Attach 8_ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2.docx

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

1. Basis for Contract Award.

1. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one grounds maintenance service contract as a result of this solicitation. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. For those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs may be made between past performance and price, with past performance considered significantly more important than price.

While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph 2 below. Contract terms and conditions consistent with customary commercial practices are specified in the solicitation/contract, with otherwise tailored terms and conditions specified in the Addendum to the solicitation/contract.

1. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows:

a. General

1. Proposals will be evaluated through the following steps:

Step 1 - A compliance review of all submitted proposals will be conducted to ensure compliance with the solicitation, to include all appropriate representations and certifications and submission requirements.

Step 2 - Evaluate technical proposals for technical acceptability.

Step 3 - Evaluate total evaluated price for reasonableness and unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1. Proposals considered reasonable and balanced will ranked by price from lowest to highest.

Step 4 - Evaluate past performance confidence beginning with the lowest priced, reasonable, balanced, and technically acceptable offeror. Evaluations will continue until the Government identifies an offeror with Substantial Confidence or until the Government has evaluated all reasonable, balanced, and technically acceptable offers.

Step 5 - Make a best value determination in which, when combined, technical and past performance are significantly more important than price.

1. The Government reserves the right to make a tradeoff between price and past performance, but is not obligated to make such a tradeoff. The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary.

1. Volume I

(1) Completed RFP Completed RFP shall consist of the completed Bid Schedule (Attachment 4) and signed RFP, to include any amendments issued, with a cover letter delineating any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions with accompanying rationale. However, offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP may cause their proposal to be determined unacceptable and therefore not considered eligible for award. Offerors shall ensure that all clauses and provisions that require “fill in” information are appropriately completed, including the proposed prices associated with the contract line items in the Schedule of the RFP.

(2) Price The Government will evaluate prices using the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) method. The TEP will include the base period, all option periods, and an option 6-month extension period per FAR 52.217-8, which combined will equal the TEP. Offerors shall fill out the Pricing Worksheet (Attachment 4) and transfer unit and yearly pricing to associated contract line items in the Schedule of the RFP. Offerors shall validate pricing on the Bid Schedule and RFP.

Reasonableness. Price analysis will be used to determine if prices are too high.

The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the CLIN prices are significantly unbalanced and the offer may be excluded. An offer is mathematically unbalanced if prices in the offer are significantly less than prices for some contract line items and significantly overstated in relationship to price for others.

1. Volume II, Past Performance Factor

(1) General: The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s/joint venture/teaming agreements members’ ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture members’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

(2) Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

A) Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume and Past Performance Questionnaires. Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other Federal sources or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant. The Government will review the five most recent CPARS only for relevancy and quality

B) Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

C) Key Personnel: The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture members’ present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any key personnel even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

(3) Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent five (5) submitted contracts. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s Volume II of its proposal:

· 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.

Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the above definitions not only includes the technical complexities identified for each effort, but also considerations including but not limited to dollar values, type, and complexity for each effort. When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical complexities, and the scope and magnitude of effort as separate aspects. If both of these aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract effort, the overall relevancy rating assigned to that contract will be affected. For example, if the submitted contract meets essentially the same technical complexities, but involves only some of the scope and magnitude of effort, a lesser relevancy rating will be assigned.

The Contract Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities to be used in the relevancy evaluation are based on expected magnitude of work and complexities for the instant acquisition, Grounds Maintenance Services. They are as follows:

(3.1) Expected Magnitude of Work and Complexities:

· Estimated Total Dollar Value: The Government’s estimated acquisition value is not releasable; however, the offeror’s efforts will be evaluated against the Government’s estimate.

· Scope and Complexities: Grounds maintenance services that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude and complexity than the effort described in the Performance Work Statement.

(4) Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor.

Past Performance Evaluation Ratings:

PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offerorwill 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.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not readily available or 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 (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

1. Volume III, Technical Factor

(1) General: Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the sub-factors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the Performance Work Statement, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements. The technical proposal addresses each of the following sub-factors in sufficient detail.

Sub-factor One: Equipment Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable. This sub-factor evaluates how the contractor will obtain and maintain all necessary equipment to fulfill PWS requirements (quantity/type of equipment). Indicate the number and size/capacity of equipment employed in each of the service areas outlined in key parts of section 1 of the PWS.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal clearly identifies all necessary equipment and identifies the size and/or capacity of said equipment to fulfill key areas of PWS section 1.

Sub-factor Two: Staffing Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable). This sub-factor evaluates how the contractor identifies the skilled manpower needed for this requirement, and their methodology to staff the proposed number of personnel.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal clearly indicates the number of skilled personnel projected to meet the requirements as outlined in the PWS, and their proposed hiring methodology.

Sub-factor Three: Mobilization Plan Description (Acceptable/Unacceptable). This sub-factor evaluates how the contractor will mobilize necessary equipment in order to start contract performance on time.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal includes a chronological outline from time of award until the contract start date. The length of time the contractor will need to assemble and coordinate all personnel and equipment to perform and meet the requirements as outlined in the PWS.

1. Technical Rating: The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One technical rating will be assigned to each technical sub-factor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every sub-factor.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

TECHNICAL RATINGS

(End of Provision Addendum)