Addendum 52.212-2.pdf

a. Basis for Contract Award

(1) This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS). Award will be made to a single offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements, and whose proposal, judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in this solicitation, represents the Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable offer.

(2) Trade-offs between cost/price and non-cost/price factors are not permitted. Unreasonably high/ unrealistically low, unbalanced, inaccurate or incomplete price proposals, may be the grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.

The Government will evaluate proposed prices for reasonableness using price analysis techniques. Proposed prices evaluated as unreasonable may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.

b. Award for All of the Work. The Government intends to award one (1) as a result of this solicitation. Offers received for less than the stated number of items listed in the Bid Schedule will be considered ineligible for award. As set forth in FAR 52.215-1 (f)(4), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a), Clarifications and award without discussions).

Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. In the event that discussions are held, a competitive range determination will be made. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

c. Evaluation Criteria

1) Evaluation criteria consist of factors and subfactors. The proposals will be evaluated under the following three (3) evaluation factors:

Factor 1: Technical Capability Subfactor 1A: Technical Ability Subfactor 1B: Management Approach & Staffing Approach Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

2) Factor 1 - Technical Capability. The Technical Factor evaluation provides an assessment of the offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements.

Factor 1 – Technical Capability consist of two (2) Subfactors:

Subfactor 1B: Staffing, Recruitment, Retention, and Management Approach

The proposal clearly demonstrates that the Offeror has a very good understanding of the entire requirement; has a very good methodology to perform all tasks successfully and on time, and has a very efficient, effective and sound approach to plan, organize, control and perform the major performance objectives. The proposal’s overall technical approach shall have little potential to disrupt or degrade performance or to increase costs.

Subfactor 1B: Staffing, Recruitment, Retention, and Management Approach

The proposal clearly demonstrates that the Offeror has very sound procedures to monitor and manage performance of all personnel, in all locations, to ensure timely quality work and to control costs. The proposal clearly demonstrates that the Offeror has offered properly qualified personnel in the appropriate labor categories to perform this requirement, has a very sound recruiting and retention plan to ensure the continued availability of properly qualified personnel and has a very efficient, effective and sound staffing approach that ensures an appropriate number of personnel are available to perform this requirement. The proposal’s overall management and staffing approach shall have little potential to disrupt or degrade performance or to increase costs.

The Technical Capabilities sub-factors will be assigned an adjectival rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable. The Subfactor ratings will be used to determine an overall rating for the factor. If any Subfactor receives an Unacceptable rating, the overall Technical Capabilities factor will be rated Unacceptable.

The Technical Factors will receive one of the adjectival ratings defined below. The Subfactor ratings will be used to determine an overall rating for the factor.

Table A-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

(3) Factor 2 - Past Performance. The Past Performance evaluation will assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation’s requirements as indicated by that offeror’s record of past performance. Past Performance is assessed at the factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance and focusing on performance that is relevant to the services being procured under this solicitation. Offerors are cautioned that in conducting the performance risk assessment, the Government may use data provided in the offeror’s proposal and data obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems and State Department Watch Lists. Past performance areas of evaluation include:

Quality of Service Schedule Cost Control Customer Satisfaction

(a) Each offeror will receive a performance confidence assessment rating based on the

Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Contract requirements.

(b) Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past (3) three years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(c) Relevancy Assessment. To be relevant, the effort must be similar in nature of work, size, and complexity. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine if it is the same or similar in nature of work, size, dollar value, and complexity to the services/products being procured under this solicitation.

Recent past performance is defined as not more than (3) three years from the RFP release date;

relevant in terms of similar nature of work, size and complexity.

A relevancy determination of the offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to what aspects of an offeror’s contract history would give the most confidence that the offeror will satisfy the current procurement. The past performance information provided in the proposal and obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance.

(d) The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

(e) Assigning Ratings. The Past Performance Factor will be assigned one of the ratings defined below.

Table 4. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings Rating Description

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 does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

(f) Offerors 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 (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, neutral rating shall be considered acceptable.

(4) Factor 3 – Price. Evaluation of price will be performed using one or more of the price analysis techniques in FAR 15.404-1(b). Through these techniques the Government will determine whether prices are reasonable, complete and balanced. Total compensation plans for proposed professional employees shall be evaluated as prescribed by FAR Clause 52.222-

46. The Price factor will not be scored or rated. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Price Proposal to determine if the price proposal is complete and accurate, in accordance with Section L instructions, and if proposed prices are fair and reasonable and balanced. The Government will evaluate total compensation plans for professional employees as prescribed by FAR Clause 52.222-46. Offerors responding to this solicitation are advised that, prior to award, the Government may request Offerors to submit substantiating information/data to support price reasonableness and the evaluation of the Professional Employees Compensation Plan as described in FAR Clause 52.222-46. An unreasonably high, unbalanced, inaccurate, or incomplete proposal may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition or a determination that the proposal will not be considered for award because it is not in compliance with the material requirements of the solicitation. Additionally, failure to comply with the provisions of FAR Clause 52.222-46 may constitute sufficient cause to justify rejection of a proposal.

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). As part of price evaluation, the government will evaluate its option to extend services (see FAR Clause 52.217-8) by adding one-half of the offeror's final option period price to the offeror's total price. Thus, the offeror's total price for the purpose of evaluation will include the base period, 1st option, 2nd option, and 1/2 of the 2nd option. Offerors are not required to enter a price for the six-month period.

Unbalanced Pricing may be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), as applicable, to assess potential performance risk which could result in unreasonably high prices.

Definitions.

Reasonableness. A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

Completeness/Accuracy. The offeror’s proposal is in compliance with the Price Volume instructions in the solicitation.”