2 fill-ins.

It is the sole responsibility of the Offeror to provide complete and thorough support/information for each Factor/Sub-factor. The Government is not obligated to make another request for the information/proposal revisions. If an Offeror’s Technical Capability Factor proposal is rated “Unacceptable” the proposal will not be further evaluated and will not be further considered for award.

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The Government will evaluate the proposals submitted in accordance with this section, and will make a determination for award based on the following four Factors and associated Sub-factors:

- Technical Capability Factor -- Manufacturing Plan Sub-factor -- Management Plan Sub-factor -- Quality Program

- Past Performance Factor -- Quality Sub-factor -- On-time Delivery Sub-factor

- Small Business Participation Factor

- Price Factor The Technical Capability Factor will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. If an Offeror utilizing Option 1 proposal approach fails to achieve an “Acceptable” rating, it will receive an overall “Unacceptable” rating for the Technical Capability Factor and will not be further considered for award. If an Offeror utilizing Option 2 proposal approach achieves an “Unacceptable” rating on any of the three Technical Capability Sub-factors, it will receive an overall “Unacceptable” rating for the Technical Capability Factor and will not be further considered for award.

The Past Performance Factor will be evaluated based on an assessment of all of the recent, relevant past performance information identified. The Government will determine an overall confidence rating for the Offeror and assign an adjectival rating for each Sub-factor as indicated in M.2.5 below.

The Small Business Participation Factor will be evaluated based on the information provided by the Offeror and the criteria set forth below. The Government will assign an adjectival rating for each Offeror in accordance with M.3. below.

The overall importance of the adjectival Factors and associated Sub-factors, in descending order of importance, is as follows:

- Factors:

-- Past Performance Factor -- Small Business Participation Factor -- Price Factor

- Past Performance Sub-factors -- Quality -- On Time Delivery -Technical Capability Sub-factors must all receive an “Acceptable” rating to achieve an “Acceptable” rating for the Technical Capability Factor.

The Past Performance Factor is more important than the Small Business Participation Factor, which is more important than the Price Factor. All evaluation Factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Price; however, Price will become increasingly important as the non-Price Factors equalize. Technical Capability will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis; to be awardable; an Offeror must receive a rating of “Acceptable” rating under the Technical Capability Factor.

M.1. Volume 1 – Technical Capability or WAWF Definitions for this factor are outlined in Section L.1. of RFP Attachment 0003.

Rating Definitions for the Technical Capability Factor:

- Acceptable: Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

- Unacceptable: Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Option 1: WAWF Receiving Report The U.S. Government will assign a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” for the overall Factor. The minimum requirements have been met for the Option 1 proposal approach if all of the below criteria are met:

a. The Offeror provided a WAWF receiving report approved by the Government for previous production of a SHEET EXPLOSIVE for any of the configurations located in RFP Attachment 0001, Addendum to FAR 52.214-4, Section C.

b. The WAWF receiving report provided was approved within 18 months from the date of issuance of the RFP.

c. The Offeror submitted a certification stating that it plans to utilize the same facilities, equipment, and processes for production under this contract as was used in the production of the WAWF receiving report SHEET EXPLOSIVE configuration. Any exceptions to this certification were described in detail.

d. The Offeror provided an IMS which included all of the required events for production including CDRLs, First Article Test Requirements (including vendor/subcontractor), equipment prove-out, and supplier deliveries. The IMS clearly identified the critical path and any long lead item purchases.

Option 2: Written Proposal Evaluation will be conducted at the Sub-factor level with an overall Technical Capability Factor rating assigned based on the individual Sub-factor ratings and findings. The U.S. Government will assign a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” for each of the Sub-factors. An “Unacceptable” rating in any Sub-factor will result in an overall Factor rating of “Unacceptable.” An “Acceptable” rating in all Sub-factors will result in an overall Factor rating of “Acceptable.”

The Technical Capability Sub-factors in which the Government will evaluate are as follows and detailed below:

- Sub-factor 1: Manufacturing Plan

- Sub-factor 2: Management Plan

- Sub-factor 3: Quality Program M.1.1 Sub-factor 1: Manufacturing Plan The Government will evaluate the adequacy, feasibility, and completeness of the Offeror’s proposed Manufacturing Plan for the production of all types of SHEET EXPLOSIVES to meet the requirements of the solicitation. The Government will evaluate the following areas:

a. The Government will evaluate the adequacy of Offeror’s incoming raw materials receipt and inspection, its proposed manufacturing equipment for production of the SHEET EXPLOSIVES, its proposed manufacturing processes and pack out into final configuration, and roles of key subcontractors (if applicable) in meeting the solicitation requirements.

b. The Government will evaluate the technical plausibility and completeness of the process map and the Offeror’s description of the proposed assembly line, including, but not limited to, test (including FAT and LAT), inspection, and build for all major assemblies, subassemblies, and parts to meet the solicitation requirements.

c. The Government will evaluate the SHEET EXPLOSIVES components (including parts, assemblies, and processes) the Offeror intends to manufacture in-house, subcontract, or purchase as materials/parts. The Government will evaluate the proposed manufacturing approach of all proposed key subcontractors’ involvement in the production of SHEET EXPLOSIVES necessary to manufacture the end item.

