52.212-2-Evaluation -Lektriever_25 March 2020.docx

52.212-2 Addendum

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Vertical Lift Module Maintenance

52.212-2 – EVALUATION—COMMERCIAL ITEMS

(a) The government will award one (1) contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

(1) PRICE

(2) TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

(3) PAST PERFORMANCE

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

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

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 – TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

(A) Basis for 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 and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements. The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors and associated Addendum of this solicitation. The Government reserves the right 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. If the Contracting Officer determines it necessary to conduct discussions, procedures at FAR 15.306 will be followed. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

(B) Evaluation Methodology:

a. Initially, offers shall be ranked according to price from the lowest price to highest based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP will be used for Price comparison and evaluation.

b. Next, the government technical evaluation team will review the technical proposal submitted by the lowest priced offeror on an acceptable/unacceptable basis to ensure the solicitation requirements including all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by this solicitation are met. The Technical Proposal will then be evaluated for the next lowest priced offer. For price comparison purposes, technical evaluations cease when the technical evaluation teams finds two proposals technically acceptable. Only proposals deemed technically acceptable (either initially or as the result of discussions) will be considered for award.

(C) Factor one – price factor

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

2. Price Reasonableness – The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 (Proposal Analysis Techniques). Generally, adequate price competition will satisfy the criteria for price reasonableness.

3. Balance – 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 sub-line 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.

4. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) – An offeror whose price is determined to be unreasonable or unbalanced, may not be considered for award. The TEP is the sum of the proposed prices for the base period of all CLINs and the six month option (including FAR clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services) utilizing notional quantities listed on the TEP Worksheet. The TEP is for evaluation purposes only; evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The distribution of the notional quantities have been based upon the Government’s best estimate. The notional quantity for Preventative Maintenance/Inspection, Relocation and Disposal SHALL NOT be disclosed to offerors. The prices associated with the TEP are contractually binding. A no bid or an omitted CLIN price may result in an incomplete price submission. An omitted CLIN price may result in proposal elimination..

The offerors Price proposal will be evaluated based on the offerors populated TEP Matrix Attachment. The price for CLINs 0001-0018 and 1001-1018 will be calculated based on the notional quantities. All CLINs will be summed to a total evaluated price.

(d) Factor two – technical evaluation

1. Technical Volume will be evaluated for acceptability in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section. The Technical Volume 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 offeror’s proposal shall NOT simply copy and paste, rephrase or restate the PWS language for the Technical Volume.

2. The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning one of the ratings in the table below. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The Offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions. The proposals shall be evaluated against the Technical Subfactors and all requirements found in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

3. The Proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactor criteria:

c. Sub-factor 3: Capability to acquire OEM parts:

The offeror shall provide a detailed part requisition plan that outlines their approach and demonstrates their ability to acquire OEM parts, including those parts that are obsolete or hard to find that would not result in the OEM refusing to support the equipment. (IAW PWS 2.3) To be acceptable on this sub-factor, the offeror’s detailed part requisition plan for obsolete parts must state their ability to obtain obsolete parts or get OEM approval to use equivalent replacement parts to avoid invalidating a warranty. Incomplete descriptions and copies of the PWS are unacceptable. (IAW PWS 2.3)

(E) Factor THREE – PAST PERFORMANCE

1. Past performance information will be gathered from offeror submissions and Government databases (e.g., Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reports System (CPARS), and/or through the use of Government and commercial customer interviews and questionnaires, etc.). Only recent and relevant past performance information will be considered. Performance as subcontractor may be included; the offeror shall include contract number and prime contractor. Offeror may use past performance of subcontractor to satisfy recent and relevant past performance. If this is a first time joint venture, each party to the joint venture must provide a list of past relevant contracts (maximum of three).

2. Recency - is defined as performance within the last three years from the date of the issuance of the solicitation. The Government will not consider performance on contracts where performance was concluded more than three years prior to the solicitation issue date or contracts awarded. The contract/task order in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance if any part of the contract performance falls within the three year timeframe.

3. Relevancy - is defined as work that involves approximately the same type(s) of services described in the RFP, PWS, 52.212-1 Addendum, and 52.212-2 Addendum. The offeror shall address any performance problems/issues as instructed in 52.212-1 Addendum and explain the corrective action taken or current status.

Past performance will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis using the following ratings.

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 (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability or unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “Acceptable.”

(F) 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.

(End of Provision)