Attachment 7 - 52.212-2 Addendum - Basis for Award.pdf

15M20019RA32NPS01

NATIONAL PHYSICAL SECURITY (NPS)

MAINTENANCE AND INSTALLATION SERVICES

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2

ATTACHMENT 5

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

1.1 This is a competitive best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items, and 15.3, Source Selection.

Award is made to the responsive and responsible Offeror whose proposal provides the best overall value to the Government. In the determination of best value, non-price factors and price are separately evaluated, but it is the proposal that is found to represent the best overall value to the Government that forms the basis of award. Thus, a proposal that is not the lowest priced, technically acceptable may form the basis of award, if it is determined that the additional technical is worth its additional cost in relation to the other proposals received.

For “Best Value” evaluation purposes, the more the proposals become technically equivalent, the price factor becomes important. The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representation and certification, and other information required by this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions.

Therefore, each initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary by the Contracting Officer. The FAR is available electronically at https://www.acquisition.gov/browsefar.

1.2 The Government intends to award a single, Firm Fixed Price and Time & Materials Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract resulting from this Request for Proposal (RFP) to the responsible Offeror, whose proposal, 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:

- Factor 1: Technical and Management Approach o Subfactor 1: Technical Approach o Subfactor 2: Management Approach and Staffing Plan o Subfactor 3: Sample RFQ Technical Proposals

- Factor 2: Past Performance

- Factor 3: Price

1.3 Order of Precedence

1. Factor 1, Technical Approach, is most important and the Subfactors of Factor 1 are of equal importance.

2. Factor 2, Past Performance.

3. All non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 3, Price.

4. Factor 3, Price becomes increasingly more important when Offerors receive similar ratings for the non-price factors.

https://www.acquisition.gov/browsefar

2.0 Evaluation Methodology

2.1 Factor 1: Technical and Management Approach

Factor 1, Technical and Management Approach, will be evaluated based on the table below, including Subfactor 1, Technical Approach; Subfactor 2, Management Approach and Staffing Plan; and Subfactor 3, Sample RFQ Technical Proposals.

Adjectival Rating Methodology

Color Rating Description

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

Purple 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.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and 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, and/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/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Note: A proposal that received an “Unacceptable” rating for Factor 1 will result in the entire proposal being determined “unacceptable”. No further evaluation of the proposal will be performed and the Offeror will not be considered for award.

Risk Definitions

Rating 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.

2.1.1 Subfactor 1: Technical Approach

The technical approach will be evaluated to determine the adequacy of the Offeror’s approach as articulated in the solutions proposed. The Government, in its evaluation, will seek to make a risk and strength-based conclusion regarding the Offeror’s overall understanding of the requirements and objectives set forth in this RFP and Attachment 1 – Performance Work Statement. The evaluation will also consider to what extent and how well the Offeror can be expected to perform given the strategy proposed. The evaluation will consider how the proposal proposes to handle the complexities and minimize risks that are inherent in the Offeror’s solution or the Government’s stated requirements.

The Offeror’s Subcontracting Plan will only be evaluated for Completeness and Compliance, and will not affect the overall Adjectival Rating for this Subfactor.

2.1.2 Subfactor 2: Management Approach and Staffing Plan

The management approach will be evaluated on their demonstrated management approach’s ability to respond to the types of requirements delineated in the RFP, consistent with the Offerors Technical Approach Narrative. The discussion must provide a comprehensive approach to managing work requirements; assurance of consistent quality of performance; capacity for handling matters of staffing and resource balancing; and ensuring complementary roles between the Contractor’s Managers and Government Staff. The evaluation will be based on the Offeror’s understanding of the critical support areas, emerging issues, and risks associated with the support goals set forth in the PWS, and the management techniques, controls, subcontractor management processes, and quality provisions necessary to execute their approach.

The Offeror’s proposed staffing plan will be evaluated based on how well the plan ensures adequate staffing is available throughout the life of the contract regardless of workload demands. This will include an evaluation of the Offeror’s understanding of staffing requirements for the National Security Program, and the extent to which it is mitigates the risk of unsuccessful performance due to inadequate staffing.

2.1.3 Subfactor 3: Sample RFQ Technical Proposals

The sample RFQ technical proposals will be evaluated to determine the adequacy and completeness of the Offeror’s sample approach as articulated in the sample technical proposal. The Government, in its evaluation, will seek to make a risk and strength-based conclusion regarding the Offeror’s overall understanding of the requirements and objectives set forth in the sample RFQs. The evaluation will also consider to what extent and how well the Offeror can be expected to perform given the strategy proposed.

The evaluation will consider how the proposal proposes to handle the complexities and minimize risks that are inherent in the Offeror’s solution or the Government’s stated requirements.

Documents from Subsection 7.1 in Attachment 6 – Instructions to Offerors marked (**) will be evaluated for Completeness, Compliance and Consistency with the Offeror’s proposed strategy, clearly demonstrating understanding of the requirement, without increasing risk.

2.3 Factor 2: Past Performance

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to assess how likely the Offeror is to perform successfully on the required effort. To accomplish this, the Government will seek recent and relevant performance information on all Offerors based on (1) the past performance references contacted by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources.

Recent past performance is defined as performance related to maintenance and installation services occurring within the three (3) years prior to the RFP closing date. Relevant past performance is defined as effort in managing a contract of similar scope, complexity and dollar value. Offerors with no relevant past performance history, or the Offeror’s past performance record is so limited that no assessment rating can be reasonable assigned, will receive a rating of “Neutral”, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

Past performance will be evaluated based on the table below.

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 this required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonable assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorable or unfavorable 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

2.4 Factor 3: Price

The Government will evaluate Offeror’s price for accuracy and reasonableness.

Accuracy

Pricing tables. The Government will review the pricing tables for completeness and accuracy. A determination will be made as to whether the Offeror properly completed the pricing tables. The Offeror’s proposal will be checked for mathematical correctness to include the following:

1. Checking arithmetic in all pricing table computations; and

2. Ensuring all prices are summarized correctly.

Options. The Government will evaluate options for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price of the basic requirement. FAR 52.217-8 will be evaluated by dividing the Offeror’s total proposed price for Option Period 4 in half and adding the price to the proposed price for the base and four FAR 52.217-9 option periods. 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 options.

Reasonableness

The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Reasonableness takes into account the context of a given source selection, including current market conditions, general economic conditions, and other factors that affect the ability of an Offeror to perform the contract requirements.

(End of Addendum)