21R2007_Attachment 3 - 52.212-2 Evaluation - Commercial Items Addendum_Final.pdf

ATTACHMENT 3 - 52.212-2 EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS ADDENDUM

1.0 Basis of Award

The Government intends to award a 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 Government will evaluate proposals using the stated evaluation criteria. Vendors are responsible for submitting proposals that adequately demonstrate how well the offered services meet the requirements. Award shall be made to the responsible vendor that provides the best value, considering all factors and using tradeoff procedures. The non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

The evaluation factors follow:

1. Technical Approach

2. Price

3. Past Performance

4. Subcontracting/Small Business Participation

1.1 Evaluation Process.

The Government shall review proposals as follows:

The Government intends to award on initial proposals but reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines them to be necessary. Also, 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.

The Business Volume will be evaluated separately from the Technical Volume. However, relevant information in either the Technical or Business Volumes may be exchanged between panels as needed to support informed decision making.

Technical Approach Evaluation: The Government will evaluate how well the offeror’s written proposal demonstrates its capability and expertise to perform the work described in the PWS and how successful its procedures are likely to be in handling (a) help desk requests, and (b) the actual repair scenarios provided by the Government in Section L. The ratings table that follows uses combined ratings that includes technical capability and the risk associated with the technical approach proposed.

Combined Technical and Risk Ratings

Color

Rating

Adjectival

Rating

Description

Blue

Outstanding

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

Purple

Good

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

Green

Acceptable

Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and the 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 in unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

A rating of Unacceptable or Marginal in any factor will render the proposal unacceptable.

Unacceptable proposals are ineligible for award without discussions and a subsequent, acceptable rating.

Price: The Government intends to make a determination of fair and reasonable pricing on the basis of adequate price competition. However, in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, the

Government may use any of the analytical techniques in that section, either singly or in combination with each other, to determine whether the final price is fair and reasonable.

Past Performance Evaluation. Evaluators will use past performance submitted and any other past performance information it gathers to determine whether the quality of the offeror’s recent, relevant past performance creates an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, and will assign a rating from the Performance Confidence Ratings table below.

Performance Confidence Ratings

Adjectival Rating Definition

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral* The offeror’s performance record is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned;

therefore, the offeror has unknown past performance and the

Government’s confidence is “neutral.”

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

*An “Acceptable” past performance rating may be deemed better than a “Neutral” one, and a

“Neutral” one will generally be deemed better than an “Unacceptable” one.

Subcontracting/Small Business Participation. For other than small business offerors, the PCO will evaluate the small business subcontracting plan for compliance with the requirements of

FAR 52.219-9 and for the extent of participation of small businesses in the proposed performance of the contract. The plan will be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable. Offerors that submit a plan compliant with the requirements of FAR 52.219-9 that include an overall small business goal of at least 10% will receive an "acceptable" for this area of evaluation.

Offerors whose plan is non-compliant with these requirements will receive an “unacceptable” for this area of evaluation and will not be eligible for award.

Small Business Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.