Revised 52.212-2 Evaluation_21 Dec 2020.pdf

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

B. BASIS FOR AWARD (FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation-Commercial Items)

The Government intends to award up to six (6) contracts resulting from this solicitation to the offeror(s) deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, as supplemented, whose proposal(s) conform to the Request for Proposal (RFP) requirements including all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required IAW FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors, and its addendum in the solicitation, and whose proposals represent the Best Value to the Government, as determined by the tradeoff evaluation criteria described herein IAW FAR Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation.

When making the Best Value determination, Factors 1, Staffing and Management Approach; Factor 2, Training and Retention Plan; and Factor 3, Technical Approach; are equal in importance. When combined, Factors 1, 2, and 3 are significantly more important than Factor 4, Past Performance. Factors 1 through 4 are significantly more important than Factor 5, Price. Award will be based upon an integrated assessment of all price and non-price factors. Tradeoffs among price and non-price factors are permitted.

A proposal that demonstrates a superior Staffing and Management Approach, Training and Retention Plan, and/or Technical Approach, or offers innovative ideas that benefit the Government may be worth more to the Government than a proposal that only meets minimum requirements.

THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO AWARD TO OFFERORS THAT DO NOT

SUBMIT THE LOWEST-PRICED PROPOSALS. Price will be increasingly more important as non-price factors become increasingly equal.

An offeror shall be ineligible for award if its proposal fails to comply with the material requirements of the solicitation including all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required IAW FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors, and its addendum in the solicitation; and/or if its proposed prices are determined to be unreasonably high, unbalanced, or incomplete; or if its proposal receives a rating of “Unacceptable” for Factors 1, 2, or 3.

Evaluation Process. The Government intends to hold discussions IAW DFARS 215.306(c)(1).

However, the Government may choose to award contract(s) without discussions. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

In the event that discussions are held, a competitive range will be established. A competitive range will be based on the evaluation of proposals as described below. 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 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 IAW FAR 15.306(c)(2). Upon completion of discussions, the Government will request that any Offerors remaining in the competitive range submit a final proposal revision.

C. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

The proposal will be evaluated using the following five (5) evaluation factors:

Factor 1: Staffing and Management Approach Factor 2: Recruitment, Training and Retention Plan Factor 3: Technical Approach

Factor 4: Past Performance Factor 5: Price

Factors 1, 2 and 3 are equally important and when combined, Factors 1, 2 and 3 are significantly more important than Factor 4. When combined, Factors 1, 2, 3 and 4 are significantly more important than Factor 5. Price will be increasingly more important as non-price factors become increasingly equal.

D. EVALUATION APPROACH

Factor 1. Staffing and Management Approach:

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed MATOC Staffing and Management Approach to determine whether the offeror has proposed a comprehensive approach to plan, execute, and manage multiple task orders simultaneously and to provide qualified key personnel. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the requirement under the Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) to determine its capability to complete contractual requirements under multiple task orders.

The Government will evaluate the organizational chart to determine whether the proposed positions and decision authority(ies) are aligned with manageable tasks and work packages necessary to provide and accomplish the services and deliverables specified in the PWS. The Government will evaluate whether offeror presents a complete and thorough quality assurance program that optimizes resources while monitoring performance for timeliness, accuracy, and quality in the execution of the contract as specified in the PWS. The Government will compare the proposed staffing mix, i.e. labor composition (e.g. labor categories, grade, qualifications, etc.), to the Government estimate to ensure the expected outcome. The Government will evaluate the staffing mix (e.g. labor categories) for the proposed non-professional positions. The Government would evaluate the extent to which it believes that this proposed staffing mix would result in successful performance. Factor 1 will be rated using the combined technical/risk ratings in the Table below.

Factor 2. Recruitment, Training, and Retention Plan.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s recruitment, training, and retention plan to determine if the proposed approach demonstrates an understanding of the need for a highly qualified, stable contractor workforce and will result in a highly qualified, stable contractor workforce capable of performing awarded TO requirements. The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine to what extent it provides a manning approach that demonstrates innovative hiring and retention practices. The Government will evaluate to what extent the proposal provides hiring practices that demonstrate the ability to hire beyond the geographic area of a 50-mile radius of Fort Gordon, Georgia. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to reduce employee turn over. The Government’s evaluation will include consideration of whether the offeror’s proposal includes an adequate timeline to fully staff a task order within 30 days of task order award, a plan to replace personnel within ten (10) business days of departure, and adequate methods/processes to reduce personnel turn-over and retain qualified personnel.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to train personnel in a changing Cyber environment.

