Attachment 2- 52-212-2- Addendum to Evaluation Factors-.pdf

Attachment 2

FA8601-21-R-0022

03 June 2021

ADDENDUM 52.212-2 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. PURPOSE

a. The Government will use FAR Part 13 Simplified Acquisition Procedures vs. FAR 15.3 Source Selection to evaluate offers submitted in response to the solicitation. The factors that shall be used to evaluate proposals are Technical Capability and Price, as expounded below. All Evaluation Factors are equal in importance; however, a proposal is unawardable at any price if, after final evaluation, the Technical Factor receives a rating of “Unacceptable”. The evaluation does not permit trade offs between price and non-price factors. Award will be made to the responsible offeror who submits a proposal that (1) conforms to the requirements of the solicitation; (2) receives a rating of “Acceptable” on the Technical Evaluation Factor; and (3) submits the proposal with the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP), provided that the TEP is not unbalanced and is fair and reasonable. The Government reserves the right to award no contract at all depending upon (1) the quality of proposals received and (2) the fair and reasonableness of the pricing of proposals received.

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirement of the solicitation.

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or sub-factors.

Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

2. TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

a. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s Mission Capability Proposal shall be made. Each proposal will be assigned a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable.

b. Each offeror must show evidence of a capability to provide the mandatory requirements set forth in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and elsewhere in this solicitation. A technical review team composed of key Government personnel will use their technical skills, knowledge and experience to thoroughly review the adequacy of the proposals. In evaluating the Mission Capability Proposal, the

Government will use the following evaluation criteria:

(1) Compliance with the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and this entire solicitation.

(2) Understanding of the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and this entire solicitation.

(3) Compliance and understanding of the requirements of the PWS as applied specifically to each factor/subfactor listed below.

c. The following specific factors and subfactors will be evaluated in the Technical Capability Proposal.

Any factor or subfactor determined unacceptable will render the entire Technical Capability

03 June 2021 Proposal as unacceptable. Upon final determination that a proposal is unacceptable, the Contracting

Officer (CO) shall promptly notify the firm submitting the proposal that it will not be considered for award and shall indicate in general terms the basis for the determination.

d. Technical Capability Evaluation Factors and Sub Factors are as follows:

Subfactor 1-Quality Control Plan (QCP) (PWS Paragraphs 1.5 and 1.7.3)

Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror's approach for ensuring performance will be in accordance with (IAW) the standards in the PWS throughout the life of the contract.

Measure of Merit: This subfactor is met when the offeror provides a detailed

QCP that is likely to ensure that performance will be IAW the standards in the

PWS throughout the life of the contract to include:

1. identification of personnel responsible for the quality control plan;

2. a description of the offeror's inspection system with types and frequencies of inspection to be conducted and personnel responsible for conducting inspections;

3. a clear description of key control procedures;

4. a system for preventing the occurrence or recurrence of deficiencies; and

5. a description of how inspections will be documented with sample inspections records for each type of inspection to be conducted.

Subfactor 2: Computer/Office Support (PWS Paragraph 1.1.1.)

Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror's ability to provide all hardware/software/office equipment requirements IAW the contract.

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror defines and lists all computer and office equipment that will be furnished listed in PWS Paragraph 1.1.1, clearly demonstrating an understanding of and a likelihood of the ability to provide the necessary requirements.

Subfactor 3: Inventory and Design Support (PWS 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.2.4)

Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror's ability to deliver up-to-date automated inventory and control, sample reports, and computer-aided design IAW the conditions of the contract.

Element 1: Automated Inventory and Control (PWS Paragraph 1.1.2)

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror provides a sample report that includes all of the information specified in PWS paragraph 1.1.2 and that clearly demonstrates the ability of the contractor's software to accurately track and account for inventory during all phases of design and as assets are moved into and out of the warehouse.

03 June 2021

Element 2: Sample Inventory Reports (PWS Paragraph 1.1.3)

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror provides a sample inventory report to include page numbering and date of run; layout requirements, existing product, parts and materials at the task site and returned inventory IAW the PWS.

Subfactor 4: Furniture Task Support (PWS Paragraphs as noted below)

Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror's ability to provide disassembly/assembly/reassembly/movable wall and associated parts installation and parts/products transportation IAW the terms of the PWS.

Element 1: Disassembly/Assembly of Components

Description: This element will evaluate the offeror’s ability to disassemble and assemble all the various manufacturers furniture IAW the requirements of PWS

Paragraph 1.0.

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror clearly demonstrates the understanding and capability to provide proof of access and ability to disassemble and assemble all the various furniture manufacturers components.

Element 2: Response Capability/Timeline

Description: This element will evaluate the offeror's ability to perform routine and emergency repairs IAW the requirements of PWS Paragraph 1.3.2.

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror clearly demonstrates the understanding and capability of the requirement, making it likely they will respond to all repairs within the time-frames stated in the PWS.

Element 3: Certified Electrician

Description: This element will evaluate the offeror's ability to provide a qualified, certified electrician in accordance with the requirements of PWS Paragraph 1.9.

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror clearly demonstrates the understanding and capability to provide proof of access to MECA certified electricians, per the requirements of the PWS.

Element 4: Certified Plumber

Description: This element will evaluate the offeror's ability to provide a qualified, certified plumber in accordance with the requirements of the PWS Paragraph 1.9.

03 June 2021

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror clearly demonstrates the understanding and capability to provide proof of access to plumbers that are licensed by the state of Ohio and possess documentation of completion of the latest edition of the National Plumbing Code, per the requirements of the PWS.

Element 5: Transportation

Description: This element will evaluate the offeror's ability to demonstrate they have the necessary equipment to transport products to and from the warehouse and worksite, and have material handling equipment to comply with the requirements of

PWS Appendix B.

