Addendum 52.212-2_Sunshades_Final.pdf

Evaluation Factors for Award

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation - Commercial Items

The following is inserted as new paragraph (d) of the provision:

(d) BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

(1) This is a competitive Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Parts 12, 13, and 15 in which competing offerors' technical and past performance information when combined will be significantly more important than price. All technically acceptable offers will be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. Any quotation with an unacceptable technical rating will not be considered for award. Failure to meet a factor and/or subfactor may result in an offer being determined unacceptable. The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP), if the difference in the Past Performance Confidence Rating of another offeror with a higher TEP justifies the higher price premium. In that event, the Contracting Officer (KO) will make an integrated assessment of the best value award decision using the TEP and the Past Performance Confidence Rating.

A. EVALUATION APPROACH: PRICE PERFORMANCE TRADE-OFF

Proposal evaluation is an assessment of the proposal and the offeror’s ability to perform the prospective contract successfully. A contract will be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR Subpart 9.1 as supplemented. Technical and Past Performance is significantly more important than Price/Cost.

This may result in an award to a higher past performance confidence rated, technically acceptable, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the KO reasonably determines that the offeror with a higher past performance confidence rating that is technically acceptable, although higher priced, is the best value and outweighs the price difference of a lower priced, technically acceptable, lower past performance confidence rated offer. The Government will evaluate proposals that conform to the solicitation requirements using the following procedures:

Step 1 – Completeness: Each offeror's proposal will be evaluated for completeness IAW the Addendum to 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Items. Any offeror the Government deems to have an incomplete proposal shall not be considered for award and shall not be evaluated for Price or Technical and Past Performance Evaluation. Only those offers that are determined to be complete will proceed to Step 2.

Step 2 - Price Evaluation: All proposals that are determined to be complete shall be evaluated for fair and reasonableness, balance, and realism (if necessary) then ranked from lowest to highest price. Any offerors with prices determined to be unfair, unreasonable, unbalanced, or unrealistic (if necessary) shall not be considered for award, shall not be evaluated for technical capability, and shall not be evaluated for past performance. Only those offers with prices determined to be complete, fair and reasonable, balanced, and realistic (if necessary) will proceed to Step 3.

Step 3 – Technical and Past Performance Evaluation: Beginning with lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP) proposal, proposals will be evaluated for technical acceptability on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis based on the ratings defined in Table 1 listed below. If the proposal receives an acceptable rating, a past performance evaluation will be done.

Past performance will be rated as Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Neutral Confidence in accordance with Table 3 listed below.

1) The Government will conduct evaluations until it identifies a proposal that is the lowest priced offer receives a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment rating, and it receives an Acceptable technical rating, and the price is determined to be complete, fair and reasonable, balanced, and realistic (if necessary), that offer represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process ends at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further evaluation of any other offers technical or past performance volumes.

2) If the lowest priced offer does not receive a Substantial Confidence performance assessment rating, the next lowest priced offer will be evaluated for technical and past performance and the process will continue until an offer receives an Acceptable technical rating and a Substantial Confidence performance assessment rating, or until all offers are evaluated. If the lowest priced offer receives a performance confidence assessment rating of Satisfactory Confidence or lower, the Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offeror. In that event, the KO shall then make an integrated assessment of the best value award decision of all evaluated offerors.

B. FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

The Government will evaluate proposals on an acceptable/unacceptable basis and assign an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating as described in Table 1 below. A rating of unacceptable in one or more technical subfactors will constitute an overall rating of

Unacceptable for the technical evaluation. The offeror's quotation shall, at a minimum, address each of the subfactors outlined below as they apply to the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and specifications. Detailed preparation instructions are included in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors—Commercial Products and Commercial Services.

Table 1: Technical Acceptability Ratings, Defined Rating Definition Rating Definition

Acceptable: Quotation clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable: Quotation does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

The quotations will be evaluated against the following subfactor(s):

(i) Subfactor 1 - Conformance to Specifications

This subfactor shall address whether the offeror's technical approach conforms to the specifications listed in paragraph 5 of the PWS; to include a general manufacturer’s layout consisting of but not limited to the following: outlet locations, locations of lighting, the dimensions of the sunshade, and the roof pitch and direction. For this subfactor to be rated "acceptable", the proposed technical approach will address and conform to all technical specifications listed in paragraph 5 of the PWS.

(ii) Subfactor 2 - Canopy Installation Plans and Schedule

This subfactor shall address the offeror's proposed canopy installation plan(s) to include proposed equipment list, materials, and order and duration of activities.

This subfactor shall also include a notional canopy installation schedule. For this subfactor to be rated "acceptable", the canopy installation plan(s) will address:

• All aspects of the installation as stated in the PWS and list all contractor-provided equipment, materials, and order of activities.

• The installation plan will address any timeline efficiencies gained or lost as the number of canopies ordered increases.

• The notional installation schedule will start upon receipt of a task order, and the timeline will include mobilization, submission of submittals, installation, and demobilization.

• The installation schedule will be realistic based on the industry standards and proposed canopy structure.

(iii) Subfactor 3 - Management Approach

This subfactor evaluates the adequacy of the offeror's proposed staffing. For this subfactor to be rated "acceptable", the proposed management approach:

• Proposed manning. If the offeror intends to utilize a subcontractor to install the sunshades, proposed subcontractors shall have past experience installing aircraft sunshades. Those offerors with previous experience working on airfields and coordinating with the FAA IAW section 5 of the PWS will be preferential to those without.

