Attachment 3 - Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation Criteria.docx

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2, EVALUATION-COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES

This document contains the Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services.

The Defense Health Agency intends to award a single Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract for Reference Laboratory Services. The period of performance consists of a five-year base ordering period and a five-year option that may be earned by the contractor based on performance, in accordance with DFARS 217.204(e)(i).

The Government is utilizing the new Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Overhaul for this acquisition, which can be found at: https://www.acquisition.gov/far-overhaul/far-part-deviation-guide.

A. GENERAL SOURCE SELECTION PROCEDURES:

1. Initial Evaluation: All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.202(a)(1).

2. Negotiations: The Government intends to award a contract without negotiations. Should the need for negotiations arise, the Contracting Officer will determine a competitive range (Refer to FAR 52.215-1 – Instructions to Offerors-Competitive Acquisition).

3. Competitive Range Establishment: The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract with or without conducting negotiations. If the Contracting Officer determines the need to conduct negotiations, the Contracting Officer will establish a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals.

4. Narrowing the Competitive Range for Efficiency: Pursuant to FAR 15.204-1(b), the contracting officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly evaluated proposals.

5. Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs): After negations are conducted, each offeror remaining in the competitive range will be given the opportunity to submit a Final Proposal Revision.

6. Proposal Organization and Evaluation. Each proposal Volume corresponding to an evaluation factor or sub-factor must be written as a complete and stand-alone response. The Government's evaluation of any given factor will be confined strictly to the information presented in that factor's designated section. Information provided in one section will not be considered in the evaluation of another. It is the offeror's responsibility to ensure all required information is included in the correct section of its proposal.

B. BASIS OF AWARD

A single award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, is judged to provide the best value to the United States Government based on an overall assessment of the specified evaluation criteria. This determination will be made using a best-value tradeoff process, considering the evaluation factors described below. The Government may determine that a higher-rated, higher-priced proposal offers the best value if the Contracting Officer determines that the merits of its non-price factors, individually or combined, warrant the additional cost. Conversely, the Government may award to a lower-rated, lower-priced offeror if the price advantage outweighs the benefits associated with a higher-rated proposal. To be considered for award, a proposal must meet the following minimum requirements:

1. Proposal Compliance: To be compliant and eligible for further evaluation, a proposal must comply with all requirements set forth in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 and the General Instructions, Formatting and Page Limitations, Required Structure and Content for Volumes I through V. Proposals that fail to meet these initial requirements may be determined not to be compliant and rejected without further consideration.

2. Receive a rating of "Acceptable" or higher for the Technical Factor (Factor 1), which requires an "Acceptable" rating in all technical sub-factors.

3. Receive a rating of "Satisfactory Confidence" or higher for the Performance Risk Factor (Factor 2). A rating of "Neutral Confidence" will be considered for award and will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably.

4. Be determined to have a fair, reasonable, and balanced price under the Price Factor (Factor 3).

5. Receive a rating of "Acceptable" for the Small Business Subcontracting Participation Factor (Factor 4).

6. Be determined to be a responsible contractor: The contractor shall demonstrate responsibility in accordance with FAR 9.104-1 and 3: To be considered for award, the Contracting Officer must find the offeror to be a responsible contractor or not responsible. The Contracting Officer will base this determination primarily on the representations and certifications in SAM.gov, supplemented by other readily available government information. In accordance with FAR 9.104-5, the Contracting Officer reserves the right to request additional information to complete the responsibility determination. The prospective prime contractors are responsible for determining the responsibility of their prospective subcontractors as required by 9.104-4 - Subcontractor responsibility. The Government's determination that a proposed subcontractor is non-responsible may result in a corresponding determination of non-responsibility for the offeror.

