04. Attachment_2c_Addendum_to_FAR_52.212-2.pdf

Attachment 2c

***Addendum to RFO FAR 52.212-2***

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible contractor whose proposal conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors will be used to evaluate offers:

1.1 Technical Capability

1.2 Past Performance

1.3 Price

1.4 BASES FOR AWARD

1.4.1 The Government intends to award a single Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) contract as a result of this solicitation without discussions.

1.4.2 Per RFO FAR 9.103, the contract will be placed only with a contractor that the Contracting Officer determines to be responsible; that is, those who can satisfactorily perform the necessary tasks and deliver the required services on time. Prospective contractors, in order to qualify as sources for this acquisition, shall be able to demonstrate that they meet standards of responsibility set forth in RFO FAR 9.104. In addition, the Government may assess the contractor’s financial ability to meet the solicitation requirements. No award can be made to a contractor who has been determined to be not responsible by the Contracting Officer.

1.4.3 Consistency. Each section of the contractor’s proposal shall be consistent within the proposal.

1.4.4 Completeness. The Government’s ability to evaluate a proposal may depend on the level of detail and supporting documentation provided. Insufficient supporting documentation or detail in a proposal may prevent the Government from evaluating a proposal.

1.4.5 The Government will assess the contractor’s proposal on three factors: (1) Technical Capability, (2) Past Performance and (3) Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

1.4.5.1 Technical Capability and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

1.5 EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

1.5.1 Evaluation of this factor will assess the contractor's proposed approach and understanding of the requirements and risk of unsuccessful performance of the proposed approach to technical capability in accordance with Performance Work Statement (PWS). The contractor and instructor qualifications will be evaluated as follows:

1.5.1.1 Sub-factor 1: Contractor Qualifications. The contractor shall be evaluated for the following minimum qualifications.

1.5.1.1.1 The contractor shall have prior experience in the design, development, and delivery of Basic Narcotic Investigations courses to uniformed patrol officers or other law enforcement personnel at the local, state, or federal level, similar in scope (length and content) to the requested course.

1.5.1.1.2 The contractor shall have a background in the training of law enforcement and be currently engaged in training law enforcement officers on the subject of Basic Narcotic Investigations in the civilian law enforcement environment, similar in scope (length and content) to the requested course.

1.5.1.2 Sub-factor 2: Instructor Qualifications. The contractor shall determine the appropriate number of instructors required to conduct the course, based on instruction methodology and class size. Each proposed instructor shall meet the minimum qualifications.

1.5.1.2.1 Instructor(s) shall have a background in the training of law enforcement and be currently engaged in training law enforcement officers on the subject of Basic Narcotic Investigations in the civilian law enforcement environment similar in length (76 hours) and content to the requested course.

1.5.1.2.2 Instructor(s) shall have a minimum of fifteen (15) years of total law enforcement experience, which includes ten (10) years of experience as a civilian Narcotics Officer.

1.5.1.2.3 Instructor(s) shall have a minimum of five (5) years of experience teaching Basic Narcotic Investigations courses to civilian law enforcement personnel.

1.5.1.2.4 Instructor(s) and Guest Speaker(s) shall be U.S. Citizens.

1.6 EVALUATION OF PAST PERFORMANCE

1.6.1 The evaluation of this factor will assess the risk of unsuccessful performance of the contractor’s proposed approach to performing efforts of a similar scope, magnitude, and complexity as the requirement described in the PWS.

1.6.2 The Government will evaluate the contractor’s past performance to determine the likelihood that the contractor will successfully perform the required effort described in the PWS.

1.6.3 Contracts submitted in the Past Performance section of the contractor's proposal will not be considered if the Government determines them to be not recent, not relevant, or lacking any credible past performance information. If the contractor does not have a record of Recent and Relevant past performance information the contractor will be rated as "Neutral,” which is neither favorable nor unfavorable.

1.6.4 The contractor may also be evaluated on past contract performance information utilizing internal Government or private source information and the Government reserves the right to use any information received as part of its evaluation. The Government may contact any of the references the contractor provides and reserves the right to use any information received as part of its evaluation.

1.6.5 In evaluating the contractor s performance history, the Government may compare the contractor's deliveries or performance to the contract's original delivery or performance schedule, unless the delay was Government-caused. Schedule extensions that were the fault of the contractor, even if consideration was provided, may be counted against the contractor.

1.7 EVALUATION OF PRICE

1.7.1 Evaluation of price will be performed using one or more of the price analysis techniques in RFO FAR 15.404-1(b). Through these techniques the Government will determine whether prices are reasonable, complete, and are not unbalanced.

1.7.2 Reasonableness. The Government will evaluate the price reasonableness of the contractors' proposed prices to ensure that in its nature and amount, it does not exceed what would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. The Government shall employ price analysis techniques in accordance with RFO FAR 15.404-1(b) to determine that a proposed price is fair and reasonable.

1.7.3 Completeness. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions with contractor, but discussions are not anticipated or intended. Since discussions are not anticipated or intended, the Government requires complete proposals with respect to price. A complete proposal will include all information required by this solicitation.

1.7.4 Unbalanced Pricing. The contractor should note that pricing will be carefully reviewed to detect whether proposals are unbalanced between line items, as well as unbalance between periods. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more-line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. Unbalanced offers may be determined unacceptable.

1.7.5 Options. The Government will evaluate proposals for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced.

Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).