M.1.2 Sub-factor 2: Management Plan The Government will evaluate the adequacy, feasibility, and completeness of the Offeror’s Management Plan for the production of all types of SHEET EXPLOSIVES to meet the requirements of the solicitation. The Government will evaluate the following areas:

a. The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the proposed system management, business processes, and plans to control technical, and schedule risk including each appropriate system. The Offeror’s Management Plan will be evaluated for engineering, hardware, resources, and risk management to its production lead-time and monthly production rates proposed. The Management Plan will be evaluated on its process to document and control the manufacturing processes with respect to their impact on performance, safety, and storage life expectancy.

b. The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the Offeror’s approach on how well they plan to handle and control unforeseen production delays due to equipment issues, supplier issues, non-conforming materials and other issues that can surface during production.

c. The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the proposed Configuration Management System. The adequacy of the Offeror’s proposed Configuration Management Plan (CMP) will be evaluated for developing, processing, and implementing engineering changes and variances to drawings/specifications as well as its process for identifying, controlling, auditing, and tracking hardware configurations. The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the Offeror’s proposed Configuration Management Organization and how Configuration Management requirements will be implemented, managed, and controlled at the key subcontractor level.

d. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror provided an IMS which includes all of the required events for production including CDRLs, First Article Test Requirements (including vendor/subcontractor), equipment prove-out, and supplier deliveries. The IMS clearly identifies the critical path and any long lead item purchases.

M.1.3 Sub-factor 3: Quality Program The Government will evaluate the adequacy, feasibility, and completeness of the Offeror’s description of its Quality Plan to meet the Quality Assurance requirements of the solicitation and Technical Data Package. The Government will evaluate the following areas:

a. The Government will evaluate the proposed process for identifying and controlling Critical Safety Characteristics at both the prime and subcontractor level.

b. The Government will evaluate compliance with ISO 9001:2015 or acceptable equivalent system or the Offeror’s proposed plan to become compliant, including a schedule with milestones compared to major milestones of the contract.

c. The Government will evaluate the proposed plans/procedures for inspection and testing of all assemblies, subassemblies and parts in order to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

d. The Government will evaluate the proposed processes for prevention and control of key parameters in order to meet the requirements (including but not limited to performance and reliability) of the solicitation.

e. The Government will evaluate the proposed processes for detection, segregation and handling of non-conforming material.

f. The Government will evaluate the proposed process by which the Quality System’s requirements will be flowed down to subcontractors and how the Offeror shall verify subcontractor compliance to the contractual quality requirements.

M.2 Volume 2 – Past Performance Factor Past Performance Factor evaluation will be conducted in accordance with DoD Source Selection Procedures and result 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. There are four aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, quality, and on-time delivery.

Definitions for this factor are outlined in Section L.2. of RFP Attachment 0003.

M.2.1 Recency: The past performance information will be reviewed to verify that it is recent, as defined in Section L.2 of RFP Attachment 0003. Contract reference performance occurred within three (3) years prior to this solicitation’s final closing date. The Government has the right to consider information regarding the Offeror’s performance up to the date of award of this requirement. Any reference citing performance occurring beyond three years prior to the solicitation’s final closing date will not be evaluated.

M.2.2 Relevancy: Once verified the past performance information recent, it will be evaluated to determine its level of relevance. The following criteria will be used to establish what contract references are relevant: similarity of item, production process, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings:

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.

M.2.3 Quality: The Offeror's, and/or its key subcontractor(s)' performance details and ratings received in Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and the Federal Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). CPARS and PPQs will be utilized to assess a contractor's performance in the area of Quality. The Offeror will be rated on its recent and relevant quality performance record to determine the likelihood of successful performance on this solicitation. The performance record will be evaluated on:

a. The Government will evaluate recent, relevant performance on like or similar items in the area of quality assurance. In the event problems are found, the Offeror’s process and timeliness to improve product quality will be considered.

b. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s corrective/preventative actions taken to improve its processes and/or solve quality problems.

c. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s history of Requests for Variance (RFVs), Quality Deficiency Reports (QDRs), Corrective Action Requests (CARs), First Article Test failures, Lot Acceptance Test failures, warranty actions, and/or other quality or Quality Program problems.

d. The Government will consider any quality awards and/or quality certifications achieved by the Offeror.

