Attachment 2 - FAR 52.212-2 Addendum I.pdf

FAR 52.212-2 Addendum I - Evaluation Factors for Award

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FAR 52.212‐2 Addendum I

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR

AWARD GROUNDS

MAINTENANCE CONTRACT

SOURCE SELECTION

1. Basis for Contract Award

1.1. This is a commercial source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items and as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS). The Government will select the proposal with the lowest evaluated price in accordance with the evaluation methodology described in paragraph 2.2. A contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR Part 9.1 whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by FAR 52.212-1 Addendum I – Instruction to Offers [ITO] of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and sub-factors, to represent the proposal that is the lowest price technically acceptable.

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded – The Government intends to select one contractor for the

Grounds Maintenance Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines it is in the Government’s best interest. If the Government determines to not award a contract, the Government is not liable for costs in connection with any response to this RFP.

1.3. It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions; therefore, it is imperative that

Offerors submit their best terms initially. However, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions if it determines that doing so would be in its best interest. Discussions, if held, will take place in accordance with (FAR) 15 as appropriate. Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

EVALUATION

CRITERIA

2 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS

2.1. The Government will evaluate, for acceptability, the factors and sub-factors below:

• Volume I – Price

• Volume II – Technical Acceptability (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

Sub-Factor One – Management Approach Sub-Factor Two – Manpower Plan Sub-Factor Three – Quality Control Plan

• Volume III – Contract Documentation

2.1.1. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are approximately equal to cost or price.

2.2. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY –

2.2.1. A price evaluation will be performed on all proposals in accordance with Section 3 and proposals will be ranked from lowest to highest price based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). If a TEP for an Offeror cannot be calculated due to the omission or error of the Offeror, the Government may set aside the Offeror’s proposal and proceed to other Offerors’ proposals.

2.2.2. Next, a technical evaluation will be performed beginning with that of the lowest priced Offeror.

A minimum of three lowest priced offers will be evaluated, unless fewer than three offers are received. Evaluations will cease when no more than three proposals receive an acceptable rating for Technical Acceptability.

2.2.3. Award will be made to the lowest evaluated priced proposal meeting the pricing criteria and the acceptability standards for the non-price factors.

2.2.3.1. If a sufficient number of Offeror(s), as determined by the Government, are not technically acceptable, then evaluations may continue and the SSA may:

2.2.3.1.1. Establish a competitive range and enter into discussions. The Contracting Officer may determine the number of most highly rated proposals exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted. The competitive range may be limited for purposes of efficiency.

2.2.4. Under the scenarios described above, it is possible that higher priced offers will not be evaluated for technical acceptability. It is also possible that higher priced offers may receive an award if lower priced offers are not technically acceptable.

2.2.5. Technical evaluation of an Offeror does not ensure inclusion in a competitive range, if one is established.

3 VOLUME I – PRICE

3.1. The pricing criteria used for evaluation are (1) Completeness, (2) Reasonableness, (3) Balance, and

(4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

3.2. Completeness – The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness.

Incomplete price submissions may not be evaluated, and the proposal may be eliminated from the competition.

3.3. Reasonableness – The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained, or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using analysis of the provided information, additional information IAW FAR 15.4 may be required to support the proposed price.

3.4. Balanced Pricing - Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more price elements are significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR 15.404-1. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether there is unbalanced pricing within the offers. IAW FAR 15.404-1, offers determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3.5. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) – The TEP will be a sum of all the CLINs and respective ordering periods. The rates proposed by the Offeror receiving the award will be contractually binding.

4 VOLUME II - TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY –

4.1. Technical tradeoffs will not be made, and no additional credit will be given for exceeding requirements. The proposals must demonstrate a thorough understanding of the requirements as listed and offer complete technical solutions to the Performance Work Statement (PWS) sections required in FAR 52.212-1 Addendum I – Instruction to Offerors (ITO). The proposals will be evaluated for acceptability IAW the criteria set forth in this section. The technical proposal must convey to the Government that the Offeror possesses adequate technical expertise, sufficient resources, and is able to plan, organize, and use those resources in a coordinated and timely fashion to meet the needs of the Government. The Government may make a final determination as to the Offeror’s capability to perform based on the proposal as submitted without requesting further information from the Offeror. The Offeror’s proposal shall not merely copy and paste, rephrase, or restate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

4.2. Technical Acceptability - The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals by assigning ratings of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. The technical factor as a whole will be rated “Unacceptable” if any single sub-factor is rated “Unacceptable.”

Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The Offeror is reminded that the Government intends to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions. However, the Government may hold discussions if necessary.

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

4.3. SUB-FACTOR ONE – MANGEMENT APPROACH

4.3.1. Management Plan

The Management Plan is Technically Acceptable when the Offeror’s proposal includes a Management Plan with the level of detail that demonstrates an understanding of accomplishing the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The Management Plan shall address all the requirements in accordance with the following Paragraphs and Appendices A, B, F, and G of the PWS:

A. Maintain Improved Grounds – (Paragraphs 1.1.1, [excluding 1.1.1.1]; 1.1.2; 1.1.3; 1.1.4;

1.1.5, [excluding 1.1.5.4 and 1.1.5.5]; 1.1.6; 1.1.7, 1.1.8.1; 1.1.11) B. Semi-Improved Grounds – (Paragraphs 1.2.1; 1.2.1.1; 1.2.2, [excluding 1.2.2.1 and

1.2.2.2])

C. Maintain Bird Area Strike Hazard (BASH) – (Paragraph 1.3.1) D. Maintain Vegetative Beds, Insert Beds, Rock Beds, and Related Areas – (Paragraphs

1.5.1 and 1.5.2) E. Perform Snow and Ice Removal – (Paragraphs 1.7.1 [excluding 1.7.1.1 and 1.7.1.2] and

1.7.2) F. Tree and Stump Removal – (Paragraph 1.8.1.4)

4.3.2. Schedule

The Offeror’s one-month sample Schedule is Technically Acceptable when the Schedule addresses all the items in accordance with the following Paragraphs and Appendices A, B and F of the PWS broken down by days of the week and the areas to be maintained during a typical growing season (April 1 – Oct 31 IAW PWS para 1).

A. Maintain Improved Grounds – (Paragraphs 1.1.1, excluding 1.1.1.1; 1.1.2; 1.1.3; and 1.1.4; 1.1.6)

B. Semi Improved Grounds – (Paragraphs 1.2.1; 1.2.1.1; 1.2.2, excluding 1.2.2.1 and 1.2.2.2)

C. Maintain Bird Area Strike Hazard (BASH) – (Paragraph 1.3.1)

4.3.3. Equipment List

The Offeror’s Equipment List is Technically Acceptable when the Equipment List is consistent with the Management Plan and addresses all the items in PWS Appendices A, B, F, and G; to include the quantity and type of equipment, and how that equipment will be maintained. The quantity and type of proposed equipment will be evaluated to determine if it can adequately support, and satisfactorily meet, performance levels and work requirements set forth by the

PWS.

4.4. SUB-FACTOR TWO - MANPOWER PLAN

The Offeror’s Manpower Plan is Technically Acceptable when the plan is consistent with the Management Plan and Equipment List; and includes:

A. Key Personnel; and a description of personnel qualifications and certification processes IAW PWS Paragraphs 1.1.4, 1.1.8.1, 4.5, 4.10.1, and 4.10.2

B. Detailed description of types and quantities of labor categories C. Recruitment and Hiring Processes D. Retaining qualified personnel E. Training Plan F. Employee Turnover Plan G. Seasonal Downsizing Procedures

4.5. SUB-FACTOR THREE – QUALITY CONTROL PLAN

The Offeror’s Quality Control Plan is Technically Acceptable when the plan is in accordance with the PWS Para 2.1 and addresses how the Offeror intends to maintain quality workmanship consistent with the Manpower Plan by identifying and resolving deficiencies and implementing continuous process improvements.

5 VOLUME III – CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

5.1. This volume will be reviewed for completeness and that the proposal included a signed copy of the Model Contract Standard Form (SF) 1449, Sections A through K, signed amendments to the solicitation (if any), and all other information required by FAR 52.212-1 Addendum I, paragraph 7 “Contract Documentation”. An incomplete package may be excluded from the competitive range and/or award.

5.2. The proposal included documentation of adequate financial resources such as a commitment or explicit arrangement that will be in existence at the time of contract award, to acquire the needed materials, equipment, personnel, and other resources necessary to sustain operations.

5.3. The proposal contained evidence that the Offeror will be able to comply with the limitations on subcontracting IAW FAR 52.219-14.

6 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements as detailed in the PWS, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award.