Factor 2 will be rated using the combined technical/risk ratings in the Table below.

Factor 3: Technical Approach.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Technical Approach to determine if the offeror has demonstrated the ability to successfully perform and a clear understanding of the following four (4) PWS Task Areas in the Signal, Cyber, and Electronic fields:

(i) Training/Instruction, PWS paragraph 5.1

(ii) Training Development, PWS paragraph 5.2

(iii) Doctrine Support Services, PWS paragraph 5.3

(iv) Registrar/Training Support Services, PWS paragraph 5.4

A “Contractor team arrangement” is defined in FAR Subpart 9.601, Definition. The Government will also evaluate whether the offeror has identified relevant risks and reasonable plans to mitigate those risks in its technical approach. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to perform remotely, if required. Factor 3 will be rated using the combined technical/risk ratings in Table below.

Rating Methodology for Factors 1, 2, and 3:

The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies defined in the table below in determining the technical ratings. The risk descriptions for the combined technical/risk ratings are found in the table below. Each factor will receive an adjectival rating as defined in the table below.

Tables are from the April 1, 2016 Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures.

Factors 1, 2, and 3 - Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk or unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Factors 1, 2, and 3 - Risk Descriptions for the Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Risk Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

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

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

Factor 1, 2, and 3– Definitions Term Description

Significant Strength An aspect of an offerors’ proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Strength 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. See FAR 15.001.

Uncertainty Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g. more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake). See AFARS Appendix AA, 28 November 2017 Army Source Selection Supplement.

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.

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.

Factor 4: Past Performance.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s and its teaming partner’s recent and relevant past performance to determine the offeror’s probability of successfully performing the solicitation’s requirements. A “Contractor team arrangement” is defined in FAR Subpart 9.601. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), Past Performance evaluation, the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance, and compliance with FAR 52.219-8 shall be considered. These are combined to establish one Performance Confidence

Assessment rating for each offeror. Factor 4 will be evaluated using the Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings in the table below.

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

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.

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.

In the case of offerors for which there is no information on recent and relevant past contract performance or where recent and relevant past contract performance information is not available, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the past performance factor. Therefore, if the offeror’s past performance is unknown, it will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral.”

Offerors are cautioned that past performance information may be obtained from the offeror via the solicitation as well as from any sources available to the Government including, but not limited to the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), the Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), the CPARS or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA); and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Award Fee Officials.

There are three (3) aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

Recency. First, the Government will evaluate each past performance reference to determine recency.

To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the three (3) years prior to due date for receipt of offers. Work performed for less than six (6) months will not be considered. Past performance that is not recent will not be evaluated.

Relevancy. Second, the Government will evaluate the degree of relevancy of the offeror’s recent past performance to the required effort. The Government will assess each recent past performance reference submission to determine its similarity in scope and magnitude relative to this requirement.

There are four levels of relevancy as shown in the table below. With respect to relevancy, past performance of greater relevancy 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.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

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 requires.

Scope is the measure of similarity of the scope of the MATOC PWS and the offeror’s past performance. Scope shall be assessed by comparing the requirement to perform the four (4) PWS Task Areas to the offeror’s past performance references.

Magnitude is the measure of the similarity of the dollar value that exists between the current requirement and the past performance references. Magnitude will be evaluated using the dollar amount of work actually performed during the recent time period established by the solicitation.

References with a dollar value of at least $1.4 Million dollars per performance year are considered of a similar magnitude to subject requirement. For references with performance periods that exceed one year in length, the dollar value of the reference will be divided by the total performance period to determine if it meets the required magnitude. The performance period can range from one to five years.

