52.212-2 Addendum.pdf

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD (FAR 52.212-2 Addendum)

This competitive acquisition will utilize Best Value procedures with Past Performance. This acquisition is under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items, FAR Part 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures, as supplemented, and the evaluation process and criteria set forth in this solicitation. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the Offerors who give the

Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government.

Offers must be valid for sixty (60) days after solicitation response date.

FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS:

FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL: The Offeror shall address in detail their technical proposal for meeting the

Government’s requirements. The Government Technical evaluation team shall evaluate the Technical quotes on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable. Those Offerors deemed technically unacceptable will not be evaluated further. The Offeror’s Technical quote shall demonstrate a sound plan for accomplishing work requirements identified in the PWS with the appropriate experienced personnel.

The requirements for an Acceptable Technical rating are defined below:

SUBFACTOR 1: IMMEDIATE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR COMPLETION TIMEFRAME:

Offerors will be evaluated on their ability to complete all project tasks defined in the Performance Work

Statement within two (2) months of mobilizing. The proposal must include a detailed and realistic project schedule, including key milestones, task durations, and resource allocations. Offerors should identify potential risks to timely completion and propose mitigation strategies. Proposals will be evaluated on the feasibility, completeness, and risk assessment of the proposed timeline. A demonstrated understanding of critical path scheduling is required.

SUBFACTOR 2: CONTRACTOR EXPERIENCE: The Offeror has provided a minimum of three (3) successful projects of similar size and scope as the facility maintenance and repair requirement that have been accomplished for the Contractor within the past five (5) years.

SUBFACTOR 3: KEY PERSONNEL/QUALIFICATIONS:

- The Offeror has provided a complete list of key personnel who will be performing on the contract;

- The Offeror has indicated that all key persons are currently employed by the Contractor or have a commitment to the Contractor to work on this effort;

- Qualifications for each key person has been provided and includes at least one (1) successful project provided that it is equivalent in size and in complexity to the facility maintenance and repair requirement proposed for this solicitation.

FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE:

Past Performance Information: The Contracting Officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information on all Offerors based on the information provided by the Offeror and data independently obtained from other Government sources.

The apparent successful, prospective contractor must have at least an “Acceptable” past performance rating.

The System for Award Management (SAM.gov) exclusions list, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity

Information System, and Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) shall be considered as part of the past performance evaluation process. Any past performance that is found to be

“Negative”, shall result in the entire Past Performance rating as “Unacceptable”. “Negative” is defined as any CPARS past performance evaluation rated less than “Satisfactory”, any Terminations for Default/Cause, or any negative performance references will be rated as ‘Unacceptable’. Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered

“acceptable.” Any past performance that is found to be “negative”, shall result in the entire Past

Performance rating as “Unacceptable” making the overall Past Performance Acceptability as

“Unacceptable”.

Offerors shall provide an offer detailing their successful completion of delivering same or similar services referenced in the Performance Work Statement. The Government will evaluate the quality and extent of

Offeror’s performance deemed recent and relevant to the requirements of this RFQ. The Government will use information submitted by the Offeror on the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment #4) forms and other sources such as other Federal Government offices and commercial sources, to assess performance. The Government may also use other information available that is determined relevant to this effort, such as, but not limited to, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).

Recent and relevant contracts include contracts that meet the recent and relevancy definition cited below.

The evaluation of past performance information will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the current acquisition; however, past performance regarding predecessor companies or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will NOT be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror.

Provide the PPQ (Attachment #4) of not more than three (3) references of the most relevant contracts performed for Federal agencies and commercial customers within the last five (5) years. These 3 references do not have to correlate to the three (3) experience submissions in Factor 1 subfactor 2. The Offeror can submit another Past Performance Questionnaire that has already been completed IF it adequately details the scope, period of performance, dollar value, the Offeror’s role in the effort, and discusses the Offeror’s performance in means of Management, Schedule, and Quality. If the Offeror is a Joint Venture or utilizing significant subcontractors, in addition to the five (3) references for the Prime, the Offeror may provide up to three (3) additional references for the Joint Venture or each significant subcontractor. A significant subcontractor is defined as a contractor who performs 25% or more of the aggregate of the entire contract.

The questionnaires should be sent directly to kristina.brannon.1@us.af.mil. The Government will not be responsible for ensuring the references submit the completed past performance questionnaires.

Submissions: Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond.

