3_Addendum_FAR_52_212-2_Evaluation.pdf

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 – Evaluation-Commercial Products and Commercial Services

Instructions to Offerors – Commercial items.

Evaluation Factors and Relative Order of Importance

The Government anticipates award to the offerors proposing the best overall value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price. All technical evaluation factors are approximately equal in importance.

Technical Evaluation Factor 1 – Seed Collection and Botanical Survey Approach

RATING EVALUATION BASIS

Outstanding The OFFEROR’S approach demonstrates an outstanding approach to completing work. Strengths far outweigh weaknesses. The Seed Collection and Botanical Survey Approach represents very low risk that the offeror’s performance of any work will negatively impact schedule, price, or performance.

Good The OFFEROR’S approach demonstrates a good approach to completing work. Strengths outweigh weaknesses. The Seed Collection and Botanical

Survey Approach represents low risk that the offeror’s performance of any work requirements will negatively impact schedule, price, or performance.

Acceptable The OFFEROR’S approach demonstrates an acceptable approach to completing work. Any strengths are offset by weaknesses. The Seed

Collection and Botanical Survey Approach represents moderate risk that the offeror’s performance of any work requirements will negatively impact schedule, price, or performance.

Marginal The OFFEROR’S approach demonstrates a marginal approach to completing work. Weaknesses outweigh any strengths. The Seed Collection and Botanical Survey Approach represents high risk that the offeror’s performance of any work requirements will negatively impact schedule, price, or performance.

Unacceptable The OFFEROR’S approach fails to convey an understanding of the requirements. Requirements can only be met with major changes to the

Seed Collection and Botanical Survey Approach. The Seed Collection and

Botanical Survey Approach represents very high risk that the offeror’s performance of any work requirements will negatively impact schedule, price, or performance.

Technical Evaluation Factor 2 – Mock Call Order Approach

Outstanding The OFFEROR’S Mock Call Order Approach demonstrates an outstanding approach to completing work. Strengths far outweigh weaknesses. The

Technical Approach represents very low risk that the offeror’s performance of any work will negatively impact schedule, price, or performance.

Good The OFFEROR’S Mock Call Order Technical Approach demonstrates a good approach to completing work. Strengths outweigh weaknesses. The

Technical Approach represents low risk that the offeror’s performance of any work requirements will negatively impact schedule, price, or performance.

Acceptable The OFFEROR’S Mock Call Order Approach demonstrates an acceptable approach to completing work. Any strengths are offset by weaknesses. The

Technical Approach represents moderate risk that the offeror’s performance of any work requirements will negatively impact schedule, price, or performance.

Marginal The OFFEROR’S Mock Call Order Approach demonstrates a marginal approach to completing work. Weaknesses outweigh any strengths. The

Technical Approach represents high risk that the offeror’s performance of any work requirements will negatively impact schedule, price, or performance.

Unacceptable The OFFEROR’S Mock Call Order Approach fails to convey an understanding of the requirements. Requirements can only be met with major changes to the Technical Approach. The Technical Approach represents very high risk that the offeror’s performance of any work requirements will negatively impact schedule, price, or performance.

Technical Evaluation Factor 3 – Management Plan

Outstanding The OFFEROR’S Management Plan demonstrates an outstanding approach to completing work. Strengths far outweigh weaknesses. The Management

Plan represents very low risk that the offeror’s performance of any work will negatively impact schedule, price, or performance.

Good The OFFEROR’S Management Plan demonstrates a good approach to completing work. Strengths outweigh weaknesses. The Management Plan represents low risk that the offeror’s performance of any work requirements will negatively impact schedule, price, or performance.

Acceptable The OFFEROR’S Management Plan demonstrates an acceptable approach to completing work. Any strengths are offset by weaknesses. The

Management Plan represents moderate risk that the offeror’s performance of any work requirements will negatively impact schedule, price, or performance.

Marginal The OFFEROR’S Management Plan demonstrates a marginal approach to completing work. Weaknesses outweigh any strengths. The Management

Plan represents high risk that the offeror’s performance of any work requirements will negatively impact schedule, price, or performance.

Unacceptable The OFFEROR’S Management Plan fails to convey an understanding of the requirements. Requirements can only be met with major changes to the

Management Plan. The Management Plan represents very high risk that the offeror’s performance of any work requirements will negatively impact schedule, price, or performance.