C. FACTORS AND RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

1. The Government will evaluate proposals based on the following four factors, which are listed in descending order of importance.

a. Factor 1: Technical

(1) Sub-factor 1A: Technical Approach

(2) Sub-factor 1B: Transition Approach and Laboratory Information System (LIS) Interface

(3) Sub-factor 1C: Quality Control/Assurance Approach

b. Factor 2: Performance Risk (Past and Present Performance)

c. Factor 3: Price

d. Factor 4: Small Business Subcontracting Participation

2. All non-price factors (Technical, Performance Risk and Small Business Subcontracting Participation), when combined are significantly more important than the Price factor. Within the Technical Factor, all sub-factors (1A, 1B, and 1C) are of equal importance.

D. VOLUME I - BUSINESS PROPOSAL

The Government will evaluate Volume I for compliance with the solicitation's requirements and instructions in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1- paragraph E. To be considered compliant, the offeror’s submission must adhere to all content and submission requirements for the following components:

1. Cover Letter

2. Table of Contents

3. Administrative Contact Data

4. Solicitation Forms and Amendments

5. Representations and Certifications

6. Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms (if required)

E. VOLUME II – FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

1. Technical (Factor 1). The technical evaluation will assess the offeror's comprehensive capability to perform the work, covering the technical approach, transition and systems integration, and quality assurance.

a. Compliance Check: The Government will first conduct a compliance review of Volume I to ensure strict adherence to the core content, structure and formatting, and page limitation requirements outlined in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraphs F.1 through F.4. Any offeror who fails to follow the requirements specified in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 may have their proposal removed from further consideration and may be found ineligible for award.

b. Evaluation Process and Criteria: The Government will evaluate your proposal as follows:

(1). Technical Evaluation: The Government will then evaluate your approach and understanding of the PWS requirements. The proposal will be assigned a single adjectival rating ("Acceptable" or "Unacceptable") based on an integrated assessment of three equally important sub-factors.

(2). Achieving "Acceptable": To be rated "Acceptable," your proposal must demonstrate a thorough understanding of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) with a detailed approach to meeting all requirements.

(3). Basis for "Unacceptable": A rating of "Unacceptable" in any single sub-factor will result in an overall rating of "Unacceptable" for the entire Technical Factor.

2. Evaluation Ratings: The Government will evaluate proposals using the following ratings:

3. Subfactor 1A Technical Approach: To receive an "Acceptable" rating, the proposal must provide a narrative and all required documentation demonstrating the offeror's understanding of the PWS and its approach to meeting all requirements.

4. Subfactor 1B Transition and Laboratory Information Systems (LIS) and Interface Approach. To receive an "Acceptable" rating, the proposal must describe a credible and thorough approach to both contract transition and LIS deployment and meet cybersecurity verification requirements.

5. Subfactor 1C Quality Control/Assurance Approach: To receive an "Acceptable" rating, the proposal must describe a comprehensive quality control program and procedures for monitoring performance in relation to the Performance Requirements Summary (PRS).

F. VOLUME III - FACTOR 2: PERFORMANCE RISK (PAST AND PRESENT PERFORMANCE)

1. General Information:

a. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s past performance to assess its level of confidence in the offeror's ability to successfully perform the requirements of this solicitation. The evaluation will be based on a three-step process: first assessing Recency, then Relevancy, and finally Quality of performance for a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) contract references.

b. Offerors that do not submit any past performance references, or whose references do not meet the recency criteria, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating in accordance with FAR 15.202(c)(1) and will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably.

2. Recency and Relevancy Evaluation The Government will first evaluate each submitted contract reference for recency. To be recent, some portion of the performance effort must have occurred within the last three years. For all recent references, the Government will then assess their relevancy using the definitions in Table 1. This assessment will be based on information in the Past Performance Summary Sheets (Exhibit D) and from other sources (e.g., CPARS, submitted PPQs (Exhibit E)).

