Attachment 13 - 52.212-2 Addenda, Evaluation.pdf

Attachment 13 - FA500025R0007

FAR 52.212-2 Addenda- Evaluation Factors Performance Price Tradeoff Source Selection

FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Products and Commercial Services (November 2021)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors will be used to evaluate offers:

(1) Technical – Acceptable/Unacceptable

(2) Past Performance

(3) Small Business Commitment Document– Acceptable/Unacceptable

(4) Price

Among those proposals found “Acceptable” for the Technical and Small Business Commitment Document factors, Past Performance is significantly more important than Price.

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced from one year to the next.

Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise any of the option periods.

(c) 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. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of provision)

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

The following are inserted as new paragraphs (d) and (e) of the provision:

(d) Basis for Contract Award.

(1) This is a competitive Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) Source Selection conducted in accordance with FAR Parts 12 and 15, Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS), the DFARS Procedures, Guidance and Information (PGI) Subpart 215.3, the DoD Source Selection Procedures guide, and Department of the Air Force FAR Supplement (DAFFARS) Mandatory Procedure (MP) 5315.3. The PPT approach is a tradeoff Source Selection methodology on the Best Value Continuum that permits a tradeoff between Total Evaluated

Price (TEP) and past performance and provides the Source Selection Authority (SSA) discretion to award to an Offeror with a higher past performance confidence assessment rating. By submission of its offer, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors, unless specifically identified IAW the instruction for Part I of its proposal.

(2) The Government intends to award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value in accordance with the factors and subfactors in the solicitation.

(3) All proposals receiving an overall rating of “Acceptable” for the Technical and Small Business Commitment Document factors will be treated equally except for their TEP and past performance confidence assessment ratings. Failure to meet any requirement of the solicitation will result in an offer being determined unacceptable and may not be further considered for award.

(4) To be eligible for award, offerors must:

- Receive an overall rating of “Acceptable” for Factor 1 – Technical

- Receive an overall past performance confidence assessment rating of “neutral confidence” or higher for Factor 2 – Past Performance,

- Receive an overall rating of “Acceptable” for Factor 3 – Small Business Commitment

Document, and

- Submit a proposed price that is determined to be fair and reasonable for Factor 4 –

Price.

(5) The Government reserves the right to award a contract to an Offeror proposing other than the lowest TEP (see Addendum 252.212-2(e)(4)(ii)). Among the proposals that receive an overall rating of “Acceptable” for Technical and Small Business Commitment Document, the Source Selection Authority will make an independent, integrated, comparative analysis and a best value award decision using the TEP and the past performance confidence assessment ratings. Relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “neutral” rating.

(6) The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with offerors. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. IAW FAR 15.306(c)(2), the PCO may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

(e) The evaluation process will include the following:

(1) Factor 1 - Technical. The Government will evaluate technical proposals on a pass/fail basis and assign an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” rating to each subfactor, as described in Table 1 below. An overall technical factor rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” will be assigned based on the ratings assigned at the subfactor level. In order to receive an “Acceptable” rating at the factor level, and to be eligible for award, the proposal must receive an “Acceptable” rating for each subfactor

Table 1. Technical Ratings Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

(i) The technical proposals will be evaluated against the following subfactor(s):

(1) Subfactor 1 – Personnel, Equipment, and Methodology

a. Subfactor 1(a) - Grounds Maintenance Services portion of the solicitation.

This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposed methodology to perform the Grounds Maintenance Services portion of this contract, IAW PWS sections 1.1 through 1.6 and all proposed personnel and equipment (type and quantity) demonstrates a clear ability to perform the requirements for Grounds Maintenance Services as specified in the PWS.

b. Subfactor 1(b) – Snow and Ice Removal Services portion of the solicitation.

This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposed methodology to perform the Snow and Ice Removal Services portion of this contract, IAW PWS section 1.7.

and all proposed personnel and equipment (type and quantity), demonstrates a clear ability to perform the requirements for Snow and Ice Removal Services as specified in the PWS.

(2) Subfactor 2 - Continuation of Essential Contractor Services

This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s written Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan complies with minimum requirements for the plan, as specified in DFARS 252.237-7024, describing how they will continue to perform the essential contractor services listed in Attachment 1 - PWS Sections 1.2.3 Interior/Exterior Perimeter Fence Line, 1.2.4 Munitions Interior and Exterior Perimeter Fence Line,

1.3 Maintain Bird Area Strike Hazard (BASH), and 1.7, Perform Snow/Ice Removal.

(2) Factor 2 - Past Performance. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance for recency, relevancy, and quality to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the Offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements based on the

Offeror’s demonstrated record of past performance. The Government will use information submitted by the Offeror and other sources of information available to the Government to assess past performance to include, but not be limited to (i) the reference provided by the offeror, (ii) any past performance information obtained from survey/PPQs; and (iii) any data independently obtained by the Government to include, but not limited to, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/UEI numbers of the contractors who are part of a partnership/joint venture or teaming agreement identified in the respondent's offer, entity information reports in SAM.gov, and any other known sources not provided by the offeror. IAW DFARS 204.7603 the Government will consider supplier risk, to assess the risk of unsuccessful performance and supply chain risk, in award decisions.

Supplier risk assessments in SPRS include quality, delivery, and other contractor performance information. For more information refer to DFARS clause 252.204-7024. If a reference identified by the Offeror in accordance with 52.212-1(m)(3)(iii)(A), does not submit a survey/PPQs, the Government will follow up with the reference POC, but it is not responsible for the failure of a reference POC to provide a survey/PPQ.

(i) The evaluation will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the acquisition. For the past performance to be evaluated the Offeror must explain the relationship in sufficient detail to meet consideration under FAR 15.305(a)(2).

Additionally, IAW FAR 15.305(a)(2)(vi), for offerors that are joint ventures, the evaluation will take into account past performance of the joint venture. If the joint venture does not demonstrate past performance for award, the PCO will consider the past performance of each party to the joint venture.

(ii) Recent past performance information includes contracts performed and/or being performed for any customer within the last three years prior to the issuance date of the solicitation.

(iii) Relevant contract performance efforts involve similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities of that required by this solicitation and rated using the responses provided in the PPQs. With respect to relevancy, more highly rated relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and may have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. The Government will assess relevancy for each contract referenced in the Grounds Maintenance PPQ against PWS section 1.1 through 1.6. The Government will assess relevancy for each contract in the Snow and Ice Removal Services PPQ against PWS section 1.7. Past performance relevancy ratings will be assigned to each PPQ as described in Table 2 below:

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Rating Definition

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.

(iv) Performance Quality Assessment: The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance and general trends and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment.

(v) The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the Offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements based on the Offeror’s demonstrated record of past performance. The overall past performance rating will be based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance resulting in an integrated past performance confidence assessment rating as described in Table 3, below. The overall past performance rating is based on the preponderance of those subjective ratings applied to the collective review of all the past performance questionnaires provided on behalf of the offeror, any other past performance data independently obtained from other sources of information available to the Government and will not be based on any one individual PPQ. Offerors for which only one type of PPQ is received (only Grounds Maintenance or only Snow and Ice Removal Services), will receive a rating of Neutral.

Table 3. Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings Rating Description

Substantial Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that 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 that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance 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 that 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 successfully perform the required effort.

Note: A Satisfactory or Substantial Confidence rating may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a Neutral Confidence rating.

(3) Factor 3 – Small Business Commitment Document. The Government will evaluate the offerors Small Business Commitment Document on a pass/fail basis and assign an “Acceptable” or "Unacceptable". Each offeror's Small Business Commitment Document shall be evaluated based on the elements below, to determine if the offeror provides an adequate approach to meeting the goals of the Small Business Program and demonstrates an understanding of those objectives.

All Offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of small business commitment that they demonstrate for the proposed acquisition. A small business Offeror also receives credit for their small business commitment as a Prime Contractor and can apply their dollar value when calculating percentages in all the applicable small business categories.

Small Business Commitment Documents (from large and small businesses) will be evaluated based on:

(a) The extent to which small business firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals.

Acceptable: The proposal specifically identifies small business firms IAW FAR Part 19.

Unacceptable: The proposal fails to specifically identify small business firms

(b) Adequate extent of commitment to use identified firms.

Acceptable: The proposal includes enforceable commitments to use small business firms (e.g., signed letters of intent, formal agreements).

Unacceptable: The proposal lacks enforceable commitments and only includes non-binding or vague commitments to use small business firms.

(c) The identified complexity and variety of work small business firms are to perform.

Acceptable: The proposal demonstrates a plan for small business firms to perform a variety of complex tasks integral to the contract.

Unacceptable: The proposal assigns only low-complexity, peripheral tasks to small business firms, indicating a superficial approach to their involvement.

(d) The extent of participation of small business prime offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the percentage of the total value of the total acquisition (including options).

Acceptable: The proposal includes a clear, substantial percentage of the total contract value for small business participation, meeting or exceeding the specified goals (18% total, with specific sub-goals for each category).

Unacceptable: The proposal fails to meet the specified small business participation goals or provides unclear percentages.

(e) Past performance of the offerors in complying with the requirements of FAR clause 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns (applicable to both small and large businesses), and 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (applicable to large businesses only), and;

Acceptable: The offeror has a demonstrated history of compliance with FAR 52.219-8 and, if applicable, FAR 52.219-9, showing successful past performance in utilizing small business concerns.

Unacceptable: The offeror has a poor history of compliance with FAR 52.219-8 and, if applicable, FAR 52.219-9.

Note: An offeror with no past performance will not receive a rating for this criterion and the lack of rating for this criterion will not be treated favorably or unfavorably when determining the overall rating for this factor.

