Attachment 3 - 52.212-2 Addendum to Evaluation Factors.pdf

Attachment 3

FA8601-21-R-0014

22 January 2021

A DDENDUM 52.212-2 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. PURPOSE

a. The Government will use FAR Part 12 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.

b. During the course of any IDIQ contract resulting from this solicitation, the Government reserves the right to increase the overall IDIQ ceiling in the event the Government need changes and as a result, the IDIQ ceiling spend rate is too high for the given ordering period.

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 Statement of Work (SOW) 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 SOW and this entire solicitation.

22 January 2021

(2) Understanding of the requirements of the SOW and this entire solicitation.

22 January 2021

(3) Compliance and understanding of the requirements of the SOW 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: Quality Control Plan (SOW Para. 3.6)

i. Description: This element will evaluate the offeror’s approach for ensuring performance will be in accordance with (IAW) the standards in the SOW throughout the life of the contract.

ii. Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror provides a detailed QCP that is likely to ensure that performance will be in accordance with (IAW) the standards in the SOW throughout the life of the contract to include:

1. Identification of personnel responsible for quality control;

2. A description of the offeror’s inspection system with types and frequencies of inspection to be conducted and personnel responsible for conducting inspections;

3. A system for preventing the occurrence of deficiencies; and

4. A description of how inspections will be documented with sample inspection records for each type of inspection to be conducted.

(2) SUBFACTOR 2: Scheduling/Staffing Methodologies (SOW Para. 3.1, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8, Appendix G Para. 1.19.1-1.19.3)

i. Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide a workable schedule that demonstrates an understanding of all of the requirements identified in the SOW, as well as the scope of the work required, including an appropriate staffing plan in relation to the contractual requirements and the deliverable end items.

This element will evaluate the offeror’s approach, reflecting different and geographically separated buildings; the maximum amount of delivery orders, and any required re-performance.

ii. Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror provides a work schedule that ensures timely performance within the allotted time frames and required work hours, with a sufficient number of employees to meet all requirements outlined in the SOW.

22 January 2021

(3) SUBFACTOR 3: Equipment and Supplies (includes but not limited to SOW Para.

1.18)

i. Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide a detailed list of all equipment and supplies necessary to fulfill contract requirements listed in the SOW.

ii. Measure of Merit: The measure of merit is met when the offeror submits a proposal that includes a complete list of the size, number, and type of equipment and supplies that demonstrate an adequate understanding of the scope and size of service required in the SOW.

(4) SUBFACTOR 4: Storage and Supply Chain Management (SOW Para. 3.5 and 3.5.1

– 3.5.3)

i. Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s ability to receive, warehouse, cut, package, and label flooring in order to facilitate Just-in-Time delivery, as required in the SOW.

ii. Measure of Merit: The measure of merit is met when the offeror submits a proposal that demonstrates the ability and offeror’s methodology for receipt, warehousing, cutting, packaging, and labeling flooring in order to facilitate Justin-Time delivery, as required in the SOW.

(5) SUBFACTOR 5: Mandatory Carpet Ordering Requirements (SOW Para. 1.10.2 and Attachment 5 – USAF Carpet Program Ordering Guide)

i. Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the Mandatory Carpet Ordering Requirements mandated by the United States Air Force, as required by the SOW and the Carpet Ordering Guide attachment.

ii. Measure of Merit: This measure of merit is met when the offeror submits a proposal that demonstrates an understanding of the Mandatory Carpet Ordering Requirements, explaining how the offeror will ensure adequate carpet ordering for Just-in-Time delivery and how the offeror will ensure it has adequate carpet to perform all of the SOW requirements.

(6) SUBFACTOR 6: Flooring and Carpet Samples (SOW Para. 1.8.1-1.8.5, 1.10.3, 1.11, 1.12, 1.16-1.17 and Appendices C-E)

i. Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide flooring samples for all flooring that may be required by the requirements outlined in the SOW. The samples may be sent in electronic format, such as electronic booklets, brochures, or catalogues that demonstrate the contractor’s flooring product options.

ii. Measure of Merit: This measure of merit is met when the offeror provides an electronic sample of all of the different SOW flooring requirements, such as but not limited to sheet vinyl, vinyl composition tile, luxury vinyl tile, rubber flooring, carpet (necessary for when the AFICC mandatory ordering requirements receive a waiver), porcelain tile, ceramic/porcelain flooring, and bases.

(7) SUBFACTOR 7: Response Times (SOW Paragraph 3.1, Appendix G Para.

1.19.11.19.3)

i. Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s ability and plan that ensure it is able to timely meet the response times required by the SOW.

ii. Measure of Merit: This measure of merit is met when the offeror demonstrates an understanding of the response requirements in the SOW and when the offeror provides a plan describing how it will meet these response requirements.

(8) SUBFACTOR 8: Asbestos Removal (SOW Para. 1.1, 1.2, 1.5.1, 1.19, Appendix A)

i. Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of and ability to meet all of the requirements concerning asbestos removal, handling, and disposal of Asbestos Containing Material.

ii. Measure of Merit: The measure of merit is met when the offeror adequately demonstrates an understanding of all of the applicable publications pertaining to asbestos work; offers evidence of employees or subcontractors with all appropriate qualifications, licenses, and certifications; and demonstrates an understanding and adequate description for the offeror’s plan to meet all of the requirements pertaining to asbestos work.

(9) SUBFACTOR 9: Prior Experience

i. 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 flooring contract that either began or ended within the last five years. Provide at least 3 contracts/jobs your relevant experience as it relates to:

1. Performing flooring requirements

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

a. Company/Division Name

b. Program Title

c. Contracting Agency

d. Contract Number

e. Type of Contract (e.g. Fixed Price)

f. Dates Performed

g. Contract Value (including any exercised option years)

h. Square footage of the flooring contract

ii. Measure of Merit: This subfactor is met when the offeror provides acceptable prior experience IAW the description above, and includes (in at least one of their three references) an effort that is similar in scope and complexity.

e. The above specified technical factors/subfactors will be evaluated in the Technical Capability

Proposal. A ny 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) 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) 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.

(3) Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The Government will add the total price for all years 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 year of the requirement, as seen in the Attachment #4 to the solicitation, Bid Sheet.

ii. The offeror shall propose all prices rounded to the one hundredth (example:

$10.49)

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 Notional Proposed

Price (Example)

Base 12 Months $100,000

Year I 12 Months $103,000

Year II 12 Months $106,000

Year III 12 Months $109,000

Year IV 12 Months $112,000 Total 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. The Government reserves the right to both award with discussions or without discussion, at the sole discretion of the Government.

d. 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.

e. 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.

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.