52.212-2_Evaluation Criteria.pdf

STRATEGIC ADVISOR SERVICES (SAS) SUPPORT

SOLICITATION HT0015-24-R-0021

FAR 52-212-2, Evaluation - Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Nov 2021).

(a) The government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation 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 will be used to evaluate quotations:

(1) Technical

(2) Price

(3) Organizational Conflict of Interest

(4) Past Performance

Past Performance, when compared to price, is significantly more important than price. Technical will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis.

(b) If the acquisition contract award date is delayed then the period of performance start and end dates will change but the duration of the period of performance will not be affected. In the event the extension of services clause is utilized then the period of performance will be 5 years (if all options are exercised) and 6 months.

In addition to the four (12-month option periods) options there will be an option to utilize clause FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services, with a period of performance starting the day after the 5-year ordering period expires.

(c) A written notice of award, mailed or otherwise, furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the proposal, will result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the proposal's specified expiration time, the government may accept a proposal, whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

The following is inserted as new paragraph (d) of the provision:

“(d) BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) best value evaluation process conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15 in which competing offerors’ past performance will be considered as significantly more important than price. By submission of its proposal, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in a proposal being determined unacceptable. The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP) or other than the highest past performance rated offeror. The Contracting Officer will make an award decision using the Past Performance Confidence and the TEP.

The evaluation process will include the following:

(1) Technical Rating Factor. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Resumes will not be evaluated for contract award. Review of resumes and provision of qualified workers will be performed as a matter of contract administration following award.

Table 1. Technical Ratings Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and provides an adequate approach.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and does not provide an adequate approach.

The information will be evaluated against the following subfactor(s):

Subfactor 1: Management Approach: The offeror’s management approach will be evaluated on the following:

Feasibility of approach to manage. Offers with a management approach that is not feasible are unawardable.

Subfactor 2: Transition: The offeror’s transition approach will be evaluated on the following:

Feasibility of approach to successful transition. Offers with a transition plan that is not feasible are unawardable.

(2) Price Evaluation Factor. The price evaluation will document the balance and reasonableness of the total evaluated price (TEP). The Government will not be conducting a price or cost realism analysis. Nothing in this solicitation shall mean, or be construed to mean, that the Government will be doing a price or cost realism analysis.

The TEP is the total of the ordering period and Option to Extend Services clause 52.217-8. For award purposes only, the price of the Option to Extend Services clause 52.217-8 will be calculated as six months of performance of the last ordering period.

Justification for Offers proposing any employee monetary compensation less than the amounts on Minimum Compensation Matrix (RFP Attachment 2), will be evaluated to determine whether proposed non-monetary compensation to workers is adequate to obtain and retain qualified workers.

If not adequate to obtain and retain qualified workers, offer is not eligible for award. The Government will not evaluate non-monetary compensation for workers for Offers proposing monetary compensation for all employees at amounts equal to, or greater than, the amounts on the Minimum Compensation Matrix (RFP Attachment 2).

NOTE: This requirement will be awarded as C type contract. CLIN structure on the contract will match the Pricing Matrix (Attachment 1). CLIN structure on the SF 1449 - Solicitation is for RFP purposes only and does not match this pricing matrix due to contract writing system restrictions.

(3) Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan: The offeror’s technical approach will be evaluated based on the following:

This technical subfactor will be evaluated to determine acceptability of an OCI Mitigation Plan and the feasibility of intended strategies, approach, and the likelihood of successful mitigation of OCIs. Include all elements of the OCI Mitigation Plan Checklist in your response (Attachment 3). Offers from Offerors that have OCI that do not submit an OCI Mitigation Plan or submit an OCI Mitigation Plan evaluated as unacceptable with their offer are unawardable.

(4) Past Performance Factor. The Government will evaluate performance information on all offerors based on (i) the references provided by the offeror, and (ii) any past performance information obtained from survey/questionnaires (RFP Attachment 4), and (iii) any data independently obtained by the government. Surveys/questionnaires will not replace existing CPARS but may be used to clarify content of the existing CPARS. In addition to evaluation of recency and relevancy, the Government will conduct a performance quality assessment of such work when assessing the entirety of an offeror’s Past Performance. The Government will look at the relevancy, recency, and quality of each PP effort. Then consider, in the aggregate, all of the efforts giving more weight to the efforts that are more recent and more relevant.

(a) The evaluation of past performance information (i) may take into account past performance regarding predecessor companies, (ii) may take into account past performance of key personnel who have relevant experience, and/or (iii) may take into account past performance regarding subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to this acquisition.

(b) To be recent past performance must have been performed within the past five (5) years prior to of issuance of the solicitation.

(c) Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving requirements that are similar in scope, magnitude of effort, and complexity to the effort that required by this solicitation. The

Government will assess relevancy for each contract and assign a rating as described in Table 2 below:

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Rating Definition

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

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar 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.

Performance Quality Assessment: For each of the recent and “somewhat or more" relevant past performance information reviewed the performance quality of work will be assessed.

The Government will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance. The assessment process will result in an offeror’s overall performance confidence assessment rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence (Neutral). Offerors with no recent past or present performance history or the offeror’s performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will receive a rating of “Unknown Confidence,” meaning the offeror is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably (neutral). As a result of the assessments, offerors will receive an integrated past performance confidence assessment rating as described in Table 4 below:

TABLE 3. Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings 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 the required effort.

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 Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the government has no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE

(NEUTRAL)

No recent/relevant performance is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Note: More recent and/or more relevant past performance may be weighted more heavily than less recent and/or less relevant past performance.

(4) The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

(5) Integrated Assessment. Award will be made to the offeror, with a technically acceptable OCI plan, with acceptable minimum compensation for its workers, whose offer represents the best value to the Government, trading off past performance for price where past performance is significantly more important than price.

(End of Addendum)