52.212-2 Evaluation - Commercial Item Evaluation Factors for Award - Addendum.pdf

52.212-2 EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEM

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD - ADDENDUM

Tier 2 Parts Racks & Horizontal Stabilator Dollies

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

1.1. This acquisition will utilize Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) procedures in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation 13.5, as supplemented. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. Award will be made to the acceptable offeror with the lowest evaluated price, that is deemed responsible IAW the FAR and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors and all other information required by FAR 52.212-1 Instruction to Offerors (ITO) - Addendum of this solicitation.

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded – The Government intends to award one contract for this requirement. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, if the Government determines it is in its best interest. If the Government determines to not award a contract, the Government is not liable for any costs incurred. The Government intends and reserves the right to award a contract without discussions.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

2. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS valuation Factors and Sub-factors

2.1. The Government will evaluate for acceptability the factors and sub-factorsdescribed below:

Factor One – Price Factor Two – Technical

Sub-factor One – Experience Sub-factor Two – Task Accomplishment Report

Sub-factor Three – Expected Timeline for Completion of Work and Delivery Risk

2.1.1. Evaluation Methodology

2.1.1.1. An initial price evaluation will be performed for all offerors IAW this section and proposals will be ranked from lowest to highest price based on a Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

2.1.1.2. Next, a technical evaluation will be performed beginning with the lowest priced offeror.

2.1.1.2.1. If the lowest price offeror is technically acceptable and meets all other requirements of this solicitation, award will be made to that offeror.

2.1.1.2.2. If the lowest price offeror is not technically acceptable or does not meet the solicitation requirements, then evaluations will continue and the Source Selection Authority will:

2.1.1.2.3. Award to the next lowest priced technically acceptable offeror.

2.2. VOLUME I – FACTOR ONE – PRICE

2.2.1. The pricing criteria used for evaluation are: (1) Completeness, (2) Reasonableness,

(3) Balance, and (4) TEP.

2.2.1.1. Completeness – The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with FAR Clause 52.212-1 ITO - Addendum of the Request for Proposal (RFP). Completeness is submitting an offeror’s pricing proposal with all the required portions of the TEP Pricing Worksheet filled out entirely. Incomplete price submissions may not be evaluated and the proposal may be eliminated from the competition.

2.2.1.2. Reasonableness – The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Cost or Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government-obtained information, additional information IAW FAR Subpart 15.4 will be required to support the proposed price.

2.2.1.3. Balance – Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more price elements is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR Subpart 15.404-1. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether there is unbalanced pricing within the proposals.

IAW FAR Subpart 15.404-1, offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Air Force.

2.2.1.4. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) – A TEP pricing worksheet (attached to the solicitation) will be calculated for the evaluation of offers. The TEP is the sum of the pricing for each CLIN 0001-0004 within the TEP worksheet for the FFP CLINs.

2.3. VOLUME II – FACTOR TWO – TECHNICAL

2.3.1. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. The proposals must demonstrate a thorough understanding of the requirements as listed in the statement of work (SOW) and as required in FAR 52.212-1 ITO – Addendum. The proposals will be evaluated for acceptability IAW the criteria set forth in this section. The technical proposal must convey to the Government that the offeror possesses adequate technical expertise and experience, 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 Government may make a final determination as to the offeror’s capability to perform based on the proposal as submitted without requesting further information from the offeror. The offeror’s proposal shall not simply copy and paste, rephrase or restate SOW language for the technical volume.

2.3.2. Technical Acceptability – The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals by assigning ratings of technically “Acceptable” or technically “Unacceptable.” Any “Unacceptable” sub-factor rating criteria below shall result in a proposal being rated technically “Unacceptable”.

2.3.3. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable either initially, or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The technical factor as a whole will be rated “Unacceptable” if any single element or sub-factor is rated “Unacceptable.” The offeror is reminded that the Government intends to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions. Proposals shall be evaluated against the following Sub-Factors: One – Experience, Two – Task Accomplishment Report, and Three – Expected Timeline for Completion and delivery risk.

2.4. The proposals shall be evaluated against the following sub-factor criteria:

2.4.1. Sub-factor One – Experience

2.4.1.1. The proposal is Acceptable when the offeror’s assessment of competence sufficiently shows its ability to accomplish and deliver the fixtures.

Information is provided that demonstrates prior experience building or modifying similar fixtures. Additionally, information is provided that demonstrates prior experience delivering projects on time and within budget.

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Evidence is provided that the Contractor is compliant with the quality stipulations of ANSI/ISO/ASQ Q9001-2015 is provided.

2.4.2. Sub-factor Two – Task Accomplishment Report

2.4.2.1. The proposal is acceptable when the offeror provides a concise report that demonstrates how the offeror will meet each design requirement listed within sections 3 and 4 of Appendix A of the statement of work.

2.4.3. Sub-factor Three – Expected Timeline for completion of work and delivery risk

2.4.3.1. The proposal is acceptable when the offeror provides an expected timeline for delivery that fits within the expected delivery timeline outlined in the SOW section 6.2.

2.4.3.2. The proposal is acceptable when the offeror describes potential delivery risk associated with the timeline.

2.5. VOLUME III – CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

2.5.1. This volume will be reviewed for completeness. The offeror’s proposal shall include a signed copy of the Solicitation and completed Sections A through K.

2.5.2. The proposal shall provide evidence that the reps and certs have been completed in associations with provision 52.212-3.

2.5.3. The proposal shall provide evidence that the NIST assessment has been completed IAW DFARS 252.204-7020.

2.5.4. The proposal shall contain evidence of adequate financial resources. Acceptable evidence normally consists of a commitment or explicit arrangement that will be in existence at the time of contract award, to acquire the needed materials, equipment, personnel and other resources necessary to sustain operations.

3. DISCUSSIONS

3.1. It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions; therefore, it is imperative that offerors submit its best offer initially. However, if during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs), and the Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

NEERING, JASON T CIV USAF AFMC OL_H/PZIMA

Is this in the SOW?

NEERING, JASON T CIV USAF AFMC OL_H/PZIMA

Yes but unclear if 2008 or 2015 should be added to the end

4. SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS

4.1. 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.