9. FAR 52 212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Items.docx

FAR 52 212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Items 52.212-2 Addendum EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD Corrosion Control and Prevention

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), and DoD Source Selection Procedures Appendix A. These regulations are available electronically at the AF FAR Site, https://www.acquisition.gov/. The Government will select the proposal with the lowest total evaluated price (TEP) from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors. Contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR Part 9.1 whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by 52.212-1f of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and sub-factors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.1. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award a single award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ), however the Government reserves the right to make no award at all.

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 correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1.3. Discussions

The Government intends to evaluate the proposals and make award without discussions; therefore, it is imperative that offeror(s) 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 Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award. The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

2. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

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

Factor One – Price Factor Two – Technical Evaluation Subfactor One – Technical Approach Subfactor Two – Management Plan/Quality Control Factor Three – Past Performance

2.1. Evaluation Methodology

2.1.1. An initial price evaluation will be performed for all offerors IAW this section and section 3.1 below. Proposals will be ranked from lowest to highest price based on a Total Evaluated Price (TEP). In the event that a TEP cannot be calculated, the Government may elect to set the offeror aside and continue evaluating other offerors with TEPs that can be calculated as detailed below, or to continue on with evaluations as described below without a TEP being calculated for the offeror.

2.1.2. Next, a technical and past performance evaluation will be performed beginning with the lowest priced offeror(s).

2.1.2.1. If an offeror(s) as determined by the Government are technically acceptable, have acceptable past performance and meet all other requirements of this solicitation, award may be made without discussions.

2.1.2.2. If the lowest priced offeror, based on TEP, is determined by the Government as not technically acceptable or do not have acceptable past performance, then evaluations may continue and the SSA may:

2.1.2.2.1. Continue evaluating additional offers and award to the next lowest price technically acceptable offeror with acceptable past performance; or

2.1.2.2.2. Establish a competitive range and enter into discussions. The contracting officer may determine the number of most highly rated proposals exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted. The competitive range may be limited for purposes of efficiency.

2.1.2.3. Under the scenarios described above, it is possible that higher priced offers will not be evaluated for technical and past performance acceptability. It is possible that higher priced offers may receive an award if lower priced offers are not technically acceptable, or do not have acceptable past performance. It is also possible that offeror(s) may not be considered for award if the TEP cannot be calculated.

2.1.2.4. Technical and past performance evaluation of an offeror does not ensure inclusion in a competitive range, if one is set.

3. VOLUME I - FACTOR ONE - PRICE FACTOR

3.1. The pricing criteria used for evaluation are (1) Reasonableness and (2) Total Evaluated Price.

3.1.1. Reasonableness – The Offerors 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.

3.1.2. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) – The TEP is the sum of CLIN totals as specified below. The TEP will be calculated for evaluation of offers and will be considered in the award decision. The TEP will be calculated using the below:

3.1.2.1. The Firm Fixed price CLIN 0001 at its determined rate of $500.00.

3.1.2.2. The Firm Fixed Price CLINs 0002 and 1002 will be evaluated by applying Government generated notional ordering quantities to the offerors proposed rates in Section J Attachment 7 – Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Worksheet. The government will then take the sum of all calculated rates for each year, to include the price for the period covered by the 6-month option period in FAR clause 52.217-8. Evaluation of the included option shall not obligate the Government to exercise such option. The notional ordering quantities will represent the Government’s best estimate of ordering quantities for all years of the contract. The notional ordering quantities will NOT be disclosed outside the Government. The TEP calculated herein is for evaluation purposes only and will not be contractually binding; however, the rates as proposed will be contractually binding as Firm Fixed Price prices for issuances of task orders. A no offer or an omitted rate may result in an incomplete price submission. An omitted rate may result in proposal elimination.

3.1.2.3. The Firm Fixed Price CLINS of 0003, 0004, 1003, and 1004 at their proposed Fixed Price.

4. VOLUME II - FACTOR TWO - TECHNICAL EVALUATION

4.1. The Technical Volume will be evaluated for acceptability IAW the criteria set forth in this section. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding requirements. The offeror’s 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 Technical Volume shall explain how the contractor will accomplish/satisfy the requirements. The Technical Volume 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 PWS. The offeror’s proposal shall not merely copy and paste, rephrase, or restate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

4.1.1. The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals by assigning ratings of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. The technical factor as a whole will be rated “Unacceptable” if any single subfactor is rated “Unacceptable.” Technical factors will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis using the following ratings:

Table 2 – Technical Ratings

4.1.2. 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 intends to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions. However, the Government may hold discussions if necessary.

4.2. Sub-factor One: Technical Approach (Acceptable/Unacceptable).

4.2.1 The government will evaluate technical proposals on a pass/fail basis and assign an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating.

4.2.2 The Government will evaluate whether the offeror has proposed an overall plan, methods, procedures, and resources that are capable of accomplishing the requirements of the overall acquisition. Additionally, the Government will assess the offeror’s resource plan, work processes, scheduling plan, quality plan, and risk mitigation plan for performing the work required. Failure to provide any of these requirements may result in an Unacceptable rating for this factor.

4.2.1. The proposal is technically acceptable when the offeror provides a level of detail and supporting documentation (of a clear methodology or plan) which demonstrates how use of identified techniques and procedures will result in qualified personnel possessing the capabilities and experience at skill level which accomplishes the requirements outlined in the PWS.

4.2.3 Contractors are reminded to thoroughly review necessary requirements to ensure a complete requirements package.

4.3 Sub-factor Two: Management Plan/Quality Control (Acceptable/Unacceptable).

4.3.1 The Government will evaluate the effectiveness of the offeror’s management plan and organizational structure to successfully meet the service requirements of this contract. Additionally, the Government will assess the offeror’s key personnel, concept of operations, resource management strategies, and quality control procedures for performing the required work. Failure to provide any of these requirements may result in an Unacceptable rating for this factor.

4.3.2 The proposal is technically acceptable when the offeror provides a level of detail and supporting documentation (of a clear methodology or plan) which clearly demonstrates and substantiates how the offeror has (and will use) abilities to adequately and effectively manage and supervise its workforce and ensure quality control of all work being performed under this contract.

5 VOLUME III - FACTOR THREE - PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR (Acceptable/Unacceptable).

5.1 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. If a reference identified by the offeror in accordance with 52.212-1 paragraph six does not submit a survey/questionnaire, the government will follow up with the reference POC, but it is not responsible for the failure of a reference POC to provide a survey/questionnaire. 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).

5.1.1 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.

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

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

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. (See note below).

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

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.”

6 VOLUME IV – CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

6.1 This volume will be reviewed for completeness. The offeror’s proposal shall include a signed copy of the Model Contract and Solicitation, Sections A through K, completed Attachment 5. Exhibit A – DD Form 1423-1 CDRL Monthly Status Report and Exhibit B – DD Form 1423-1 CDRL Pre-Transportation Checklist, signed amendments to the solicitation (if any), and all other information required by FAR 52.212-1 Instruction to Offerors (ITO) - Addendum “Contract Documentation.” An incomplete package may be excluded.

7 DISCUSSIONS

7.1 The Government intends to award without discussions. Therefore, it is imperative that offerors submit their 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.

8 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS

8.1 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.