ATT 3 Addendum to 52.212-2 Evaluation_12 JUNE 2025.docx

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Products and Services

1. In accordance with FAR Parts 12 and 15, the award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the RFP’s stated evaluation factors.

2. In accordance with FAR 15.101-1, Trade-Off process, an award may be made to other than the lowest priced offeror. However, the Government will not pay a substantially higher amount for a minimal increase in capability.

3. The offeror must get an Acceptable rating for the Factor/Subfactors under Technical Phase I to be considered for subjective trade off under the Technical Phase II Factor/Subfactors or to be considered for inclusion in the competitive range, if applicable. Technical Phase 1 factors and subfactors will be rated as Acceptable/Unacceptable only.

4. Factor 2 (Technical and Management Approach) is significantly more important than Factor 3 (Past Performance) where Factor 3 (Past Performance) is significantly more important than Factor 4 (Price). All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined are significantly more important than cost or price. The relative importance of each evaluation factor is listed in the table below:

more important than Factor 4.

5. Volume IV – Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations will only be evaluated as responsive/non-responsive. Any required documentation that is missing, incomplete or incorrectly completed may be deemed non-responsive and will not be further considered for award.

6. Discussions: In accordance with FAR 15.306(d), discussion sessions with each Offeror may be held. Should discussions take place, all Offerors in the competitive range may be allowed to submit Final Proposal Revisions. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions.

FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. The Government reserves the right to make award based upon the Cost/Price factor in the event that the Technical, and Past Performance evaluation results of all the offerors’ proposals are substantially the same.

Factor 1: The Technical Phase I Factor will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis and is further divided into the following subfactors:

a. Subfactor 1 – Prime Contractor’s Business Licenses.

b. Subfactor 2 – Prime Contractor’s Prior Experience

c. Subfactor 3 – Quality Control Plan

Factor 2: The Technical Phase II – Technical and Management Approach Factor will be evaluated using FAR 15 Subjective Trade-off method using the Adjectival Ratings depicted in Table 1 – Combined Technical/Risk Ratings. Technical and Management Approach is further divided into the following subfactors:

a. Subfactor 1 – Technical Approach

b. Subfactor 2 – Staffing Plan

c. Subfactor 3 – Equipment Plan

Factor 3: Past Performance: Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy (see Table 2 – Past Performance Relevancy Ratings) and confidence assessment (see Table 3 – Performance Confidence Assessments.

Factor 4: Cost/Price: The resulting award will be a Requirements Contract with Firm-Fixed Price CLINs. Prices will be analyzed and evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price.

EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be evaluated by the Source Selection Team (SST).

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and subfactors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

VOLUME I:

FACTOR 1- Technical Phase 1 (Acceptable/Unacceptable): Each factor will be rated either acceptable or unacceptable. A rating of unacceptable for any factor or sub factor will result in an overall unacceptable rating. If an offeror fails to meet the minimum requirements outlined in any of the sub-factors, the overall proposal will be rated “unacceptable” and will not be eligible for award.

(1) Subfactor 1: Prime Contractor’s Business Registration: The offeror shall be evaluated on submitted copies of current and valid registration issued by the ROK Government as listed below.

Copy of Special Construction Registration (Business Type: Landscaping and Planting) Construction Business Registration in accordance with the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (건설산업기본법에 따른 건설업등록증) issued by the Republic of Korea (ROK) Government authority for one of the following line of business to provide grounds maintenance services.

· Landscaping Construction Field(조경공사업)

· Landscape Planting/ Landscape Facility Installation Field with Landscape Planting as a Main Business(조경식재 업무분야를 포함한 조경식재/시설물공사업)

Proposals will not be considered technically acceptable if the proposal attempts to meet this requirement through the licenses and experience of Subcontractors, Joint Ventures or other type of partnerships.

(2) Subfactor 2: Prime Contractor’s Prior Experience: The offerors shall be evaluated on provided documentation demonstrating a minimum of three (3) years’ experience within the last seven (7) years in the same type of services (maintaining grass and landscaping trees/hedges/bushes) for equivalent area of servicing in Osan AB(at least 700 acres per contract) from the issuance date of this solicitation. The offeror shall provide evidence of prior experience in the following format:

i. The title of the Project or Contract No. for the Commercial or Government requirement

ii. A clear description of qualifying work experience (type of service and quantity of work)

iii. Length of contract/project (From year/month/date-To: year/month/date)

iv. Value of contract/ project in KRW per year

v. Complete Point of Contact information of Client Organization (including, name, phone no.

and e-mail.)

Proposals will not be considered technically acceptable if the proposal attempts to meet this requirement through the licenses and experience of Subfactors, Joint Ventures or other type of partnerships.

Subfactor 3: Quality Control Plan (QCP): The Offeror shall provide a draft QCP that demonstrates the Offeror’s approach to conducting comprehensive quality control IAW PWS para.1.5. The plan shall clearly describe the Offeror’s quality control methods and practices such as standardized procedures to monitor performance, identify discrepancies, service call responses, and take corrective action to prevent re-occurrences. The QCP shall be used throughout the life of this contract and shall be updated by the Contractor when the changes affect the QCP and Safety Plan. The plan submitted for proposal evaluation is a draft and its acceptance during proposal evaluation does not constitute approval.

FACTOR 2 - Technical Phase 2 - Technical and Management Approach (Subjective Trade-off)

The Technical Phase 2Factor and Subfactors will be evaluated and given Adjectival ratings as shown in Table 1 below. This methodology considers risk, in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, certainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Strength. An aspect of an Offerors’ proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Deficiency. A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the Offeror is indicating that there may have been an error, omission or mistake).

Subfactor 1: Technical Approach: The offeror shall be evaluated on the submitted Technical Approach that demonstrates how the Contractor will complete all tasks contained in the PWS. The offeror must show their understanding and capability in accomplishing all requirements. The Offerors are cautioned that “mirroring/copying” the technical requirements of the PWS with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement of capability to perform.

Subfactor 2: Staffing Plan: The offeror shall submit a staffing plan which clearly demonstrates how the offeror will perform the requirements for ground maintenance services for Osan AB. The offeror shall clearly identify the labor mix and labor quantities to be used in the performance of all major tasks per the PWS as defined in Part 5.

The offeror shall provide a written staffing plan and provide manning charts showing a proposed organizational structure to meet the requirements in the PWS (see Para. 5.16 of the PWS for details). The staffing plan should include:

· All key personnel and their qualifications. - laborers’ qualification to be used in each major tasking area

· The exact number of laborers to be used in each major tasking area and their qualifications.

· Replacement plan to account for workers which may separate from the company, and the backup plan to account for lost workers, retention plan.

· Manning charts showing a proposed organizational structure to meet the requirements in the PWS.

· Grounds Maintenance Supervisor information

· Grounds Maintenance Technician information

· Landscaping laborers information

· The number of personnel with their duties for each and every necessary job field

· Management plan of the personnel (e.g., number of smaller teams working in groups in different areas)

Note: The feasibility of the proposed Staffing Plan will be assessed against the offeror’s overall technical and management approach to ensure the offeror has proposed adequate qualified personnel in appropriate labor categories to satisfy all PWS requirements.

Sub-factor 3: Equipment Plan: The offeror shall be evaluated on the submitted Equipment Plan which clearly demonstrates how the offeror shall provide necessary equipment to perform ground maintenance and clearly identifies equipment type, description, quantities, ability to secure (rent, purchased or pre-owned) required equipment and any other information to perform in accordance with the PWS.

· Heavy-duty commercial mowers/tractors, mid-sized riding mowers, zero-turn mowers

· Commercial walk-behind mowers, string trimmers (weed eaters), edgers

· Broadcast spreaders, drop spreaders

· Dethatchers/power rakes

· Utility Vehicles (UTVs/gators), trucks (pickup trucks/stake beds/dump trucks)

· Bucket Truck: For tree trimming and reaching very high areas.

· Shovels, rakes, and hand tools

· Wheelbarrows

· Hedge trimmers, pruning shears/loppers, chain saws, pole saws

· Leaf blowers

· Personal protective equipment (PPE), screen protectors, first aid kits, fire extinguishers, traffic cones and warning signs, tool kits

· Equipment storage shed or building, maintenance shop, substitution plan, fuel storage

VOLUME II:

FACTOR 3 – Past Performance

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. Relevant contracts are defined as contracts that demonstrate the Offeror has provided evidence of experience in grounds maintenance, landscaping or similar services. 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). All three aspects must be considered for each of the contracts or requirements evaluated.

Recency: The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a period of no less than seven (7) years are considered recent and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information.

Relevance: The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria (see below table) will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming. Relevant service is same or similar to the tasks in this Performance Work Statement.

Quality Performance Confidence Assessment: Utilize the Performance Confidence Assessment (see Table 3 below) to select the most appropriate confidence level for each Offeror. The USG will utilize Table 3 below to select the most appropriate confidence level for each Offeror.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so spare that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorable or unfavorable on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

VOLUME III:

FACTOR 4- PRICE

Price analysis will be conducted for each proposal to ensure completeness, reasonableness, and IAW FAR 15. 404-1(b). The following applies to that evaluation.

(1) Completeness. The offeror shall complete the pricing information for all CLINs/Sub-CLINs identified for the base period plus four (4) option years. Any underlying assumptions, including proposed escalation rates between the 1st and subsequent periods shall be clearly explained.

(2) Price Reasonableness. Price should also reflect fair market value and be reasonable when compared to the independent Government estimate, current market prices for same or similar services and/or when compared among other technically acceptable offerors.

(3) Price is not scored. The Government will review the price proposal to determine the extent to which it is reasonable, and consistent with the technical proposal. Price shall include all CLINs, Sub-CLINs as listed on the Price Schedule including option periods. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussion. Therefore, Offerors are instructed that submitted proposals should contain their best pricing.

(4) FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services: As part of price evaluation, the Government will evaluate its option to extend services (FAR Clause 52.217-8 - Option to Extend Services) by adding a six-month equivalent of the Offeror’s final option period prices to the Offeror’s total price. Offerors are required only to price the base and four (4) options. Offerors shall not submit a price for the potential one-half year extension of services period.

*** All offerors interested in competing for this requirement are required to submit their price proposal in Korean Won (KW) only. A proposal submitted in currency other than Korean Won will not be considered for award.”

End of ADDENDUM to FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Products and Services image2.emf image3.emf image1.emf