Quality. The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. (See FAR 15.304(c)(2)). The past performance evaluation conducted in support of this source selection will 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 on those past contracts. A separate quality assessment rating will not be assigned. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance, considering general trends, source of information, and usefulness of the information; and incorporate this information into the performance confidence assessment rating. In determining the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance, the Government will consider the offeror’s business relations, quality of service, ability to meet schedules, customer satisfaction, and compliance with the requirements of FAR 52.219-8.

Factor 5. Price.

The Price factor will not be scored or rated. Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Price Proposal as requested in FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors, and its addendum in the solicitation’s instructions, to determine if proposed prices are fair, reasonable, and balanced. The Government will evaluate total compensation plans for professional employees as prescribed by FAR 52.222-46, which is incorporated by reference. A proposal that is unreasonably high, unreasonably low or unbalanced; or a proposal that fails to comply with the provisions of FAR 52.222-46 may be eliminated from competition or will not be considered for award because it is not in compliance with the material requirements of the solicitation.

The evaluation will be of four (4) parts: (1) Compensation for Professional Employees, (2) Price Reasonableness, (3) Unbalanced Pricing, and (4) Options.

Compensation for Professional Employees. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s total compensation plan in which its sets forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for professional employees who will work under the contract IAW FAR 52.222-46, which is incorporated by reference.

As part of its evaluation, the Government may compare proposed compensation for professional employees to professional employee compensation proposed by other offerors. When fully-burdened labor rates are available for comparison, the Government may compare proposed fully-burdened labor rates for professional employees to Government personnel in equivalent positions. The Government will also evaluate proposed labor rate components to determine compliance with the Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS) statute wage determination(s) incorporated in the contract, as applicable. The Government will determine if the proposed Total Compensation Plan for Professional Employees proposed in an offeror’s proposal reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements; demonstrates the offeror’s ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality work; is realistic; and indicates the offeror’s ability to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives. The Government will consider whether the proposed fully-burdened labor rates take into account differences in skill, complexity of various disciplines, and professional job difficulty.

Price Reasonableness. The Government will evaluate the Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) prices proposed on the Pricing Worksheets and the offeror’s proposed Total Evaluated Price (TEP) to determine if proposed prices are fair and reasonable using the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b), Price analysis for commercial and non-commercial items. The Government will also evaluate proposed labor rate components to determine compliance with the Service Contract Labor Standards Statute incorporated in this solicitation, as applicable. The Total Evaluted Price (TEP) is the offeror’s total proposed price for the base year of performance, the offeror’s total proposed price for all option years of performance, and one-half of the offeror’s Year 5 total proposed price.

Unbalanced Pricing. The Government will evaluate the proposed CLIN prices on the Pricing Worksheets for unbalanced pricing in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), Unbalanced pricing. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced.

Options. As part of price evaluation for the MATOC, the Government will evaluate its option to extend services of the MATOC by adding six (6) months (one-half) of the offeror’s Year 5 price to the offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors are only required to price the base year and option periods as previously noted. Offerors shall not submit a price for the potential six-month extension of services period. The Government may choose to exercise the option to extend services at the end of Year 5 of performance utilizing the rates of that performance period. (See FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services.) The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the base year requirement. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). The Total Evaluted Price (TEP) is the offeror’s total proposed price for the base year of performance, the offeror’s total proposed price for all option years of performance, and one-half of the offeror’s Year 5 total proposed price.

E. DISCUSSIONS

1. GENERAL INFORMATION. In accordance with FAR 15.306(d), discussion sessions with each offeror may be held.

2. DISCUSSION SCHEDULING. If discussions are conducted, the Government intends to use electronic means (e.g. email, teleconference, etc.) to hold discussions. If face-to-face discussions are conducted, the Contracting Officer will schedule the discussion sessions, and each offeror will be notified of the time and place at least five (5) business days prior to their discussion session. Appropriate security clearances should be provided by the offerors in sufficient time to process the requests. The Contracting Officer will provide additional instructions with the notification.

(End of provision)

F. CONTRACT RESPONSIBILITY

(a) To be eligible for award of a contract hereunder, the Offeror must be determined to be a responsible prospective contractor by the Contracting Officer in accordance with FAR 9.103 and 9.104-1, General standards.

(b) 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)