(iv) Subfactor 4 - Quality Control Plan

This subfactor assesses the offeror's overall quality control plan for ensuring quality of services, products, and workmanship identified in the PWS. For this subfactor to be rated "acceptable", the proposed quality control approach:

• Will provide an approach to maintaining a clean and safe work site which addresses the following:

o Controlled/Restricted Area Escorts IAW section 5 of the PWS o Barricades IAW section 5 of the PWS o Address FOD Prevention Plan IAW section 5 of the PWS o Address daily cleanup measures

• Quality control methods ensuring adequate torque specifications are applied IAW section 5 of the PWS.

• Quality control methods will be adequate to identify, track, document and analyze discrepancies, revealing trends and root causes.

• A corrective action strategy that will ensure timely problem resolution, responsive follow-up, effective inter-organizational information sharing as well as timely and acceptable performance IAW the PWS.

(iv) Subfactor 5 – Delivery Schedule

This subfactor shall address the offeror's proposed canopy delivery schedule.

• The delivery schedule will be realistic based on the industry standards and proposed canopy structure.

C. FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

The Past Performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance that are similar to the solicitation requirements and the quality of the offeror’s performance record. The Government will evaluate recent and relevant performance information on technically acceptable offerors based on the references provided by the offeror and any data independently obtained by the Government. Past performance evaluation will stop once a Substantial Confidence assessment has been reached.

In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume, and information obtained from other sources available to the Government to include, but not limited to: Contractor Performance Acquisition Retrieval System (CPARS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Document Access (EDA), or other databases; and interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, COs, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

(i) Recent past performance information includes contracts performed and/or being performed such as Federal contracts, DoD contracts, or state contracts within the last five

(5) years.

(ii) Relevant contract performance effort involved similar scope, magnitude of effort, and/or complexities to that required by this solicitation. The Government will assess relevancy for each contract and assign a rating as described in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Very Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this Solicitation requires. To qualify, the past/present effort must:

• Involve installation of steel aircraft canopies/shelters/sunshades.

• Number of canopies installed in excess of 14, can be cumulative across multiple Task Orders, Delivery Orders, Purchase Orders, IDIQs, etc.

• At least 90% of the performance must have been on a military airfield.

• Performance must be done as the prime contractor, or, if a member of a joint venture, the Offeror must have contributed at least 50% of the effort.

Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved a similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this Solicitation requires. To qualify, the performance may fail to meet all of the requirements for "Very Relevant" but meets all of the following:

• Involve installation of steel aircraft canopies/shelters/sunshades

• Number of canopies installed in excess of 7, can be cumulative across multiple Task Orders, Delivery Orders, Purchase Orders, IDIQs, etc.

• At least 60% of the performance must have been on an airfield

• Performance must be done as the prime contractor, or, if a member of a joint venture, the Offeror must have contributed at least 50% of the effort.

Somewhat Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this Solicitation requires. To qualify, the performance fails to meet all of the requirements for "Very Relevant" or "Relevant" performance but meets all of the following:

• Involve installation of steel aircraft canopies/ shelters/sunshades

• Number of canopies installed 5 or more, can be cumulative across multiple Task Orders, Delivery Orders, Purchase Orders, IDIQs, etc.

• At least 30% of the performance must have been done on a military installation and fastened to concrete surface (not necessarily on the airfield)

• Performance must be done as the prime contractor, or, if a member of a joint venture, the Offeror must have contributed at least 50% of the effort.

Not Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude and of effort and complexities this Solicitation requires. To qualify, all performance fails to meet one of the three relevancy ratings: "Very Relevant", "Relevant" or "Somewhat Relevant".

(iii) Performance Evaluation. In addition to evaluating the extent to which the offeror's past performance meets the PWS and technical requirements of previous efforts, the assessment will consider things such as: the offeror's history of adhering to schedules, the administrative aspects of performance, reasonable and cooperative behavior, and commitment to customer satisfaction.

(iv) When a relevant and recent performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the suitability and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent projects or performance evaluations to review the corrective actions and evaluate their effectiveness.

(v) Performance Confidence Assessment. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror's ability to meet the solicitation requirements based on the offeror's demonstrated record of performance.

The Government will combine recency, relevancy, and performance evaluations of all of the efforts considered for the offeror to assign a Performance Confidence Assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence or Neutral Confidence as described below in Table 3.

Table 3: Past Performance Confidence Assessment

Substantial Confidence: Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence: Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence: No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can reasonably be assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence: Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence: No Confidence Based on the offeror's recent and relevant performance record; the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

D. FACTOR 3 - PRICE EVALUATION FACTOR

The Government will rank all offers by Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The price evaluation will document the fairness and reasonableness of the TEP. Separately priced line items or subline items shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced.

(i) Total Evaluated Price: The offeror's TEP is the sum of all separately priced line items.

(ii) In addition, proposed unit prices may be evaluated for unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items or sub-line item(s) appears to be significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. An offeror's quotation may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(iii) If the quotation analysis techniques listed above are insufficient to make a determination of price reasonableness or, if the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, the Contracting Officer may request submission of other than certified cost or pricing data and may use other quotation analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404, to the extent necessary, in order to make a Fair and Reasonable price determination.

(2) The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors; however, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

(End of Addendum)