ATT 5 Addendum to 52.212-2 Evaluation_11 AUG25_.docx

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

1. In accordance with FAR Parts 12 and 13, the award will be made based on price and other factors that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the RFQ’s stated evaluation factors.

2. Contract Award will be made utilizing the procedures in FAR Part 13.106, evaluating price and other factors as stated in this attachment.

3. The offeror must get an Acceptable rating in ALL Technical Phase I subfactors in order to be considered for evaluation during Technical Phase II. The acceptable offers will then be subjected to comparative evaluation of the technical approach (which will include the staffing/training plan), past performance and price.

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

6. Discussions: The Government intends to make award without conducting discussions; however, discussions may be held, if the Contracting Officer deems necessary.

FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each quote: Award will be made to the offeror whose quote is most advantageous to the Government based upon an assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: The Technical Phase I - Factor will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis and is further divided into the subfactors listed below. If any subfactor is found to be Unacceptable, the entirety of the quote’s Factor 1 submission will be deemed Unacceptable.

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 Comparative Evaluation IAW FAR 13.106. Technical and Management Approach is further divided into the following subfactors:

a. Subfactor 1 – Technical Approach

b. Subfactor 2 – Staffing Plan

c. Subfactor 3 – Training Plan

Factor 3: Past Performance: Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence based on the past performance quality rating.

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 13.106-3 techniques to evaluate price to be fair and reasonable.

EVALUATION APPROACH

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

The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous, the best value, to the Government in accordance with FAR Part 13. Comparative evaluation, as allowed by FAR Part 13.106-2 will be utilized.

VOLUME I:

FACTOR 1- Technical Phase I: Each subfactor listed below will be rated acceptable or unacceptable based on the table below. A rating of unacceptable in any subfactor will result in an overall unacceptable rating and will not be further considered for award.

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

Contractor shall provide a copy of:

One of the following from the business registration certificate issued by the Government of the Republic of Korea for the provision of MWRM service.

· Logistics Field(물류업)

· Warehouse Field(창고업)

· Facility Field(시설관리업)

· Business Support Quotes will not be considered technically acceptable if the quote attempts to meet this requirement through the licenses and experience of Subcontractors, Joint Ventures or other type of partnership.

Subfactor 2: Prime Contractor’s Prior Experience: (ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE) The offerors shall be evaluated on provided documentation demonstrating a minimum of one (1) year’ experience within the last seven (7) in providing logistics services, inventory management and maintenance of medical equipment and supplies. The experience of a subcontractor cannot be substituted for the prime Contractor’s experience. 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.)

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

Subfactor 3: Quality Control Plan (QCP): (ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE) 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 quote evaluation is a draft and its acceptance during quote evaluation does not constitute approval.

FACTOR 2 – Technical Phase II Technical and Management Approach: Each subfactor listed below will be evaluated utilizing Comparative Evaluation of the technical quotes of each offer who was found Acceptable during the Technical Phase I evaluation.

Subfactor 1: Technical Approach (Comparative Evaluation): The offeror shall provide a Technical Approach that demonstrates how the Contractor will complete all major tasks contained in the PWS as defined in Part 5. 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 (Comparative Evaluation): The offeror shall submit a staffing plan which clearly demonstrates how the offeror will perform the requirements for Maintenance of Medical War Reserve Material Supplies at Suwon, Daegu, Gwangju, Gimhae, Osan and Kunsan Air Bases. The offeror shall clearly identify all major tasks per 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 PWS APPENDIX 1. The staffing plan should include:

· The number of personnel with their duties for each location.

· All personnel qualifications prove documents as defined in PWS 1.6.11.1 to 1.6.11.1.5.

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

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.

Subfactor 3: Training Plan (Comparative Evaluation): The contractor shall submit documentation demonstrating of training plan for the Medical Logistics active-duty personnel and BMETs’ refresher or supplemental training per PWS as defined in APPENDIX 2. The offeror must show their understanding and capability in accomplishing all requirements. The Offerors are cautioned that “mirroring/copying” the technical requirements of the attachment 2 with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement of capability to perform.

VOLUME II:

FACTOR 3 – Past Performance (Comparative Evaluation)

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 record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. In evaluating past performance, the Government will consider the offeror’s recency, relevancy and quality of work performed. Work performed within 5 years of the solicitation issue date will be considered “recent.” Past Performance will be evaluated utilizing Comparative Evaluation of the past performance records of each offer who was found Acceptable during the Technical Phase I evaluation.

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. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have NEUTRAL past performance.

VOLUME III:

FACTOR 4 - PRICE

Price analysis will be conducted for each quote is complete and to ensure price is fair and reasonable.

(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 quote to determine the extent to which it is reasonable, and consistent with the technical quote. Price shall include all CLINs, Sub-CLINs as listed on the Price Schedule including option periods. The Government intends to evaluate quotes and award a contract without discussion. Therefore, Offerors are instructed that submitted quotes 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 quote in Korean Won (KW) only. A quote 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