Addendum 52.212-2 - EC.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

377TH AIR BASE WING (AFGSC)

377 MSG/CONTRACTING DIVISION – KIRTLAND AFB, NEW MEXICO

RFO 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Deviation Date) The following has been tailored to this procurement:

a. Basis for Award. The Government will award a 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. To be considered for award, an offer must first be rated “Technically Acceptable.” The Government will then make an award decision based on Past Performance and Price.

The price proposed must be found to be fair and reasonable in accordance with RFO 12.204(a).

b. Evaluation Process. The Government will evaluate each offeror’s technical approach to determine if it is Very Good, Good, or Unacceptable. The proposal must meet the minimum requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) to be rated "Very Good" or “Good” across all subfactors. Any proposal rated "Unacceptable" will be removed from further consideration. For all technically acceptable offerors, the Government will assess its confidence in the offeror's ability to perform the work, assigning a rating of Confident, Neutral, or No Confidence. The price for all technically acceptable offers will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness in accordance with RFO 12.204(a). Among all technically acceptable offers, the Government will consider Past Performance and Price. The Government reserves the right to make an award to an offeror with a "Confident" past performance rating that is higher in price than one with a "Neutral" or "No Confidence" rating, if the perceived benefit of the better past performance is deemed to be worth the additional cost. Award will be made to the offeror that provides the best value to the Government.

c. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

a. (i) Factor 1: Technical – The Government will evaluate the offeror's technical proposal on a Very Good, Good, or Unacceptable basis. A proposal must receive a "Very Good" or “Good” rating for the overall factor to be eligible for further consideration. The table below gives the rating and Technical Definition for Very Good, Good, and Unacceptable.

Rating Technical Definition

Very Good Proposal meets and significantly exceeds PWS requirements; demonstrates superior technical understanding, exceptional equipment readiness, fully certified personnel, and proactive quality control. Strengths substantially enhance mission readiness with no deficiencies.

Good Proposal satisfies all PWS requirements; demonstrates an acceptable technical approach, adequate commercial equipment, and qualified staffing. Any minor weaknesses are readily correctable without significant government intervention. No material deficiencies.

Unacceptable Proposal fails to meet fundamental PWS requirements; contains critical omissions, flawed execution strategies, insufficient staffing, uncertified personnel, or lack of essential equipment. Contains one or more material deficiencies that cannot be resolved without major proposal revision.

i. Subfactor 1: Service Plan – To be rated “Very Good” or “Good” the offeror must provide a proposed plan that, at a minimum:

1. Outlines a comprehensive and realistic operational approach to executing all routine grounds maintenance tasks detailed in the PWS, including pruning and edging planter beds, native turf/shrub management, gravel area maintenance, and weekly property clean-up (including leaf, trash, and tumbleweed removal).

2. Outlines standard tree maintenance procedures limited to heights under 10 feet and branches under 3 feet in diameter, and details how safety-related pruning/hazard mitigation above 10 feet will be addressed.

3. Submits a detailed monthly service schedule model that identifies plots, acreages, and base areas to show how grounds maintenance will be completed during normal operating hours (0730 - 1630, Monday through Friday) while accommodating potential schedule changes in accordance with PWS Paragraph 4.9.

ii. Subfactor 2: Hazardous Material Management Plan – To be rated “Very Good” or “Good”, the offeror must provide a clear plan that, at a minimum:

1. Outlines a reliable process for verifying that 100% of personnel applying pesticides and herbicides hold current, valid State certifications as prescribed in DoDI 4150.07 prior to performing work under this contract.

2. Details an environmental safety and spill control process, demonstrating how the contractor will secure CO approval for hazardous materials using AF Form 3952, maintain MSDSs, perform mixing/storage off-base, and remove all hazardous materials from the job site at the end of each workday.

3. Outlines safety protocols to ensure compliance with OSHA standards, including a plan to report and document any accidents or property damage (verbal notification immediately, written Accident Investigation Report within 5 calendar days as required by PWS Paragraph 4.8).

iii. Subfactor 3: Management Plan & Quality Control – To be rated “Very

Good” or “Good” the offeror must provide a proposed plan that, at a minimum:

1. Defines the on-site role, responsibilities, and authority of the required on-site manager to act on behalf of the contractor and resolve issues with the Government CO and COR.

2. Outlines a robust internal Quality Control Plan (QCP) utilizing established commercial practices (such as PGMS, TCIA, ASLA, ANSI, and local Extension Offices) and incorporating the inspection system requirements of FAR 52.246-4 to identify, prevent, and correct performance deficiencies.

3. Details a clear process for responding to and resolving Contract

Discrepancy Reports (CDRs) within 1 calendar day of receipt, in accordance with PWS Section 3.

iv. Any proposal rated "Unacceptable" for any subfactor will render the entire technical proposal "Unacceptable" and ineligible for award.

b. (ii) Factor 2: Past Performance – For all offerors rated "Technically

Acceptable” the Government will conduct a past performance evaluation on recent (within three years) and relevant (similar work as the requirement) submissions. The evaluation will result in a single performance confidence rating of Confident, Neutral, or No Confidence. These ratings are defined as follows:

Adjectival Rating Description Confident Based on the offeror’s recent and relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral No recent and relevant performance record is available for the offeror. A Neutral rating is not favorable or unfavorable and will not be a basis for eliminating an offeror from competition.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent and relevant performance record, the Government has significant doubt that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

c. (iii) Factor 3: Price – The offerors Total Evaluated Price (TEP), for award purposes, will be based upon the total price proposed for each Contract Line- Item Number (CLIN) as calculated in “Supplies or Services & Prices or Costs” of the solicitation (SF 1449) or excel that includes pricing for all CLINs included in the SF1449. The TEP will be evaluated against competitive quotations and other necessary means found in RFO 12.204(a). 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).

i. Price will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness in accordance RFO 12.204(a).

ii. The purchase order resulting from this solicitation will include RFO 52.217-9 “Option to Extend the Term of the Contract”.

iii. The purchase order resulting from this solicitation will include RFO 52.217-8 “Option to Extend Services”, a six- month extension. The six-month extension period under this clause will only be utilized if necessary. IAW 52.217-8, the extension pricing will be based on the pricing on contract if utilized. The six-month extension will not appear on the resulting contract as a separate CLIN and will only be add to the contract when required for the price proposed in Factor 3. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Evaluation of extension pricing shall not obligate the Government to exercise the extension.

d. A written notice of award or acceptance of a quote, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the quote, shall result in a binding contract upon signature of the apparent awardee. Before the quotation’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept a quote (or part of a quote), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of provision)