(f) The extent to which the Offeror meets or exceeds the goals based on the total contract value. Goals for this procurement are:

Category Percentage of Total Contract

All Small Business Combined 18% Veteran Owned Small Business 3% Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business 1% Hub-Zone 1% Small Disadvantaged Business and 8(a) 5% Woman Owned Small Business 1%

Note: A proposed Extent of Participation of Small Businesses that reflects a percentage of the contract value for WOSB would also count towards the overall Small Business Goal; and percentages for SDVOSB also count towards VOSB.

Acceptable: The proposal meets or exceeds the expected small business participation goals for the procurement (18% overall, with breakdowns for VOSB, SDVOSB, HUBZone, SDB, and WOSB).

Unacceptable: The proposal does not meet the expected small business participation goals.

Adjectival Rating System Specific to this Factor: After assigning an adjectival rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” to each of the evaluation criteria above, the Government will assign an overall adjectival rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” for this Factor.

To receive an overall rating of “Acceptable”, an offeror must receive a rating of “Acceptable” for each of the evaluation criteria above (Factor 3, (a)-(f)).

Small Business Commitment Document Ratings Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

(4) Factor 4 - Price. The Government will order price proposals from lowest TEP to highest TEP. The price evaluation will document the fairness and reasonableness of the TEP. In addition, each Offeror’s separately priced line items or subline items shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g). The Government reserves the right to perform price/cost realism analysis. If the Government elects to perform a price and/or cost realism analysis, the Government reserves discretion over the method within which it performs its price and/or cost realism analysis. If the Government elects to perform a price and/or cost realism analysis and finds a proposal unrealistic, the Government may withhold award to that offeror.

(i) The evaluation preference specified in provision FAR 52.219-4 will be applied to the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) when the conditions specified in FAR 52.219-4(a)(2) are met

(a) The factor of 10 percent shall be applied to any group of items. Other evaluation factors described in Attachment 13 – FAR 52.212-2 Addenda –Evaluation Factors shall be applied before application of this factor.

(ii) Total Evaluated Price (TEP): A TEP will be computed for each offer in order to meet the requirements of FAR Parts 6 and 17. The price of a six-month extension authorized by FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, will be added to the proposed price for each potential contract performance period.

(iii) TEP is a two-part computation. First, the Offeror’s total proposed price will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in the pricing worksheet by the Unit Price (limited to two decimal places) for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) to confirm the extended total amount for each CLIN; the sum of all extended amounts will be the Offeror’s total proposed price. Second, the total proposed price (total amount for All CLINs) plus the sum of FAR Clause 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services formula (shown below) will constitute the TEP.

([SLIN 4001AA Unit Price] x 6 + [SLIN 4001AB Unit Price] x 6 + [SLIN 4001AC Unit Price] x 6 + [SLIN 4001AD Unit Price] x 6 + [SLIN 4001AE Unit Price] x 6 + [SLIN 4001AF Unit Price] x 6 + [SLIN 4002AA Unit Price] x 1 + [SLIN 4002AB Unit Price] x 1 + $25,000)

Note: The period of performance for a six-month extension authorized by FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, will be 15 April - 15 October and therefore will include (6) months of Grounds Maintenance Services (15 April - 15 October) and (2) months of Snow and Ice Removal Services (15 April - 15 May and 15 September - 15 October)

(iv) Evaluating the Option CLINs does not obligate the Government to exercise any Options.

(End of Addendum)

The formula for FAR Clause 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services amount is as follows:

([SLIN 0001 AA Unit Price] x 6 + [SLIN 0001AB Unit Price] x 6 + [SLIN 0001 AC Unit Price] x 6 + [SLIN 0001AD Unit Price] x 6 + [SLIN 0001 AE Unit Price] x 6 + [SLIN 0001AF Unit Price] x 6 + [SLIN 0002 AA Unit Price] x 1 + [SLIN 0002AB Unit Price] x 1 + $25,000)

([SLIN 1001AA Unit Price] x 6 + [SLIN 1001AB Unit Price] x 6 + [SLIN 1001AC Unit Price] x 6 + [SLIN 1001AD Unit Price] x 6 + [SLIN 1001AE Unit Price] x 6 + [SLIN 1001AF Unit Price] x 6 + [SLIN 1002AA Unit Price] x 1 + [SLIN 1002AB Unit Price] x 1 + $25,000)

([SLIN 2001AA Unit Price] x 6 + [SLIN 2001AB Unit Price] x 6 + [SLIN 2001AC Unit Price] x 6 + [SLIN 2001AD Unit Price] x 6 + [SLIN 2001AE Unit Price] x 6 + [SLIN 2001AF Unit Price] x 6 + [SLIN 2002AA Unit Price] x 1 + [SLIN 2002AB Unit Price] x 1 + $25,000)

([SLIN 3001AA Unit Price] x 6 + [SLIN 3001AB Unit Price] x 6 + [SLIN 3001AC Unit Price] x 6 + [SLIN 3001AD Unit Price] x 6 + [SLIN 3001AE Unit Price] x 6 + [SLIN 3002AA Unit Price] x 1 + [SLIN 3002AB Unit Price] x 1 + $25,000)