Adverse Past Performance: Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Clarification conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the Contracting Officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

Recency: Completed within the last five (5) years (from the date of issuance of this solicitation) of similar scope and complexity of the efforts cited in the Performance Work Statement. In lieu of a completed contract, the Offeror may submit contracts that are ongoing as long as the Offeror can validate performance with a customer confirmation. Contracts that do not meet the recency definition SHALL NOT be evaluated.

Relevancy: For purpose of this evaluation, the contract referenced shall demonstrate the Contractor’s experience in areas of construction, renovation, maintenance or repairs of facilities, real property and non-real property. The projects referenced shall have dollar values $50,000.00 or greater. The projects referenced shall demonstrate the Offeror’s experience executing projects that are similar in scope and complexity as required in this solicitation’s PWS. The Government reserves the right to consider information provided as a

Prime Contractor on those contracts deemed recent and most relevant to the effort described in this Request for Quote.

In the event an Offeror is a JV, the Offeror shall submit contracts executed as the JV firm, or each JV member provided at least one (1) relevant contract to demonstrate experience and provide a comprehensive narrative to demonstrate experience relevant to their role on this program.

In determining relevancy for individual past performance submissions, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, Joint Venture Partner [offeror per 13 CFR

125.11(b) may instead identify the joint venture effort it wants considered], or Significant Subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Past Performance submission and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance.

Relevancy will be assessed and assigned a rating based on all requirements defined in the table below:

Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Quality Assessment: The Technical Evaluation Team will review past performance information collected for efforts found to be recent and relevant and determine the quality of the Offeror’s past performance in order to determine it Acceptable or Unacceptable in accordance with the table below:

Adjectival Rating Description

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

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.

FACTOR 3 – PRICE:

Total Evaluated Price: In order to calculate TEP Offerors shall provide prices in the Pricing Workbook

(Attachment #3). For the base year Offerors shall propose a Firm Fixed-Price for the Immediate Maintenance and Repair requirement. There will be no advanced payments, Offerors should have the ability to finance the work under standard commercial practices until it has been completed and accepted by the Government.

Offerors shall propose a unit price for the annual inspection option Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs), and hourly rates for the six (6) job classifications for the Above and Beyond Maintenance and Repair option

CLINS in the workbook titled ‘Pricing Workbook’. All labor costs shall be fully burdened and include overhead and profit.

Please note that there are five separate years within the workbook. The Total Evaluated Price will be calculated by summing the Section B worksheet totals for each year in the worksheet tiled “TEP”. The Pricing Worksheet

(Attachment #3) will automatically calculate the Total Evaluated Price based on the Offeror’s price inputs.

Reasonableness: Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404. Additionally, although adequate price competition is expected, if only one offer is received in response to this solicitation the responding Offeror may be required to provide other than certified cost or pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.403-3.

Evaluation of Options: Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

The Offeror must submit pricing for each year in order to be considered acceptable.

Rejection of Unbalanced Offers: Offeror’s Price quote will be evaluated to determine if unbalanced pricing exists. 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 application of Price analysis techniques. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Evaluation Process:

STEP 1 - All responsive offers will be evaluated for Technical Acceptance.

STEP 2 - All Technically Acceptable offers will be ranked according to their Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

STEP 3 - The lowest TEP offer with Acceptable Technical under Factor 1 will then be evaluated for Past

Performance. Past Performance evaluation will commence as follows: a) determine recency b) determine relevancy. All recent and relevant contracts will be assessed for quality.

STEP 4 - If the lowest TEP offer with Acceptable Technical under Factor 1 is found to have Acceptable Past

Performance and their Past Performance is deemed “Very Relevant” under Factor 2 then they will be assessed for Price Reasonableness and Balance under Factor 3. If the lowest priced offer with Acceptable and “Very

Relevant” Past Performance is found to reasonable and balanced then this offer represent the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award will be made to this Offeror.

If the lowest TEP offer with Acceptable Technical under Factor 1 and Acceptable Past Performance under

Factor 2 is found to not have a “Very Relevant” Past Performance rating then the evaluations will continue until an Acceptable and Very Relevant” past performance rating is found or all offers have been evaluated.

All offers evaluated for Past Performance that have an Acceptable Past Performance rating will also be evaluated for Price Reasonableness and Balance under Factor 3. Only Reasonable and Balanced offers will be used in the integrated assessment below.

STEP 5 - The Government shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision by determining if the best value to the Government is to pay a higher price for a higher past performance relevancy rating.

(END OF PROVISION)