Addendum to 52.212-2.pdf

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2

EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (Oct 2014)

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

a. Basis for Purchase Order Award. The Government intends to award a Purchase Order(s) resulting from this solicitation to responsible quoters whose quote conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered, conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS). Awards will be made to quoters deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whose quote conforms to the solicitation requirements, and whose quote, judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in this solicitation, representing trade-offs most advantageous to the Government.

b. The Government intends to award using a lowest price technically acceptable analysis as a result of this solicitation. The Government intends to evaluate quotes and award Purchase Order(s) without discussions with quoters. The Government may request additional oral or written information from one or more quoters, but not necessarily from all quoters. Therefore, the quoters initial quote should contain the quoters best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint.

c. Evaluation Criteria. This procurement is being conducted under FAR Part 13 Simplified Acquisition Procedures.

The Evaluation criteria consists of 3 factors (Technical, Past Performance, and Price). The quote submission will be evaluated under these three (3) evaluation factors. Technical Factors are higher in priority than Past Performance Factors. All Technical Subfactors are approximately of equal importance. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are more important than cost or price.

Factor 1: Technical: Relevance to the requirement IAW PWS

Subfactor 1: The hotel shall be located within the following radius: between Second and Eighth

Avenues East and West, and between 34th and 54th Streets, North and South, and shall be within a reasonable walking distance of a subway entrance, no more than 1 mile.

Subfactor 2: Hotel shall have a current 3-STAR or better designation according to the Mobil Travel Guide process of rating.

Subfactor 3: Rooms shall have central or individual climate control units for air conditioning/heating throughout (no window fans).

Subfactor 4: Each room shall have a private bath or shower.

Subfactor 5: Each room shall have a television.

Subfactor 6: Rooms shall be suitable for nationally distinguished civilian and military guests.

The hotel property and rooms shall meet or exceed industry standards for cleanliness and décor.

Furniture, fixtures, and linens shall not be at the end of its life cycle, showing worn or shabby appearance.

Subfactor 6: Note: Single room double occupancy is defined as a one room (Queen bed or larger size) for two people. No pull out couches, no cots.

Subfactor 7: The suite keys shall be available for the Commandant by 12:00 p.m., Day 1.

Subfactor 8: Ballroom: shall be used to provide an Academic Panel presentation to USAWC personnel coincident with travel to New York. Ballroom shall be able to accommodate an estimated number of 500-600 attendees. All Students and Faculty will be in attendance. The room setup is Theater style for audience (will need 3 microphones for audience questions) and panel seating up front facing audience at 1 table (will need 4 microphones on table) and 1 podium with 1 microphone. The Speakers will need access to a sound system during the Academic Panel. The event is planned for a two-hour event on Day 2 between hours of 1500- 1700.

Subfactor 9: Operations Center: The Operations Center facility (square footage shall beat a minimum between 2000 to 3250 square feet). A 3250 square foot area would allow luggage holding area to be co-located in operations center. The Operations Center shall be no more than 2 floors from the hotel lobby and easily accessible to USAWC trip personnel. Operations Center shall be set up and 3 available no later than noon on Day 1 and be utilized through 9:00 p.m. on Day 4. Doors shall have locking capability and five access keys shall be required for Operations Center personnel. It shall be sufficient to accommodate 20-25 persons and include 10 to 15 rectangular tables with table clothes for Operations Center Personnel, faculty, staff, students use.

20-25 stackable chairs, a water point to be refreshed regularly, high speed internet capability during Days 1-4 for exclusive use by USAWC Operations Center personnel (up to 5 laptops/devices connected at one time).

Subfactor 10: Baggage Area: The baggage area (square footage shall be a minimum of 1900 square feet) shall be one single location, capable of holding 1,000 pieces of luggage, organized by seminar number and able to be locked for security. Baggage area shall be in close proximity, no more than one (1) floor apart from the Operations Center or located in the Operations Center.

Subfactor 11: The hotel property and all rooms shall have operating security devices and/or locks. Hotel security procedures and methods shall be discussed with the government security representative.

Subfactor 12: Hotel shall have a bus unloading and loading capability for 12 buses arriving and departing in waves of 3 within a two-hour time frame.

Subfactor 13: Hotel shall have a dining facility capable of serving 100 to 150 people simultaneously. Capability to serve 100 to 150 people is not to be construed as a government commitment to utilize the dining facility.

Each Quote/Technical submission will receive a Combined Technical/Risk Rating below.

The Technical subfactor ratings will be used to determine an overall rating for the Technical factor.

Definitions:

Strength: An aspect of a quote that appreciably decreases the risk of unsuccessful award performance or that represents a significant benefit to the Government. Some examples of strengths include PhD, teaching citations, service awards and/or academic promotions. The included examples are not an exhaustive list and in no way limits the Governments rights to consider any and all Strengths it determines are of significant benefit or appreciably decrease risk.

Adjectival Rating

Description Outstanding Quote indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Quote indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Quote meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Quote has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Quote does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Quote is unawardable.

Weakness: A flaw in the quote that increases the risk of unsuccessful award performance. A “significant weakness” in the quote is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful award performance.

Deficiency: A material failure of a quote to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a quote that increases the risk of unsuccessful award performance to an unacceptable level. Examples of deficiencies include a statement by the quoter that “I cannot or will not” meet a requirement, an approach that clearly does not meet a requirement, or omission of data required to assess compliance with the requirement.

Uncertainty: Any aspect of the quote for which the intent of the quoter is unclear because there may be more than one way to interpret the quote or because inconsistencies in the quote indicate that there may be an error, omission or mistake. There is a direct correlation between risk and uncertainty. Examples include a mistake in calculation or measurement and contradictory statements.

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 quote submission is in compliance with the instructions in the solicitation.

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

The information listed here is that of the Quoter, not any candidate or subcontractor. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

Recency. The first is to evaluate the recency of the quoter’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. 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 three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

Relevancy. The second is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the quoter is to the effort to be acquired through this solicitation. Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel, and extent of subcontracting/teaming. A relevancy determination of the quoter’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made. In determining relevancy for individual awards, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being submitted by the quoter, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose award is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information provided in the quote submittal and information obtained from any other sources available to the Government (e.g. PPIRS, FAPIIS, eSRS, DCMA) may be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. Quoters without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral" rating for the Past Performance factor.

Quality of Products or Services. The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. The past performance evaluation conducted in support of the solicitation does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers to determine how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

The Past Performance evaluation will assess the quoter’s probability of meeting the solicitation’s requirements as indicated by that quoter’s record of past performance. Past Performance is assessed at the factor level after evaluating aspects of the quoter’s recent past performance and focusing on performance that is relevant to the item being procured under this solicitation.

Past contract performance should demonstrate the selected quoter’s ability to meet project goals as specified in the Performance Work Statement and the Instructions to Quoters. The quoter must demonstrate that he/she has performed work of a similar scope and magnitude of effort.

There are four levels of relevancy. The quoter will receive one of the four relevancy ratings identified below. With respect to relevancy, past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Past Performance Relevancy Rating:

Adjectival Rating Description Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

The Past Performance Factor will be assigned one of the Confidence Assessment ratings defined below. A quoter whose submittal demonstrates no past performance will be rated “Neutral.” An award will not be made to any quoter who receives a “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence” past performance rating. All past performance information collected will be reviewed to determine the quality of the quoter’s past performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information to establish the performance confidence assessment rating below:

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating:

Adjectival Rating Description 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 be reasonably 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 Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

FACTOR 3: PRICE

Price will not be scored or rated. Evaluation of price will be performed using one or more of the price analysis techniques in FAR 13.106-3. Through these techniques the Government will determine whether prices are reasonable, complete and balanced. In as much as the best value quote will be determined through tradeoff analysis, the Government is not bound to award to the lowest evaluated price. On the other hand, if the Government determines that a higher rated quote provides value-added features but at an unreasonable/unjustifiable amount, it is not bound to award to a higher technically rated quote.

The price must be appropriate for the benefit provided. The goal of this solicitation is to obtain a firm-fixed price award. Quoters will submit the total price for completing required work inclusive of all costs associated with this requirement.

Price will be evaluated on a total price basis and will include base year and all options.

(End of addendum)