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

Attachment 02

FA8601-22-R-0021

18 March 2022

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 tradeoffs 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 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 1.5, 2.1, SS-5, SS-6)

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.

Detail the methods for compliance with PWS 2.1 to include an inspection system addressing all Service Summary items, frequency of inspections, and methods for identifying, correcting, and preventing defects. Information provided by the offeror shall demonstrate a clear understanding of the scope of the contract, and include a detailed description of their quality control, and recordkeeping procedures.

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror's proposal has provided a detailed method of inspections including frequency and corrective action, and describe a methodology to mitigate future defects. Proposal shall demonstrate an adequate understanding of the PWS requirements, scope of the operation, and the ability to maintain records, and demonstrate their knowledge by providing sample records, and a sample of each report required according to Appendix D of the PWS.

Subfactor 2 – Staffing Methodologies - Staffing Plan and Schedule (PWS 1. 1.1.1, 2.2, 4.2, 4.5, 4.5.1, 4.5, 4.6.1)

Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s approach for ensuring scheduling and timelines are met (IAW) the standards in the PWS throughout the life of the contract.

Provide a realistic understanding of workload factors and a work schedule, addressing all requirements and services listed in the PWS, and Workload Data information. Detail a workable staffing plan which includes an example schedule and sufficient number of employees to meet all requirements outlined in the PWS, including a notification plan for both daytime and after hour emergencies.

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror provides a schedule for all services described in this PWS and Appendices, including an approach for providing uninterrupted service from effective date of the contract, and can demonstrate the ability to meet possible surge requirements for the duration of an emergency. Identify the position /title /contact information for the contract manager and alternate during normal and after duty hours.

Subfactor 3 – Contractor Employees- Sub-contractors (PWS 4.8.1, 4.8.1.2, 4.8.5, 4.8.5.3)

Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the need to hire experienced and certified employees to insure satisfactory accomplishment of the various requirements of the PWS.

Provide company names, resumes, and other personal information requested to obtain a successful (NAC) National Agency Check of contractor employees and any subcontractors they intend to use to fulfill the requirements of the PWS.

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror's proposal states the contractor' s approach to vetting potential candidates for employment. Offerors must also include the company names and resumes of potential subcontractors to be used in performance of the contract. Offerors must also provide the number of years of experience for all personnel assigned to the performance of the contract, including drivers.

Subfactor 4: Equipment and Supplies (PWS 1.0, 1.4, 4.8.6)

Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s ability to acquire specialty equipment and supplies necessary to perform the requirements of the PWS in accordance with specified response times.

Provide the size, number, type of equipment (including vehicles), and supplies provided by the offeror. The list must demonstrate that the offeror has an adequate understanding of the scope and size of services required to success fully meet the PWS requirements.

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror's proposal includes an equipment list that demonstrates an adequate understanding of the scope and size of services required in the PWS and also describes a workable contingency plan for when trucks are in for routine maintenance, or breakdown.

Subfactor 5: Prior Experience

Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s prior experience for a minimum of two relevant residential maintenance and repair contracts/jobs performed within five years of the issue date of the solicitation that were similar in type and scale to those called for in the PWS.

Provide prior recent and relevant experience for a minimum of three (3) relevant refuse service contracts/jobs performed within the past five (5) years in enough detail to show:

1) Experience handling at a minimum the following tonnages annually: 2,946 Tons of

Trash, 1,565 Tons of C+D, 117 Tons of Compost/Yard Waste, and 1,543 Tons of

Recycling.

2) Experience handling construction debris and yard waste

3) Experience handling residential curbside refuse/recycli ng services to include yard waste, and bulk pick- up.

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror's proposal contains prior experience that demonstrates managing uninterrupted industrial and residential services with tonnages similar to those expected on this contract, as well as experience handling construct ion debris, yard waste, and residential refuse services.

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 4006 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 4006), prorate it to a six (6) month value, and add that amount to the sum of all CLINs (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 0001-0004 $100,000 Option I 12 Months 1001-1004 $103,000 Option II 12 Months 2001-2004 $106,000 Option III 12 Months 3001-3004 $109,000 Option IV 12 Months 4001-4004 $112,000 6 Month Option 6 Months 5001-5004 $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 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.

ADDENDUM 52.212-2 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD