Attachment 2 - FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation Factors.pdf

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors listed in their relative order of importance, shall be used to evaluate offers:

(i) Past Performance

(ii) Technical Capability

(iii) Price

Past Performance and Technical Capability, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price..

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) 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.

ADDENDUM to 52.212-2 EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JAN 1999)

(a) Source Selection Using the Trade-Off Process. An evaluation for acceptability will be performed on each proposal in accordance with FAR 15.101-1(b)(1-3). The proposal that provides an acceptable past performance, is technically acceptable in all factors at the lowest price will be selected for award. To be considered technically acceptable, no technical factor in the proposal may be determined to be unacceptable. The failure of a proposal to meet any of the factors will result in a technically unacceptable rating and preclude award. Award will be made on the basis of the best perceived benefits that merit the additional cost when considering past performance, technical acceptability, and price. Tradeoffs are permitted. Proposals are evaluated for acceptability and ranked using non-cost/price factors. This award selection will be conducted using the Trade-Off procedures (as specified herein) from the policies and procedures contained in FAR 15.101-1.

1. Trade-Off process: A trade off process is appropriate when it may be in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest-priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror.

a. Government will eliminate non-compliant offers.

b. Government will eliminate all offers that did not provide the items by the delivery dated outlined in the Description of Supplies.

c. The Government will review past performance as a measurement of degree to which an Offeror, as an organization, has in the past 3 years satisfied its customers, and efficiently and effectively managed their contracts, on projects of similar scope and magnitude. Past performance history shall be used in determining an Offeror’s rating.

d. Award will be made to the most acceptable offer determined to be reasonable and responsible which permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal. The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal shall merit the additional cost.

e. The Government reserves the right to refrain from awarding to any contractor in the event that all Offerors progressing beyond the technically acceptable evaluation are determined to have offered pricing that is not considered realistic, reasonable, or complete. The award shall be based on what the Government determines to be the best trade-off between cost or price factors and non-cost or price factors. To arrive at an award decision, the Contracting Officer (KO) will integrate the Technical Evaluation Team (TEB) results based on the factors described in the paragraphs that follow. To be eligible for award, a proposal must meet all technical, eligibility and past performance requirements, conform to all required terms and conditions, and follow submission instructions in FAR 52.212-1, and its addendum.

1. FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE - Past performance is a measure of the degree to which an Offeror, as an organization, has in the past 3 years satisfied its customers, and efficiently and effectively managed their contracts, on projects of similar scope and magnitude. Past performance history shall be used to gauge the level of risk. An Offeror’s past performance will be assessed as very relevant, relevant, somewhat relevant, or not relevant. Very relevant shall mean that present or past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities that this solicitation requires. Relevant shall mean that present or past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Somewhat relevant shall mean that present or past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Not relevant shall mean that present or past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. The results may be utilized to determine the Offeror’s rating on past projects with Government or other customers. Offeror’s with no relevant performance history or for whom information on past performance is not available will receive a neutral rating. A neutral rating will be evaluated as a “pass” for the purposes of determining technical acceptability. In the investigation of an Offeror’s past performance, the Government has the right to contact former customers, government agencies, and other private and public sources of information. Offerors must either provide the below information or affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant, directly related, or similar past performance. In addition the vendor shall send past performance questionnaires to three relevant customers.

a. The Offeror shall provide up to three (3) relevant projects or contracts that include all of the following information:

i. Government Agency/Company who awarded the contract

ii. Contract Number

iii. Description of Services

iv. Contract Value

v. Period of Performance

vi. Place of Performance

vii. Contract Type

viii. Current POC with current email address and phone number

b. Failure to submit all of the above information will render the Offeror non-compliant and ineligible for award.

c. STANDARD:

Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same 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.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the 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.

2. FACTOR 2 - TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

a. The Technical Factor Ratings, excerpted below focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical sub-factor requirements.

b. If a contractor’s technical proposal is determined to be unacceptable, the Offeror will be excluded from further consideration and will not be considered for award.

c. The TEB will rate the technical quotations according to the chart listed below for all of the sub-factors:

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

d. The Standard is at least marginal when: Technical factor includes a depictive package which contains, as a minimum, the following details:

i. Sub-Factor 1 – Delivery Timeframe – Delivery timeframe to include installation is no more than 45 Days ARO.

Long lead time due to COVID-19 may be considered by the Government, but it must be proven through documentation from the manufacturer. A pdf of an email or letter from the manufacturer will meet this sub-factor.

ii. Sub-Factor 2 – Product Specifications – The product provided by the contractor meets the specifications within the Description of Supplies document.

iii. Sub-Factor 3 – Experience & Capability - To be considered adequate, the Experience and Capability sub-factor must address the full spectrum of activities involved in the management of a resulting contract in a manner that gives the Government confidence that the offeror understands all of the requirements. An adequate quote will

Color Rating Description Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low. Blue

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Green Acceptable

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is unawardable. Red Unacceptable include the information necessary to give the Government confidence of the offeror’s ability to successfully perform complete installation requirements.

iv. Sub-Factor 4 – Installation Schedule: The Schedule itself is not subject to page limits. The offeror shall show a complete installation schedule considering a start date of 1 September 2020. The schedule should demonstrate an offeror’s understanding of the requirements. The schedule should identify installation events, accomplishment, and criteria and the expected dates of each. These dates are based on the calendar dates provided as the starting point and the logical flow of dates provided by calculating the addition of duration of all tasks using typical schedule networking tools. Each major task will be directly traceable to the requirements of the project. The start date for the schedule is for the purpose of evaluation only.

e. Offerors are hereby notified that their proposals MUST satisfy ALL of the above listed technical evaluation elements and associated standards of acceptability. Failure to satisfy any one, or combination of, or all of the above listed elements and standards may render the entire Technical Capabilities quotation as “Unacceptable”.

3. FACTOR 3 – PRICING

a. Offerors shall provide PRICING Factor requirements in accordance with specifications detailed in FAR 52.212-1 (Instructions to Offerors-Commercial) in this solicitation.

b. Price will be ranked from lowest to highest and evaluated to determine if it is complete, fair and reasonable. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the prices are significantly unbalanced. The prices will be analyzed to determine whether they are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the information provided by the Offeror. The Offeror may be required to confirm its price on a CLIN, element, or total price basis, and/or provide additional information in support of their price, prior to contract award at the Government’s request and discretion.

c. Failure to comply with all pricing factors in accordance with specifications detailed in FAR 52.212-1 (Instructions to Offerors-Commercial) in this solicitation may render the Offeror ineligible for award.

(End of provision)