Attachment 2 - Addendum to Evaluation Factors.pdf

Attachment 2

FA8601-22-R-0010

3 March 2022

ADDENDUM 52.212-2 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. PURPOSE

a. The Government shall 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 shall 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 shall 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 shall use their technical skills, knowledge and experience to thoroughly review the adequacy of the proposals. In evaluating the Mission

Capability Proposal, the Government shall 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 shall be evaluated in the Technical Capability

Proposal. Any factor or subfactor determined unacceptable shall 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 shall 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 1.15, 1.3, 1.18.2.3.4.)

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

Provide a QCP, which describes your approach for ensuring performance shall be IAW the standards in the PWS throughout the life of the contract. Identify who shall be responsible for the QCP. Include in your QCP your system for inspecting your own performance. Describe the types and frequencies of inspections you shall conduct and identify who shall conduct the inspections. Describe how you shall provide quality workmanship and continual process improvement. Describe how keys shall be controlled.

Include the methods, processes, procedures and safeguards you shall use to prevent deficiencies from occurring and how you shall prevent recurrences. Describe how inspections shall be documented and provide sample inspection records for each type of inspection to be conducted.

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror’s proposal has included quality control procedures that demonstrate adequate understanding of the PWS requirements. It must be determined workable and acceptable with only minor clarification. Offeror must include the descriptions of the duties and responsibilities of the individual responsible for the quality of workmanship during all aspects of contract performance. Proposal must also show minimum requirements of the Quality Control

Plan.

Subfactor 2 – Scheduling Methodology (PWS Paragraphs 1.2, 1.5, 1.7, & 1.9)

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

Describe your approach for accomplishing work schedules and timelines on schedule and show that you have an understanding of the work schedules and timelines by addressing all requirements listed in the PWS to include the Work Load Data.

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror’s proposal includes a realistic work schedule and exhibits an understanding of work by addressing all requirements listed in the PWS to include the Work Load Data.

Subfactor 3 – Personnel (PWS Paragraphs 1.2, 1.9, and 1.19.)

Description: This subfactor shall 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 your plan for providing experienced and certified employees to perform various requirements of the PWS including lead-based paint and asbestos regulations and handling procedures. The plan shall also include years of technical experience, licenses, certifications (such as EPA and OSHA certifications) and any formal classes completed pertaining to specific trades for proposed personnel. Offerors must also include the number of years’ experience for all contract office personnel.

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates the Contractor has sufficient, licensed and certified staff to perform all tasks in the PWS. The proposal must also show the offeror has personnel with a knowledge and understanding of lead-based paint and asbestos regulations and handling procedures.

The proposal shall include technical experience, licenses and any formal classes completed pertaining to maintenance and repair, including certifications such as EPA and

OSHA certifications of proposed personnel. Offerors must also include the number of years of experience for all personnel assigned to the performance of the contract office personnel.

Subfactor 4: Equipment and Supplies (PWS, Section 1)

Description: This subfactor shall 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 your approach to acquire specialty equipment and supplies necessary to perform the requirements of the PWS in accordance with specified response times.

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror's proposal includes the appropriate size, number, and type/description of equipment and supplies to be used in the performance of this contract that demonstrates an understanding of the requirements of the PWS.

Subfactor 5: Prior Experience

Description: This subfactor shall 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 your relevant experience in sufficient detail to show:

a) Experience with receiving, scheduling, and performing maintenance with customers in residential housing units.

b) Experience in creating, scheduling and maintaining a preventive maintenance inspection system that ensures all equipment is maintained to preclude failures.

For each relevant residential maintenance and repair 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)

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror’s Technical Capability

Proposal includes documentation that clearly demonstrates that the offeror has performed services, within five years of the effective date of the solicitation, that were similar in type and scale to those called for in the PWS. The offeror’s shall demonstrate they have performed services for 50 units or similar amount.

Subfactor 6: Cultural Resources and Historical Preservation Requirements (PWS

Paragraphs 1.19 and Appendixes H & I)

Description: This subfactor shall evaluate the offeror’s experience of working with historic properties, understanding of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)

Section 106 and AFI 32-7065, the role of the cultural resource manager (CRM) and other requirements in the PWS regarding cultural resources and historical properties.

Provide your relevant experience as it relates to working with historic properties and show how you intend to meet all the cultural resources and historical properties requirements in the PWS including the role of the CRM and an understanding of what

“excluded and non-excluded” work are.

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates knowledge of National Historic Preservation Act Section 106, the role of the Cultural Resource Manager and understanding what “excluded and non-excluded” work are.

Subfactor 7: Management Plan (PWS Section 1)

Description: This subfactor shall evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide a management plan and team that shall be able to manage and provide all the personnel and resources to support a 100 unit military family housing area with multiple Job Orders, Change of

Occupancy Maintenance turnovers, special projects, and other requirements in the PWS concurrently.

Provide a management plan on how you shall execute, manage and administer the contract and all the requirements of the PWS including, at a minimum, the management lines of authority and on-site management team, the material purchasing system and delivery plan and management of sub-contractors.

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror’s proposal has included the provisions and procedures that demonstrate adequate understanding of the PWS requirements. This includes:

- the lines of authority;

- description of the plan for managing execution and administration of the contract;

- the proposed material purchasing system and delivery plan; and

- the on-site management team and management of sub-contractors.

The plan must be determined workable and acceptable with only minor clarification.

e. The above specified technical factors/subfactors shall 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 shall not be considered for award and shall indicate the basis for the determination.

3. PRICE

a. Price proposals shall 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 shall not be considered for award.

(1) Completeness: The Government shall 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 shall 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 shall 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 shall 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 shall 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 shall 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 shall initiate concurrent evaluation of all evaluation factors on all proposals.

The Government shall 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 shall 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 shall be considered final. The entire proposal shall be rated “Unacceptable” and no further consideration shall 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 shall be rated “Unacceptable,” the initial evaluation shall be the final evaluation, and no further consideration shall 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.