12 52.212-2-Evaluation _Ground Support Equipment.docx

52.212-2 Addendum

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Ground Support Equipment Maintenance

52.212-2 – EVALUATION—COMMERCIAL ITEMS

(a) 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. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

(1) PRICE

(2) TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers 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).

(c) 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 Offeror’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 – TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

(A) Basis for Award

This acquisition will utilize Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 as supplemented. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. Award will be made to the technically acceptable offeror with the lowest evaluated price, which is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements. The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors and associated Addendum of this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to award without Interchanges/exchanges. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct Interchanges/exchanges if determined necessary by the Contracting Officer. If the Contracting Officer determines it necessary to conduct Interchanges/exchanges, procedures at FAR 15.306 will be followed. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

(B) Evaluation Methodology:

a. Initially, offers shall be ranked according by price from the lowest price to highest based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP will be used for Price comparison and evaluation.

b. Next, the government technical evaluation team will review the technical proposal submitted by the lowest priced offeror on an acceptable/unacceptable basis to ensure the solicitation requirements including all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by this solicitation are met. The Technical Proposal will then be evaluated for the next lowest priced offer. For price comparison purposes, technical evaluations cease when the technical evaluation teams finds two proposals technically acceptable. Only proposals deemed technically acceptable (either initially or as the result of Interchanges/exchanges) will be considered for award.

(C) Factor one – price factor

1. The pricing criteria used for evaluation are (1) price reasonableness, (2) Balance and (3) Total Evaluated Price.

2. 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.

3. 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 Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

4. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) – An offeror whose price is determined to be unreasonable or unbalanced, may not be considered for award. The TEP as the sum of the proposed rates applied to notional hours for the base year and each option period (including FAR clause 52.217-9, Option to Extend the Term of the Contract). The TEP is for evaluation purposes only; evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The distribution of the notional quantities have been based upon the Government’s best estimate. The notional hours SHALL NOT be disclosed to offerors. The prices associated with the TEP are contractually binding. A no bid or an omitted rate may result in an incomplete price submission. An omitted rate may result in proposal elimination.

The rates submitted in a Section J Attachment will also be evaluated to ensure they meet or exceed the rates in the applicable Service Contract Labor Standards Wage Determination.

The Government will also evaluate whether the clause 52.222-43 -- Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Labor Standards -- Price Adjustment (Multiple Year and Option Contracts) was followed in that the contractor warrants that prices in a Section J Attachment do not include any allowance for any contingency to cover increased costs for which adjustment is provided under 52.222-43. SCLA base labor rates shall not include inflation.

(d) Factor two – technical evaluation

1. Technical Volume 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.

2. The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals by assigning ratings of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. The technical factor as a whole will be rated “Unacceptable” if any single sub-factor is rated “Unacceptable.” Technical factors will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis using the following ratings:

Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of Interchanges/exchanges will be considered for award. The offeror is reminded that the Government intends to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without Interchanges/exchanges. However, the Government may conduct Interchanges/exchanges with one, some, none or all vendors at its discretion.

3. The Proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactor criteria:

a. Sub-factor 1: Technical Staffing Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable).

The proposal is technically acceptable when the offeror provides a level of detail and supporting documentation of a clear methodology, which demonstrates how use of identified techniques and procedures will result in qualified personnel possessing the capabilities and experience at a skill level which accomplishes the Minimum Team Complement (MTC), outlined in following PWS sections: PWS para 2.1.-2.3.6 and Table 2.3.

b. Sub-factor 2: Management Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable).

The proposal is technically acceptable when the offeror provides a level of detail and supporting documentation of a clear methodology which clearly demonstrates and substantiates how the offeror will adequately and effectively manage and supervise its workforce and provide a quality standard reporting and deficiency resolution plan IAW PWS paragraph 8.2.1. & 9.2.2.

c. Sub-factor 3: Inventory Database (Acceptable/Unacceptable).

The proposal is technically acceptable when the offeror provides evidence of experience managing at least one (1) electronic inventory database as referenced in par 3.1.3. & 3.1.5.

(E) SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

(End of Provision)