Attachment 2 - Evaluation Factors FA860123R0029.pdf

Attachment 2

FA8601-24-R-0007

31 October 2023

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:

(1) SUBFACTOR 1: Background, Program Objectives and Description of Work (PWS

Paragraphs 1.0. and 2.0)

i. Description: This element 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.

ii. Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror provides a detailed

Quality Control Plan that is likely to ensure that performance will be in accordance with (IAW) the standards in the PWS throughout the life of the contract.

(2) SUBFACTOR 2: Objectives (PWS Paragraph 3.0)

i. Description: The objective of this work is to remove accumulated pond water impacted by PFOS/PFOA when requested by the Technical POC to prevent any overflow of water beyond the pond’s containment capacity.

The Contractor shall dispose of the pond water off-site to prevent unauthorized discharges to the Waters of the United States. The

Contractor shall dispose the water in accordance with all applicable water quality regulations and accepted industry standards. Contractor will provide lab analysis to confirm PFOS/PFOA levels in the water meets acceptable levels for offsite disposal per disposal facility requirements and

WPAFB Hazardous Waste Program Manager Requirements.

ii. Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror provides a detailed description of the work, processes and treatment method for offsite treatment and disposal.

(3) SUBFACTOR 3: Deliverables (PWS Paragraphs 4.3)

i. Description: The Contractor shall furnish documentation and lab analysis results of the work performed.

1. Measure of Merit: This subfactor is met when the contractor provides a redacted copy of report from a previous job performing the same work.

(4) SUBFACTOR 4: Prior Experience

Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s prior experience, based on prior experience, relevancy, and size. (Prior experience, for the purpose of this evaluation, is considered to be a custodial contract that either began or ended within the last five years).

Provide at least 3 contracts/jobs your relevant experience as it relates to:

PFOS/PFOA treatment and disposal service

For each relevant contract provided, please provide the following administrative data:

Company/Division Name

Program Title

Contracting Agency

Contract Number

Type of Contract (Fixed Price)

Dates Performed

Contract Value (including any exercised option years)

Measure of Merit: This subfactor is met when the offeror provides acceptable prior experience IAW the description above.

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 BPA Items for the same or similar services and/or supplies in the same or similar quantities and with respect to year to year pricing. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer (CO) determines that the year to year 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 years on the BPA price list 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 each

BPA Item for each year of the BPA; and

ii. 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)

Year 1 12 Months 0001-0004 $100,000

Year 2 12 Months 1001-1004 $103,000

Year 3 12 Months 2001-2004 $106,000

Year 4 12 Months 3001-3004 $109,000

Year 5 12 Months 4001-4004 $112,000

Total Evaluated Price $530,000

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.