Att7_52.212-2 Adn .pdf

52.212-2 ADDENDUM - EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES (NOV

2021)

Addendum to 52.212-2 Paragraph (a)

Basis of Award

(a) To be eligible for award, offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, and technical and price instructions. Failure to comply with all solicitation requirements and instructions may result in the offeror being removed from further award consideration.

(b) The government anticipates awarding a single Firm-Fixed-Price contract resulting from this solicitation under the Best Value-Trade-Off approach, to the responsible offeror whose quote is deemed most advantageous to the Government in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Parts 12 and 13.5, when price and other factors are considered; as well as the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures.

(c) Relative Order of Importance: Factor 1- Technical Capability, is significantly more important than Factor 2 - Past Performance. Subfactors 1, and 2, are of equal importance. Factors 1 and 2 combined, are significantly more important than Factor 3 - Price. A contract will not be awarded to an offeror with significant weaknesses and/or deficiencies as defined in FAR 15.001. To make the award decision, the following factors and subfactors shall be used to evaluate offers:

Factor 1: Technical Capability

• Subfactor 1: PWS, subsection 2.1 Task 1, Annual Licenses

• Subfactor 2: PWS, subsection 2.2 Task 2, User Access

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

(d) The Government intends to make an award without negotiations based on initial quote submission but reserves the right to conduct negotiations if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines it to be in the Government's best interest. Therefore, the offeror's initial quote should contain the offeror's best approach/terms for all the evaluation factors (technical capability, past performance, and price).

(e) Section 508 Acceptance: Prior to acceptance, the government reserves the right to perform testing on required Information and Communications Technology (ICT) items to validate the Offeror's Section 508 conformance claims. If the government determines that Section 508 conformance claims provided by the Offeror represent a higher level of conformance than what is actually provided to the agency, the government shall, at its option, require the offeror to remediate the item to align with the Offeror's original Section 508 conformance claims prior to acceptance. Offerors may be ineligible for contract award if proposed ICT products or services are not compliance with Section 508 standards.

(f) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, emailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless written notice of withdrawal s received before award.

EVALUATION FACTORS

Any factor or subfactor rated as unacceptable will not be considered eligible for contract award.

To be eligible for award, a proposal must comply in all material aspects to the requirements of law, regulation, and the terms and conditions set forth in this solicitation, and the Offeror must be determined responsible according to the standards set forth in FAR Subpart 9.1

Factor 1 - Technical Capability

This is a competitive best value trade-off source selection conducted in accordance with FAR Parts 12 and 13.5. The Government will evaluate the offeror's technical quote to determine the offeror's technical capability and understanding in meeting or exceeding the requirements within the Performance Work Statement (PWS), Technical Requirements, and the overall scope of work required. The Government will select the best overall offer based upon an integrated assessment of Technical, Past Performance, and Price. A contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose quote conforms to the solicitation's requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certification, and all other information required by Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) 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 the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical approach and/or past performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference.

Any unacceptable rating makes the overall quote rating unacceptable, and the offeror may not be evaluated further nor be considered for award.

The Government will evaluate the offeror's responses of the following:

Factor 1: Technical Capability. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's technical quote to determine the extent to which the quote meets or exceeds the requirements in accordance with the PWS. The Government's evaluation will emphasize the following:

Subfactor 1: Task 1, paragraph 2.1 of the PWS. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror's proposed solution provides the required database with all features as stated in paragraph 2.1 of the PWS.

Subfactor 2: Task 2, paragraph 2.2 of the PWS. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror's proposed solution provides the user access requirements in accordance with paragraph 2.2 of the PWS.

NOTE: Subfactor 2 will be evaluated as "Meets" or "Not Meet".

The ratings used for Factor 1, and subfactor 1 are defined as follows:

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Quote indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Quote indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Quote indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Quote meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Quote does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Quote is unawardable.

Factor 2: Past Performance

Past performance shall be evaluated as a measure of the government's confidence in the Offeror's ability to successfully perform based on previous and current contracts. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in providing services that meet the contract's requirements. The Government will evaluate the information collected to include, but is not limited to the Past Performance Questionnaire, Attachment 2, to determine the quality of the offeror's overall record of recent and relevant past performance.

A confidence assessment rating will be assigned to each Contractor:

Performance Confidence ratings

Rating Definition Substantial Confidence Based on offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the government has a high expectation 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 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 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.

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 on-going or must have been completed within the last three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that does not satisfy this condition will not be evaluated.

Relevancy Assessment. The Government will determine how relevant the effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the solicitation. The Government is not bound by the Offeror's assessment of relevancy. To be relevant, the Offeror must demonstrate that performance involved similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities this solicitation requires. The following ratings will be used in evaluating relevancy of individual contracts, task/delivery orders, and/or BPA calls submitted for evaluation:

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

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

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

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

(1) The government will consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to an individual contract basis when assigning a confidence rating. In addition to past performance information submitted by the contractor, past performance information may be obtained from Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Award Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS).

(2) In evaluating past performance, the government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on individual contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that a confidence assessment cannot be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

(3) Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information which supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation aspect or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

Factor 3: Price

(1) The offeror shall complete and submit an excel spreadsheet with the Line Items in the format at attachment 3.

Offeror’s total quoted price will be evaluated for fair and reasonable pricing in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. The Government will establish a total evaluated price based on the sum of all prices quoted.

(2) In accordance with FAR 52.217-8, the option to extend services for an additional six months will be included within this solicitation. A six-month extension is within the total project scope of the solicitation. For purposes of evaluation of this extension, the Government shall use the Vendor’s pricing response for the last option period.

Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(3) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The offeror shall submit pricing for the base period and all options periods.

The Government also intend to evaluate FAR 52.217-7, "Option for Increased Quantity-Separately Priced Line Item, FAR 52.217-8, “Option to Extend Services”, and FAR 52.217-9, “Option to Extend the Terms of the Contract”. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s)

(4) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party.

(End of provision)