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror provides a clear explanation as well as a list of vehicles and equipment that is likely to ensure performance will be compliant, when describing how all transportation requirements will be met.

Element 6: On-site Management of the Contract

Description: This element will evaluate the offeror's ability to provide an on-site manager and alternate(s) of all facets of contract performance.

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror clearly demonstrates the ability to provide points of contact and alternates who will be responsible for daily operations, after hours and be able to respond within 2 hours IAW PWS Paragraph

1.8.1.

Subfactor 5: Prior Experience

Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror's prior experience for a minimum of two relevant furniture maintenance contracts/jobs performed within five years of the issue date of the solicitation, with the following qualifiers for each job:

a) Design and reconfiguration of 30 existing systems furniture workstations using

AutoCAD, or equal.

b) Completion of a phased installation of systems furniture in an occupied building.

c) Experience in maintaining and tracking systems furniture work station inventories using an automated database system(s).

For each relevant furniture contract/job described, provide the following administrative data:

1. Company/Division Name

2. Program Title

3. Contracting Agency

4. Contract Number

5. Type of Contract (Fixed Price)

6. Dates Performed

7. Contract Value (including any option years)

03 June 2021

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror clearly demonstrates relative experience in at least two jobs performed within five years of the issue date of the solicitation; both (or all) job descriptions include the details of all three qualifiers, all administrative data were provided for each job, and the response indicates a thorough understanding of the technical aspects of each job.

e. The above specified technical factors/subfactors will be evaluated in the Technical Capability

Proposal. Any subfactor judged unacceptable may render the entire Technical Capability

Proposal as unacceptable. Upon final determination that a proposal is “unacceptable”, the

Contracting Officer shall promptly notify the firm submitting the proposal that it will not be considered for award and shall indicate the basis for the determination.

3. PRICE

a. Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) unbalanced pricing, (3) fair and reasonableness, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, significantly unbalanced or contains otherwise unbalanced pricing that poses an unacceptable risk to the Government, or unreasonable will not be considered for award.

(1) Completeness: The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with solicitation clause FAR 52.212-1 and Attachment 1—Additional

Instructions to Offerors.

(2) Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze each proposal to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices proposed on different Contract Line Items

Numbers (CLINs) for the same or similar services and/or supplies in the same or similar quantities and with respect to option pricing. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting

Officer (CO) determines that the option prices are significantly unbalanced or that otherwise unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(3) Fair and Reasonableness: The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, Proposal Analysis, in order to determine if it is reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the

Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business.

Normally, price reasonableness is established through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1(b), Price analysis for commercial and non-commercial items.

For additional information, reference FAR 31.201-3, Determining Reasonableness.

(4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The Government will add the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement to arrive at a total evaluated price (TEP). The

TEP will be calculated as:

i. The sum of the extended prices (unit quantity multiplied by unit price) for CLINs

0001 through 4005 for the base performance period and option periods I through IV;

and

ii. To account for the maximum six (6) month extension possible under the clause at

FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, the Government will use the sum of the proposed prices of the final option period (CLINs 4001 through 4008), prorate it to a six (6) month value, and add that amount to the sum of all CLINs

03 June 2021

(Base performance period and option periods I through IV). Please note that this calculation is used for evaluation purposes only. After award, the Government reserves the right to exercise the Option to Extend Services at any time allowed by 52.217-8, and at the price allowed by 52.217-8.

iii. The table below illustrates calculation of a proposal’s TEP using the methodology described above. The table is provided for illustration purposes only. Prices reflected in the table are notional and in no way reflect the actual value of the requirement or an actual evaluation of proposed prices submitted in response to this solicitation or any other solicitation for the same or similar requirements.

Period of Performance POP Length CLINS (Example) Notional Proposed Price (Example)

Base 12 Months 0001-0008 $100,000

Option I 12 Months 1001-1008 $103,000

Option II 12 Months 2001-2008 $106,000

Option III 12 Months 3001-3008 $109,000

Option IV 12 Months 4001-4008 $112,000

6 Month Option 6 Months 5001-5008 $56,000

Total Evaluated Price $586,000

4. EVALUATION PROCESS

a. The Government will initiate concurrent evaluation of all evaluation factors on all proposals. The

Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of a proposal including whether any proposal deficiency can be rectified and whether any uncertainty can be resolved. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the

Government.

b. If pursuant to initial evaluation, the Government rates the Technical factor as “Unacceptable” or if the Government determines that there is some other deficiency or uncertainty relative to an offeror’s proposal, and in the Government’s judgment, the deficiency is rectifiable or the uncertainty is resolvable; the Contracting Officer (CO) may open discussions and may continue discussions as long as, in the Government’s judgment, the deficiency is rectifiable or the uncertainty is resolvable.

c. For the purpose of conducting discussions, if the Government rates the Technical factor as

“Unacceptable” or if the Government determines that there is some other deficiency or uncertainty relative to an offeror’s proposal, the entire proposal will be rated “Unacceptable.” At the conclusion of discussions, if the Technical factor is rated “Unacceptable” or if any deficiency or uncertainty relative to the proposal has not been unresolved, evaluation of that proposal will be considered final. The entire proposal will be rated “Unacceptable” and no further consideration will be given to that proposal for award.

d. For the purpose of award without discussions, if pursuant to initial evaluation, the Government rates the Technical factor as “Unacceptable” or if the Government determines that there is some

03 June 2021 other deficiency or uncertainty relative to an offeror’s proposal, notwithstanding that any deficiency may be rectifiable or any uncertainty may be resolvable, the entire proposal will be rated “Unacceptable,” the initial evaluation will be the final evaluation, and no further consideration will be given to that proposal for award.

e. The Government reserves the right to create a competitive range if it is in the best interest of the

Government.

5. 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 (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.