Atch 5 - 52.212-2 Evaluation.pdf

FA9401-20-R-0014

Attachment 5

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Items

1.0 INTRODUCTION.

This section defines the criteria the Government will consider in its evaluation of an offeror’s proposal submitted for this acquisition. This is a 100% small business set-aside competitive acquisition. This is subjective tradeoff best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at www.acquisition.gov.

Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is deemed the best value to the Government, based upon an integrated assessment using the evaluation criteria, and who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.5 and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Past Performance and Price. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements.

This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and it is reasonably determined that the past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference. Award may be made without discussions with the offeror(s). The Government intends to award one contract, or to not award any contracts, depending on the quality of proposals submitted and availability of funds. No partial awards will be made.

The offeror’s proposal shall be composed of the completed Past Performance and Contract Documentation volumes. Responses to any additional information requests from the Government will also be evaluated.

1.1 Compliance with Terms and Conditions. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information in the format specified in the proposal preparation instructions located in FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors -- Commercial Items and addendum. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being removed from consideration for award.

1.1.1 Mission Essential Plan. In accordance with DFARS 237.7600, contractors who provide Government-determined essential contractor services shall provide a written plan to be incorporated in the contract to ensure the continuation of these services in crisis situations.

The mission essential plan will be reviewed to ensure it meets the minimum requirements as identified in DFARS clause 252.237-7024. Failure to submit the plan or failure to meet the minimum requirements may cause the proposal to be not eligible for award.

1.2 Exchanges and Proposal Revisions. At any stage of the evaluation, the Government may, in its discretion, engage in exchanges with an offeror about their proposal and may allow the offeror to revise their proposal. Entering into exchanges does not obligate the Government to allow proposal revisions. Offerors are reminded that the Government reserves the right to award based upon the offeror’s initial proposal, as received by the Government, without engaging in exchanges.

1.2.1 Correction Potential of Proposals. The Government will consider the “correction potential” of any deficiency or weakness. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable without a major revision, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1.2.2 Discussions. It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to engage in discussions if during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal will be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is evaluated as the most advantageous to the Government. The Government will evaluate proposals based upon the following factors in descending order of importance:

Factor 1: Past Performance Factor 2: Price

Past Performance significantly more important than Price. (Reference FAR 52.212.-2, Evaluation-Commercial Items). Please note that Price will still contribute substantially to the selection decision.

2.1 Evaluation of Factors.

2.1.1 In arriving at the best value decision, the Government will do the following:

(a) The Government will conduct a past performance evaluation that evaluates past performance information for recency, relevancy, quality, which results in an overall confidence assessment rating.

(b) The Government will conduct a price evaluation. The price evaluation will document the reasonableness of the proposed total evaluated price including option prices and the six-month extension. The evaluation will also ensure there is no unbalanced pricing.

(c) Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is evaluated as most advantageous to the Government based on the stated evaluation factors. The Government will not make an award at a price premium it considers disproportionate to the benefits associated with the evaluated superiority of one proposal over another.

2.2 Factor 1 – Past Performance

The Government will conduct a past performance evaluation that examines an offeror’s recent and relevant past performance record to assess the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to perform as proposed. The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy and quality.

2.2.1 Past Performance Rating. For the Past Performance factor, each proposal will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in the table below.

Table 2.21 – Performance Confidence Assessments Adjectival 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.

2.2.1.1 Neutral Confidence Rating. In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral”. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

2.2.1.2 Limited Confidence Rating. The Government may have a low expectation that an offeror will successfully perform the required effort EITHER because of concerns with the scope, magnitude, and/or complexities of recent, relevant present/past-performance AND/OR concerns with the quality of this performance.

2.2.2 Past Performance Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent, relevant, and quality record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the food services requirements. 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, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

2.2.2.1 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 five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. The Government will only consider performance on efforts that have been in performance for at least 6 months prior to the issuance of the solicitation. Past performance information that fails to meet these conditions will not be evaluated.

2.2.2.2 Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the food services requirements. Relevant contracts are defined as contracts which are similar or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation. The basis for the relevancy assessment is the average number of meals served per month as stated in the Performance Work Statement for each of the contracts submitted on the Past Performance Information form. The Government will also consider contract type, contract value, contract term, etc.

In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, only being proposed to be performed by the offeror. Joint venture partners’ past performance shall be part of the aggregate performance evaluation. Past performance of other teaming partners or subcontractors shall not be considered. The past performance information forms and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance.

The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

Table 2.2.2.2 – Performance Relevancy Assessments

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

More than 17,000 meals

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

8,000 to 17,000 meals

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

4,000 – 7,999 meals

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

Less than 4,000 meals

* Note: If the PWS does not provide the average number of meals required per month, the actual number of meals served may be used instead.

2.2.2.3 Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant references (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). The quality assessment will consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS), interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials and, if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government.

The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse 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. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements, and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

2.2.3 Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating in accordance with the ratings in Table 2.2.1. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the food services requirements, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "neutral" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance. The SSA may determine that a Substantial Confidence or a Satisfactory Confidence performance rating is worth more than a Neutral Confidence past performance rating when making the best value trade-off decision.

2.2.4. Confidentiality of Performance Information. Past performance information, including CPARS, questionnaires, etc., is confidential and is not to be released to anyone outside the Government source selection process. Offerors are cautioned that contacting or seeking out source(s) of past performance information is strictly prohibited. Any attempts to influence past performance ratings will be perceived negatively and could impact the overall performance rating. Any questions should be addressed directly to the CO only and not to any other individual(s). Offerors are responsible for ensuring that all their subcontractors and teaming partners are aware of this information and are in compliance.

2.3 Factor 2: Price. The offeror’s proposed price will be evaluated for reasonableness, unbalanced pricing, and Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

a. Reasonableness: Proposed prices for all contract periods will be evaluated for reasonableness. Adequate price competition is expected to support the determination of reasonableness. The price analysis techniques listed at FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) may be utilized to further validate price reasonableness. If the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition does not exists, the Contracting Officer may request submission of other than certified cost or pricing data and may use other proposal analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) to the extent necessary, in order to make a determination of price reasonableness.

b. Unbalanced Pricing: In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or underestimated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques.

The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether unbalanced separately priced line items exist. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

c. Total Evaluated Price: A TEP will be calculated for evaluation purposes only and used to assist in determining the best value to the Government. Proposals shall be evaluated, for award purposes, based upon the TEP, which consists of the pricing for the base year and the four option years. Additionally, the 6-month extension in accordance with FAR clause 52.217-8, Option to

Extend Services, is also considered part of this overall evaluation.