Technical Evaluation Factor 4 – Experience

Outstanding The OFFEROR’s Experience demonstrated execution of four (4) relevant projects within the past four (4) years.

Good The OFFEROR’s Experience demonstrated execution of three (3) relevant projects within the past four (4) years.

Acceptable The OFFEROR’s Experience demonstrated execution of two (2) relevant project within the past four (4) years.

Marginal The OFFEROR’s Experience demonstrated execution of one (1) or less relevant projects within the past four (4) years.

Past Performance Evaluation

Excellent Available information indicates excellent past performance in the areas of quality, timeliness, and business relations. Offeror has exceptional strengths that will significantly benefit the Government.

No weaknesses or deficiencies.

Good Available information indicates good past performance in the areas of quality, timeliness, and business relations. Offeror has major strengths and/or minor strengths that will benefit the Government.

Weaknesses, if any, are minor.

Acceptable Available information indicates acceptable past performance in the areas of quality, timeliness, and business relations. Few documented past performance problems. Weaknesses are generally offset by strengths.

Neutral No record of past performance information available.

Marginal Proposal element indicates marginal past performance in the areas of quality, timeliness, and business relations. Few or no past performance projects similar in scope and complexity to the contemplated project. Meets some requirements for this project.

Some performance issues are documented that were not corrected.

Unacceptable Proposal element indicates poor past performance in the areas of quality, timeliness, and business relations. Many performance issues are documented that were not corrected.

An evaluation of offeror’s past performance will be conducted subsequent to the technical evaluation. The evaluations will consider successful execution of similar contracts, to include scale and complexity.

The evaluation may be based on information as identified about offeror’s experience, and other relevant past performance information obtained from other sources known to the Government, to include problems encountered on identified contracts and corrective action taken.

The Government will assess the relative risks associated with each offeror. Performance risks are those associated with an offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the acquisition requirements as indicated by that offeror’s record of past performance.

The assessment of performance risk is not intended to be the product of a mechanical or mathematical analysis of an offeror’s performance on a list of contracts but rather the product of subjective judgment by the Government after it considers all available and relevant information.

When assessing performance risks, the Government will focus on the past performance of the offeror as it relates to all acquisition requirements, such as the offeror’s record of performing according to specifications, including standards of good workmanship; the offeror’s record of controlling and forecasting costs; the offeror’s adherence to contract schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance; the offeror’s reputation for reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction; and generally, the offeror’s business-like concern for the interest of the customer.

The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the offeror’s performance. The lack of a relevant performance record will result in a neutral performance risk assessment, which will neither be used to the advantage nor disadvantage of the offeror.

Price Evaluation

A price evaluation will be performed to determine the reasonableness of the proposed unit and product prices for all services and products. Individual unit prices of services and products will be evaluated to determine if any imbalanced pricing exists.

Adjectival ratings shall not be used for offeror’s price quote. It is anticipated that there will be adequate price competition; therefore, no additional data will be required from offerors. If the

Contracting Officer determines there is not adequate price competition, then additional data may be necessary to determine price fair and reasonable.

Number of Blanket Purchase Agreements to be awarded

The Government intends to award a BPA to all qualified contractors that provide value to the

Government based on the evaluation criteria of this solicitation. The Government will review

BPA performance and requirements on a regular basis (at least yearly) and determine the necessity of on ramping. The Government reserves the right to announce and issue a new solicitation for the purposes of: (i) adding additional Contractors to expeditiously meet the requirement; and (ii) increase the pool of Contractors; and (iii) increase competition. The

Government may implement on-ramp procedures at any time by reopening the competition and utilizing the same basis of award established in the initial solicitation. Any resulting BPA(s) awarded will include the same terms and conditions as the current basic contract. Implementing this procedure will not affect the overall period of performance for the basic agreement.

The Government reserves the right to implement off-ramp procedures, which would result in the removal of BPA holders. The criteria for off-ramping may include, but not limited to, BPA holders not proposing on order request(s), not having at least one order award, and/or unsatisfactorily meeting the SOW requirements. If implemented, off-ramp procedures will remove BPA holders by cancelling the BPA.

Award Without Discussions. As set forth in FAR 52.212(g), the Government intends to evaluate quotes and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except potential clarifications). Therefore, the offeror’s initial quote should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical and price standpoint.