Attachment 12-Evaluation.docx

*ADDENDA TO 52.212-2 EVALUATION

EVALUATION FACTORS

Source Selection Method -- Best Value

(a) Trade-off Process:

Award will be made to the firm with an acceptable Technical - Disposal and Transportation Plan that is determined to be the best value based on the evaluation factors of, Past Performance, and Price. Only offerors with an acceptable Technical – Disposal and Transportation plan will be considered for the best value trade-off. Past Performance will be significantly more important than price. The Government will determine best value on the basis of an assessment of the following factors:

(1) Technical Factor – The Government will evaluate the technical proposal in accordance with FAR Part 15.101-1, FAR Part 15.305, and FAR Part 52.212-2

(2) Past Performance Factor – The Government will evaluate past performance in accordance with Attachment 12 Addenda to the Evaluation provision in this solicitation.

(3) Price Factor – The Government will evaluate the offered prices for price reasonableness in accordance with the requirements of FAR Part 15.305 and FAR Part 15.404-1.

(b) Options.

(1) 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 total evaluated price will be for the base period and any option periods, plus an additional 20% of the value of the last priced performance period in the bid schedule. This additional sum is for evaluation purposes only to address the possible use of FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, for a period not to exceed 6 months.

(2) Please note that if the 52.217-8 option is exercised, the applicable unit prices for the option will be the same as the immediately preceding period of performance. Therefore, if the option under FAR 52.217-8 is exercised prior to the end of the base period, the unit prices from the base period will be used during the extension period. If the option under FAR 52.217-8 is exercised prior to the end of any option period, the unit prices from the applicable option period will be used during the extension period.

(3) 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).

EFFICIENCY IN COMPETITION

The Government will first evaluate the technical plans of each offeror to determine if they are acceptable. However, offerors are advised that the US Government may not evaluate the past performance proposals of all offerors under this RFP. The US Government will first review the total evaluated price of all proposals received. The past performance proposals of those offerors whose pricing is determined by the Contracting Officer to be most competitive may be review prior to, or instead of, other past performance proposals received. Based on the initial review of these past performance proposals, the US Government may not evaluate the past performance proposals of other offerors, whose total evaluated pricing was higher than that of one already evaluated and already assigned the highest possible past performance rating. This would occur when the Contracting Officer determines that any possible past performance superiority of an unevaluated (and higher priced) past performance proposal, over (a lower priced) one that was already evaluated and assigned the highest past performance rating, would not warrant any additional price premium.

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION

I. Evaluation of Technical Proposal- Disposal and Transportation Plan

(1) To be rated as “acceptable,” all CLINs must include:

A. A completed Facility Profile Sheet for each firm that will be performing disposal and/or recycling support, and evidence of valid facility permits and/or licenses or confirmation of permit and/or license applications submitted with expected approval date, for ALL the permit/license-required contract line items in the price schedule.

B. A completed Transportation Profile Sheet for each firm that will be performing transportation support, and evidence of valid transportation permits and/or licenses or confirmation of permit and/or license applications submitted with expected approval date, for ALL the permit/license-required contract line items in the price schedule.

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

(1) The Government will conduct a Performance Confidence Assessment for each offeror based upon submitted current, relevant PPI as it relates to the expectation of the offeror being able to successfully perform the requirement. There are two aspects to this evaluation: (1) The determination of relevance to this solicitation in scope, magnitude and complexity and (2) How well the offeror performed on its contracts. Past performance will be rated on an adjectival scale (Attachment 12). Thus, an offeror with a higher confidence assessment rating for past performance will have a higher expectation of meeting the solicitation requirements than a firm with a lower confidence assessment rating. The Government’s subjective evaluation of the overall quality of an offeror’s submitted PPI will be a factor in determining the relative merits of that offeror’s proposal and in selecting for award an offeror whose proposal is considered the best value to the Government.

(2) In addition to using independently submitted and timely questionnaires received in evaluating past performance, the Government may consider information in the offeror’s proposal using readily available information obtained from other sources, including but not limited to the Contractor Performance Reporting System (CPARS), DLA Disposition Services personnel administering DLA Disposition Services contracts, past and present customers and their employees, other government agencies, including state and local agencies, consumer protection organizations and better business bureaus, former subcontractors, and others who may have relevant information. The Government may also consider negative information for contracts that are not included in the offeror’s past performance proposal if it is determined that the offeror did not identify that contract due to performance problems and/or the contract was for hazardous waste disposal services with the same or similar requirements as the solicitation within the last 2 years.

(3) Evaluation of past performance will be a subjective assessment based on a consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances. It will not be based on absolute standards of acceptable performance. This is a matter of judgement. Offerors will be given an opportunity to address especially unfavorable reports of past performance, and an offeror’s response, or lack thereof, will be taken into consideration.

(4) In the case of an offeror without an identifiable record of past performance or for whom information on past performance is unavailable and/or a corresponding PPI questionnaire was not independently received by the Government before the date offers are due, the offeror will not be assessed either favorably or unfavorably on Performance Confidence, as the degree of confidence known to the Government cannot be adequately determined and is therefore unknown.

PRICE SCHEDULE EVALUATION

(1) Cost or price evaluation. Normally, competition establishes price reasonableness. Therefore, when contracting on a firm-fixed-price, comparison of the proposed prices will usually satisfy the requirement to perform a price analysis, and a cost analysis need not be performed. In limited situations, a cost analysis may be appropriate to establish reasonableness of the otherwise successful offeror's price.

(2) The objective of proposal analysis is to ensure that the final agreed-to price is fair and reasonable. The contracting officer is responsible for evaluating the reasonableness of the offered prices. The analytical techniques and procedures may be used, singly or in combination with others, to ensure that the final price is fair and reasonable. The complexity and circumstances of each acquisition should determine the level of detail of the analysis required.

(3) Price analysis shall be used when certified cost or pricing data are not required.

(4) Cost analysis may also be used to evaluate data other than certified cost or pricing data to determine cost reasonableness or cost realism when a fair and reasonable price cannot be determined through price analysis alone.

(5) The contracting officer may request the advice and assistance of other experts to ensure that an appropriate analysis is performed.

(6) Recommendations or conclusions regarding the Government’s review or analysis of an offeror’s or contractor’s proposal shall not be disclosed to the offeror or contractor without the concurrence of the contracting officer. Any discrepancy or mistake of fact (such as duplications, omissions, and errors in computation) contained in the certified cost or pricing data or data other than certified cost or pricing data submitted in support of a proposal shall be brought to the contracting officer’s attention for appropriate action.

(7) At a minimum, the contracting officer shall obtain appropriate data, without certification, on the prices at which the same or similar items have previously been sold and determine if the data is adequate for evaluating the reasonableness of the price. Price analysis may include evaluating data other than certified cost or pricing data obtained from the offeror or contractor when there is no other means for determining a fair and reasonable price. Contracting officers shall obtain data other than certified cost or pricing data from the offeror or contractor for all acquisitions, if that is the contracting officer’s only means to determine the price to be fair and reasonable.

(8) The Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price.