Attachment 2- Evaluation Criteria Clause 52.212-2.pdf
PDF 106 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Building 1 Furniture Package
- Solicitation number
- W50S6S24RA001
About this file
This document is the Evaluation Criteria Clause 52.212-2 for a federal contract opportunity. The key details are:
The government intends to award a firm fixed-price purchase order for this commercial item opportunity. Offers will be evaluated on three factors: Price, Technical Capability, and Past Performance. Price is the most important factor, with the remaining factors approximately equal to price. For Technical Capability, the government will evaluate the offeror's understanding of the work, proposed personnel and management approach. For Past Performance, the government will consider recent and relevant performance records from various sources. To be eligible for award, offerors must meet the responsibility requirements outlined in FAR 9.104-1. The government reserves the right to verify contractor responsibility and past performance using additional sources. The government intends to award without discussions but may hold discussions if necessary.
View the file
Other files
Show all 11
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
IN ACCORDANCE WITH FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS
(a) The Government intends to award one firm fixed priced purchase order to the responsible offeror whose quote conforming to the RFQ requirements represents the best value, price and non-price factors considered.
All responses will be subjected to an initial screening for completeness and conformance with RFQ instructions before being evaluated. A response that is incomplete will not be considered for award. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:
EVALUATION FACTORS
Factor 1 Price Factor 2 Technical Capability Factor 3 Past Performance
Evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are approximately equal to price:
Factor 1 - Price The proposed prices shall be evaluated for completeness, and reasonableness. The Government will calculate total evaluated price by adding the total of all CLINS. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the CLIN prices are significantly unbalanced. (NOTE:
The 162nd Wing is subject to the Arizona Business Privilege Tax. Please include applicable taxes with your quote)
Factor 2 - Technical Capability The evaluation will consist of assessing the Offeror’s technical approach to accomplish the tasks outlined in the Statement of Need (SON). The offeror must demonstrate a clear understanding of the nature and the scope of the work required. Failure to provide realistic, reasonable and complete information may reflect a lack of understanding of the requirements and may result in a determination that the vendor is technically unacceptable. This factor will be evaluated to assess the risk of successful performance based on the quality of the offeror’s technical knowledge and ability to either meet or exceed the government’s requirements as defined in the SON.
1. Provide the names of the key personnel on staff (at a minimum)
2. The proposal demonstrates an appropriate level of personnel resources across the range of skills required to accomplish the requirement.
3. The proposal demonstrates a sound management approach to accomplish the requirements of the SON. The proposal demonstrates a sound, rational, effective and efficient management approach to accomplish the requirements identified in the SON.
4. Offeror adequately addresses functions, responsibilities and authorities for performing such duties as overall project management, contract manager, and quality control manager.
Based upon the Government’s evaluation of offeror provided information, one of the following adjectival ratings will be assigned for Technical Capability.
Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Offeror clearly meets the requirements of the RFQ Unacceptable Offeror does not clearly meet the requirements of the RFQ.
Factor 3 - Past Performance
The Government will analyze and consider the risk and confidence level illustrated by relevant, recent past performance in which the company has performed (see details below):
The Government will analyze and consider the risk and confidence level illustrated by relevant, recent past performance in which the company has performed utilizing any sources available including, but not limited to:
• Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)
• Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)
• Supplier performance Risk System (SPRS)
• System for Award Management (SAM)
• Other Publicly Available Information
Recent - Recent past performance shall be performance that is either on-going or was completed within three (3) years of the solicitation closing date.
Relevant - Relevancy is defined as follows:
Relevancy Ratings
Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved the exact 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.
Semi-Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.
Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.
Scope = Type of Work, Functions, Skill Mix and/or Labor Classifications, etc.
Magnitude of effort = Dollar Value and Period of Performance
Complexities = Contract Type (e.g., Indefinite Delivery Contract, Firm-Fixed-Price, FAR-based, Other Government Transaction, UCC), Location (on-base, off-base, geographical), Terms and Conditions (e.g., private, Federal, DoD, Army, National Guard Bureau), etc.
Performance Ratings and Confidence Assessment. The following adjectival ratings shall be given to each of the Offeror’s past performance references to rate the quality of the Offeror’s performance for that reference. The Offeror shall then receive one rating as an overall confidence assessment describing how well the Offeror is expected to perform given the Offeror’s performance history. More-recent and more-relevant past performance information shall have greater weight in the Offeror’s overall confidence assessment relative to less-recent and less-relevant information.
Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method
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.
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.
BASIS FOR AWARD
All proposals will be subjected to an initial screening for completeness and conformance with RFQ instructions before being evaluated. A proposal that is incomplete will not be considered for award.
The Government will award one firm fixed priced contract to the responsible offeror conforming to the solicitation that represents the best value considering price and other non-price factors.
The Government intends to award without discussions. Offerors shall ensure their initial proposal contains its best terms from a technical and price standpoint. However, the Contracting Officer reserves the right to hold discussions if necessary.
Note: In Accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 9.104-1: To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must:
(a) Have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them
(b) Be able to comply with the required or proposed delivery or performance schedule, taking into consideration all existing commercial and governmental business commitments;
(c) Have a satisfactory performance record.
(d) Have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics
(e) Have the necessary organization, experience, accounting and operational controls, and technical skills, or the ability to obtain them (including, as appropriate, such elements as production control procedures, property control systems, quality assurance measures, and safety programs applicable to materials to be produced or services to be performed by the prospective contractor and subcontractors).
(f) Have the necessary production, construction, and technical equipment and facilities, or the ability to obtain them; and
(g) Be otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations.
The Government reserves the right to further verify contractor responsibility and/or past performance using any sources available including, but not limited to:
• Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)
• Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)
• Supplier performance Risk System (SPRS)
• System for Award Management (SAM)
• Other Publicly Available Information
(End of Provision)
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .