Atch 11 - Evaluation Commercial.pdf

Atch 11 *****ADDENDUM TO FAR PART 52.212-2*****

Basis for Contract Award: The basis of which this contract will be awarded will be price and past performance in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Parts 12 and 15.101-1 in which competing offerors' past performance information will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications. The government reserves the right to make an award based on whether the lowest priced of the offerors having the highest past performance rating possible represents the best value when compared to any lower priced offerors. The evaluation process will include the following:

A. Price Evaluation: An offeror's proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the offeror's unit price by the annual quantity identified in the Price Exhibit (Attachment 1), limited to two decimal places for each Ordering Period. The sum total of all Firm-Fixed-Price Ordering Periods will form the offeror's Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Initially, government will rank all offers by the TEP lowest to highest according to price. The price evaluation will document the fairness and reasonableness of the TEP. The government reserves the right to perform price realism analysis.

NOTE: The contract will include FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, with the potential to extend the contract an additional six (6) months beyond the awarded contract performance period. In the event the Government requires continued performance, the Government's evaluation of prices proposed for the base and all ordering periods will suffice to be the Government's evaluation of prices under the extension of services (ref. 52.217-8). Should an extension of services be required, rates will from 4th option period will be adjusted only as a result of revisions to applicable prevailing Department of Labor wage rates. Evaluating the Ordering Period CLINs or the six month Extension of Services Option does not obligate the government to exercise the options.

B. Past Performance Evaluation. The government will evaluate recent and relevant performance information on the lowest priced evaluated offeror based on:

(1) Any past performance information obtained from the Performance Questionnaires (Attachment 9); and

(2) Any data independently obtained by the government and/or commercial sources.

(1) Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance. 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, PPQs, and information obtained from other sources available to the Government.

(2) The past performance evaluation will take into account past performance information from the principle offeror, as well as the predecessor company's key personnel and subcontractors that will perform major aspects of the requirement. The past performance on the predecessor 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:

a) 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, which are defined as follows:

(i) 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.

(ii) 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 1 below.

TABLE 1 – RELEVANCY ASSESMENT

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Performance of effort shall include the following: federal and/or commercial contracts for occupied and unoccupied facility living spaces cleaning (dorm rooms, hotel rooms, or hospital rooms with associated bathrooms and common living areas) of 85,000 square feet of space or greater.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Performance of effort shall include the following: federal and/or commercial contracts for occupied and unoccupied facility living spaces cleaning (dorm rooms, hotel rooms, and hospital rooms with associated bathrooms and common living areas) of greater than 60,000 square feet but less than 85,000 square feet of space.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Performance of effort shall include the following: federal and/or commercial contracts for facility cleaning of greater than 30,000 square feet but less than 60,000 square feet of space.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Performance of effort shall include the following: federal and/or commercial contracts for facility cleaning of less than 30,000 square feet of space.

(6) 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) and/or Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) may result in a performance quality assessment rating of "No Confidence." Offerors may be given an opportunity to respond to adverse past performance information for which they have not previously had an opportunity to address in accordance with FAR

15.306. For each of the recent and relevant past performance information reviewed, the performance quality of work will be assessed based on the one (1) Quality Assessment Criteria evaluated under Section D of the PPQ (Attachment 9) and two (2) the evaluation ratings in the Federal Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), if available and (3) Past Performance information obtained from other sources available to the Government.

(7) 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. 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 2 below:

TABLE 2 – Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

Rating Definition

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.

****Note: In evaluating past performance, the government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation.****

C. If the lowest priced evaluated offer is judged to have a "Substantial Confidence" performance rating that offer represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops at this point.

Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

D. If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have a "Substantial Confidence" performance rating, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror is judged to have a "Substantial Confidence" performance rating or until all offerors are evaluated.

The government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest price offer if the difference in the Past Performance Confidence Rating of another offeror justifies the higher price premium. In that event, the Source Selection Authority will make an integrated assessment best value award decision using the TEP and the Past Performance Confidence Rating.

E. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in the proposal preparation instructions (as referenced in attachment 10 Addendum to 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors) to permit a meaningful assessment of past performance. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Exchanges conducted with regard to adverse past performance or to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions, and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

F. 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 to FAR PART 52.212-2) *****