52.212-2 Evaluation Factors.pdf

52.212-2 – Evaluation Factors for Award

1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

This acquisition will utilize Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2, as supplemented. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. Award will be made to the technically acceptable offeror with the lowest evaluated price, which is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements. The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation.

The Government intends to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary by the Contracting Officer.

1.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded:

The Government intends to select one contractor to supply a Large Chamber Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope (LC-FESEM). However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

1.2 Correction Potential of Proposals:

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any proposal uncertainty. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered reasonably correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

2 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

The Government will evaluate for acceptability the factors and subfactors described below:

Factor One – Price

Factor Two – Technical

Subfactor 1 – Technical Capability Subfactor 2 –Management Capability Plan

2.1 Evaluation Methodology

2.1.1 A price evaluation will be performed for all offerors in accordance with Section

2.2 and proposals will be ranked from lowest to highest price based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

2.1.2 Next, a technical evaluation will be performed beginning with the lowest priced offeror. Evaluations will cease when an adequate number of technically acceptable proposals receive a satisfactory rating. Only those Offerors determined to be technically acceptable either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award.

2.1.3 Award will be made to the lowest evaluated priced proposal meeting the acceptability standards for the non-cost factors.

2.2 Price Factor

2.2.1 The pricing criteria used for evaluation are (1) completeness, (2) price reasonableness, and (3) Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

2.2.2 Completeness – The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L of the RFP. Incomplete price submissions will NOT be evaluated, and the proposal may be eliminated from the competition.

2.2.3 Price Reasonableness – The offerors price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 13. Generally, adequate price competition will satisfy the criteria of price reasonableness.

2.2.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP) – The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the offeror’s proposed prices for CLINS 0001 – 0013. All prices that comprise the TEP are contractually binding, will be firm fixed price (FFP), and must be populated.

2.2.5 Unbalanced Pricing – Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. 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 the application of price analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items or subline items. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.3 Technical Factor

2.3.1 Technical proposals will be evaluated for acceptability in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section. The Offeror’s Technical Proposal must convey to the Government that the Offeror is capable, possesses adequate technical expertise and experience, possesses 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 will evaluate the Offeror’s Technical Proposal to ensure that the offeror can sufficiently meet the requirements within the SOW adequately with emphasis on the elements of the technical subfactors listed below. The Technical Proposal shall explain how the contractor will accomplish/satisfy the requirements. The Technical Proposal shall NOT simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet the requirements in the SOW. If an Offeror rephrases/restates the SOW, their Technical Proposal will be unacceptable.

2.3.2 The Technical Proposal will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis and assigned one of the following ratings:

2.3.3 Technical Subfactor 1: Technical Capability (see 52.212-1, 4.1)

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed technical capability and overall approach for meeting the SOW requirements. The proposal shall demonstrate an established, sound, feasible, and effective approach that clearly demonstrates evidence of the full capability, and operability that their LC-FESEM possesses to meet the following SOW requirements:

a. Electron Optics (SOW section 3.4.)

b. Electron Detectors (SOW section 3.5.)

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

c. Performance (SOW section 3.6.)

d. Scanning/Display System (SOW section 3.7.)

e. Sample Chamber and Stage (SOW section 3.8.)

f. Vacuum System (SOW section 3.9.)

g. Controller and Operating System (SOW section 3.10.)

h. Transfer and Install Kit (SOW section 4.1.)

2.3.4 Technical Subfactor 2: Management Capability Plan (see 52.212-1, 4.2)

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed Management Capability Plan and overall approach to meeting requirements described in SOW.

This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal substantiates a comprehensive approach for all the following:

1. A commitment to perform all Government requirements as described in the SOW to reduce risk of negative system impacts.

2. An ability to provide qualified personnel that meet SOW requirements

(SOW sections 5.2. and 5.3.).

3. An ability to provide technical support via telephone/email during warranty period to minimize risks to equipment and personnel.

4. An ability to provide technical service on-site during warranty period to make repairs and bring LC-FESEM back to full functionality.

3 DISCUSSIONS:

It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions, therefore, it is imperative that offerors submit their best terms 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.

4 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS:

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.