M.2.4 On-Time Delivery: The Offeror's, and/or its key subcontractor(s)' performance details and ratings received in Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and the Federal Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). CPARS and PPQs will be utilized to assess a contractor's performance in the area of On-Time Delivery. The Offeror will be rated on its recent and relevant delivery performance record to determine the likelihood of successful performance on this solicitation. The performance record will be evaluated on:

a. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s recent and relevant record of on-time delivery (e.g. the original delivery schedule compared to actual deliveries).

b. The Government will evaluate any early deliveries made by the Offeror and any benefit to the Government of early delivery.

c. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s timeliness in completion of contractual administrative requirements and milestones.

M.2.5 Performance Confidence Based on an assessment of all of the recent, relevant past performance information identified, the Government will determine a confidence rating for the Offeror for the Quality Sub-factor and On-Time Delivery Sub-factor. The Government will assign an overall confidence rating for the Past Performance Factor using the rating definitions below:

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.

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.

NOTE: The Government advises Offerors that, while an Offeror will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably for having “Neutral Confidence” past performance, that “Neutral Confidence” rating may be considered during a trade-off analysis with other Offerors who have a performance rating other than “Neutral Confidence.” For example, in accordance with Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, the SSA may determine that a "Substantial Confidence" or "Satisfactory Confidence" past performance rating is worth more than a "Neutral Confidence" past performance rating in a best value tradeoff.

M.3 Volume 3: Small Business Participation Factor THIS REQUIREMENT APPLIES TO OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESS OFFERORS ONLY. Small Business Offerors will be given the maximum score, credit or rating.

Small Business Participation is evaluated in order to support the Government policy that Small Businesses be provided maximum practicable opportunities in Government acquisitions. The Government will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan demonstrates the Offeror’s commitment to maximizing opportunities for small businesses. The Government will consider both the degree to which an Offeror meets or exceeds any single socio-economic category, as well as the number of socio-economic categories that an Offeror meets or exceeds. The Government will consider two areas:

- Proposed Small Business Participation

- Commitment to Small Business The Government has established the following goals for this procurement, based on total contract value (including options):

Small Business (SB) __5__% Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) __1__% Women Owned Small Business (WOSB) __1__% HUB Zone-Certified Small Business (HUB Zone) __1__% Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) __1__% Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) __1__% The Offeror’s proposed percentage of participation (goals) identified in the Small Business Participation Plan, RFP Attachment 0007, will be evaluated against the Government’s goal for each socio-economic category. The Government will compare the Offeror’s proposed percentage of participation for each category to the Government’s goal. The proposed plan will also be evaluated on the extent of participation for multiple socio-economic categories. In addition, the proposed plan will be evaluated with regard to the percentage of total dollars going to Small Businesses.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s written statement of its established procedures for timely payments to small business subcontractors in accordance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, for those recent contracts for which it was required (contracts performed within the past three years from the closing date of this solicitation). If the Offeror has no historical information, the proposal will be evaluated without regard to this paragraph.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s compliance with reporting requirements on Individual Subcontracting Reports (ISRs) or Summary Subcontract Reports (SSRs) and achievement on each goal stated within the subcontracting plan as reported on each ISR or the goals stated in the associated commercial subcontracting plan and reported on each SSR, in accordance with FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, for those recent contracts under which it was required (contracts performed within the past three years from the closing date of this solicitation). If the Offeror has no historical information, the proposal will be evaluated without regard to this paragraph.

Small Business Participation Rating: The Government will develop one overall Small Business Participation rating for each Offeror based on the evaluation criteria described above and assign an adjectival Small Business Participation Rating as follows:

(Blue) Outstanding – Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

(Purple) Good – Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

(Green) Acceptable – Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

(Yellow) Marginal – Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

(Red) Unacceptable – Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

M.4 Volume 4: Price Factor The Government will evaluate offers based on prices proposed for each CLIN in all quantity ranges, all ordering periods, and any other price related factors required by the solicitation.

This solicitation contains FAR clause 52.219-4, “Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUB Zone Small Business Concerns,” therefore the HUB Zone adjustment set forth therein will be applied, if applicable.

For each non-FAT CLIN, the Government will calculate a Weighted Evaluation Price by multiplying the proposed unit prices for each quantity range and each ordering period by their respective weight and maximum quantity, and summing the totals. The weight associated with each range represents the likelihood that an order, if placed, would be placed within that range. The Total Evaluated CLIN Price is the sum of those Weighted Evaluation Prices for all ordering periods for the production CLINs.

Additionally, a separate Total Evaluated CLIN Price is developed for each FAT CLIN, and is calculated as the sum of the FAT for all ordering periods within the CLIN.

The Total Evaluated Price will be determined by summing the Total Evaluated CLIN Prices for each non-FAT CLIN and each FAT CLIN. The Total Evaluated Price will be evaluated and ranked, but will not be assigned a rating. The Total Evaluated Price will be evaluated utilizing the proposal analysis techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404-1.

Proposals will be reviewed to identify any Unbalanced Pricing. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), Unbalanced Pricing, a proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

End of Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Products and Commercial Services.