Attachment 2 52.212-2 Addendum.pdf

Attachment 2 - FAR 52.212-2 Addendum

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 (a)

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with FAR Part 12 and executed pursuant to FAR Subpart 15.3. The Government will award an IDIQ resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation is the best value to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors will be used to evaluate offers:

Technical (Management Plan/Staffing Plan) Past Performance Price

1.0 Evaluation Process. The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the Technical, Past Performance, and Price information provided below.

1.1 Technical Evaluation

1.1.1 The technical evaluation factor and the subfactors listed below will be evaluated and receive a technical rating as defined in Table 1 below:

TABLE 1: Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating:

Adjectival

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation.

Evaluation of Technical Factor and Subfactors. Only technical proposals with a rating of Acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, are eligible for award.

If award is made without discussions, proposal revisions will not be permitted. If any technical subfactor is rated “Unacceptable” the overall proposal will be rated as “Unacceptable”. The technical proposal will be evaluated for the following technical subfactors:

(A) Subfactor # 1 – Management Plan:

The standard has been met when: The offeror adequately demonstrates a sound, comprehensive, realistic, effective, and efficient management approach to fulfill the requirements of the PWS.

Subfactor # 2 -- Staffing Plan:

The standard has been met when: The offeror adequately demonstrates a sound, comprehensive, realistic, effective, and efficient staffing plan to fully staff qualified personnel in accordance with the PWS and to correct any validated deficiencies/complaints.

1.2 Past Performance Evaluation

This factor is assessed with an overall Performance Confidence Assessment (PCA) rating which is based on an integrated assessment of the Offerors recent and relevant past performance. The resulting performance confidence assessment rating represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. In the case of Offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.”

Recency Assessment: An assessment of the past performance information contained in the Offeror’s submittals will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed within the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

Relevancy Ratings: The Government will use the following relevancy definitions/ratings below when assessing past performance:

TABLE 2. Relevancy Definitions/Ratings.

Adjectival Rating Description

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar 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.

The Government will use the following definitions/ratings below when making an overall PCA.

TABLE 3. Performance Confidence Assessment (PCA) Ratings.

Adjectival 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 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.

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 be able to successfully perform the required effort.

In addition to the offeror’s past performance submittal the Government may consider information about recent contracts contained in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and may also contact past performance references from other recent contracts to form the Past Performance rating.

1.3 Price Evaluation.

The Government will evaluate price reasonableness for the fixed priced effort. The solicitation requires firm-fixed-priced contract line items. In accordance with FAR Subpart 15.4, a price reasonableness approach will be utilized by the Government to determine that the proposed prices offered are fair and reasonable and that unbalanced pricing between CLINs is not occurring. Indications of unbalanced pricing will be reflected in the evaluation.

The Government will evaluate Attachment 4 to the solicitation (Price Evaluation Sheet) which includes the estimated number of FTEs and hours for each labor category. The total evaluated price will be based upon the total of the five-year ordering period. * (Note: The Total Billable Hourly Rate listed in the Price Evaluation Sheet shall be the binding fully burdened labor rate for each labor category).

*FAR 52.217-8: For purposes of evaluating the Option to Extend Services only, the Contracting Officer will consider the prices submitted for the fourth (4th) option year rates to also serve as the rates for the additional six (6) months of service.

This ensures that the price, to include FAR 52.217-8, is fair and reasonable.

2.0 Basis of Award

2.0 All offerors will be evaluated for Technical Acceptability. The Technical factor is a

“gate” criterion and offerors must achieve an Acceptable rating at both sub-factors for the Technical factor in order to be considered for award. Only technically acceptable offers will be evaluated for Price and Past Performance.

2.1 Relative Importance of Factors: The Past Performance factor is significantly more important than Price. In order to be eligible for award, an Offeror must be assessed a rating of ACCEPTABLE under the Technical factor, and a rating of no less than SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE under the Past Performance factor. The Price factor price must also be found to be reasonable.

2.2 Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal represents best value to the Government. This process permits tradeoffs between past performance and price.

The Government may award to other than the lowest priced proposal or other than the highest past performance rated offeror. The Government intends to make award without discussions, however reserves the right to enter discussions with one, some or all offerors.

(End of Addendum)

All information relating to this synopsis/solicitation, including, changes/amendments, questions and answers, will be posted on the following website: https://www.sam.gov.

Terms of the solicitation and specification remain unchanged unless the solicitation is amended in writing by the Contracting Officer. If an amendment is issued, normal procedures relating to the acknowledgement and receipt of solicitation shall apply.