Addendum to The clause at FAR 52.212-2 basis for award.docx

Addendum to The clause at FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Items, applies to this acquisition and is amended as follows.

1. Basis for Contract Award: The basis of which this contract will be awarded will be price, technical capability, and Scheduling ability in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Parts 12, 13, 15 and FAR 1 procedure. By submission of this offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications.

a. 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.

b. The following factors will be used to evaluate offers. The factors are Price, technical capability, and scheduling ability.

i) The contract resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to that responsible offeror (in accordance with FAR 9.104) whose offer conforms to the RFQ and is determined to provide the best value to the Government.

ii) Technical capability will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis; only an offeror rated as “Acceptable” in all elements of their technical proposal as outline in FAR addendum 52.212-1 Instructions to offeror, section L, will be considered for award.

iii) Technical, Past Performance, and Scheduling when combined are as important as price as per FAR 15.304.

2. The government will evaluate based on these criteria:

a. Price Evaluation:

i) Price will not be scored.

ii) Evaluation of price will be performed using one or more of the proposal analysis techniques in FAR 15.404-1(b). Unbalanced pricing will be evaluated IAW FAR 15.404- 1(g), as applicable, to assess potential performance risk. Through these techniques, the Government will determine whether prices are reasonable, complete, and balanced. The price evaluation will document the fairness and reasonableness of each element outlined in the pricing matrix using the FAR Part 15 techniques above.

iii) The government reserves the right to perform price realism analysis.

c. Technical Capability. The Government will evaluate technical proposals on a Pass/fail basis and assign an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating as described in Table A1.

Table A-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

i) Technical Acceptability include subfactor 1) Management Approach, Staffing Approach, quality control and staffing. The Technical Acceptability Factor evaluation shall provide an assessment of the offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements.

ii) Scheduling: This sub-factor is met when the offeror demonstrates an effective method of scheduling work to be performed.

iii) Quality Control Plan (QCP). This sub-factor is met when the offeror provides a Quality Control Plan that demonstrates a sound quality control system, which includes identification of responsible personnel, inspection of services provided, deficiency prevention/ correction, and outlines an effective system for control and accountability of keys to prevent unauthorized use.

d. Past Performance Evaluation:

i) The past performance evaluation will consider past performance information from the principal offeror, as well as previous contract's key personnel and subcontractors that will perform major aspects of the requirement. The past performance of the predecessor’s company's key personnel and subcontractors that will perform major aspects of the requirement will be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. The Government will use the following procedures in evaluating past performance:

ii) The offeror's past performance efforts will be assessed for: Recency, Relevancy and Performance Quality. The Government will only evaluate performance quality on past efforts that are determined to be both recent and relevant.

(1) Recency: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. Recent past performance information includes contracts performed and/or being performed for any customer within the last three (3) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation, to include at least six (6) months of documented performance during the three (3) year period.

(2) Relevancy: Relevant contracts performance effort involved similar scope, magnitude of effort, and 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

Rating

Rating Definition

(3) Performance Quality: The quality assessment consists of an evaluation of recent and relevant past performance information available, regardless of its source. The quality assessment may reveal positive or adverse past performance information. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. Multiple ratings of less than "Satisfactory" in Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).

i) 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 assessment process will result in an offeror's overall performance confidence assessment rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Neutral Confidence.

ii) Offerors with no recent past or present performance history or the offeror's performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will receive the rating "Neutral Confidence," meaning the offeror is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably (neutral). As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments, offerors will receive an integrated past performance confidence assessment rating as described in Table 3 below:

Table 3. Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance 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 quality/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 quality/recent/relevant performance record, the government has no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.