(Table 1) Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

3. Performance Confidence Assessment

a. For all references deemed recent and relevant or higher, the Government will conduct a quality assessment to determine an overall performance confidence rating.

b. This holistic evaluation will weigh the quality of an offeror’s performance against the relevancy of that work. This allows the Government to consider a history of exceptional performance on a contract of lesser relevance as potentially more advantageous than a record of satisfactory performance on a highly relevant contract. The quality assessment will consider information from all sources, including the Lab Performance Documentation submitted by the offeror regarding lab volumes and TATs.

c. The final assessment will result in a single rating as defined in Table 2.

(Table 2) Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

d. The Government will conduct a performance risk assessment using a tradeoff process to determine the overall confidence in an offeror's ability to successfully perform the required effort. While more relevant past performance is generally a stronger predictor of future success and will have more influence on the final assessment, the evaluation will weigh the quality of an offeror’s performance on recent contracts against the relevancy of that work. This allows the Government to consider a history of exceptional performance on a contract of lesser relevance as potentially more advantageous than a record of satisfactory performance on a highly relevant contract. This holistic evaluation of the offeror’s past performance, obtained from the proposal and other sources, will result in a single performance confidence rating ("Substantial Confidence," "Satisfactory Confidence," "Limited Confidence," "No Confidence," or "Neutral Confidence").

e. The USG reserves the right to downgrade the performance confidence assessment of any Offeror based on lack of relevant performance information. Offeror’s may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past or present performance effort that is rated less than satisfactory overall or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

f. In addition to the completion of Exhibit D, Past Performance Summary Sheet, the offeror shall provide documentation that corroborates the offeror’s primary lab, and all subcontractor/teaming partner labs can meet/have met the volumes and turn-around times within their established turn-around times. This documentation will be considered as an indicator of performance quality and will be factored into the overall performance confidence assessment.

g. The Government reserves the right to ask offerors to clarify certain aspects of their proposal or respond to adverse past performance information.

G. VOLUME IV - FACTOR 3: PRICE PROPOSAL

1. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed price for reasonableness and balance. A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

2. The Government will also evaluate pricing for balance to determine if prices are excessively front-loaded or if prices for certain items are disproportionately high or low. Unbalanced pricing may be the basis for finding a proposal unacceptable.

3. For evaluation purposes, the Government will calculate a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) by adding the offeror's proposed prices for the entire ten-year period that includes a five-year base order period and a five-year option ordering period across the following CLINs:

a. CLIN 0001: Transition Approach

b. CLIN 0002: Clinical Reference Laboratory Testing Services

c. CLIN 0003: Transportation Charges for Unscheduled/STAT

d. CLIN 0004 (Post Award Conference) is a pre-priced, Not-To-Exceed item.

4. The Government will also evaluate the Price Narrative to ensure the offeror’s pricing reflects a clear understanding of the PWS requirements. While price is the least important evaluation factor, the TEP will be a contributing consideration in the Government's final best-value tradeoff decision. See Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph C “Basis of Award” for further clarification regarding the importance of price.

H. VOLUME V - FACTOR 4: SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PARTICIPATION PROPOSAL

No Page Limitations

As a prerequisite for award for other-than-small businesses, the Government will assess the submitted Small Business Subcontracting Plan for acceptability. This assessment is separate from the evaluation of the Small Business Participation Commitment Document.

The offeror’s Small Business Participation Commitment Document will be evaluated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis. The Small Business Participation Commitment Document must demonstrate a comprehensive, realistic, and sound commitment to meeting the Government's socioeconomic objectives for this acquisition. To be rated Acceptable, the Small Business Participation Commitment Document must meet all the minimum requirements outlined below. A proposal that fails to meet any of these minimum requirements will be rated Unacceptable and will be ineligible for award.

1. Standard for Quantitative Participation (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

To be rated Acceptable, the offeror’s proposal must meet or exceed the Government's stated goals for Total Small Business participation and for each individual socioeconomic subcategory listed below.

The Government’s small business goals for this acquisition are:

a. Total Small Business: 30%

b. Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB): 5%.

c. Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB): 5%

d. HUBZone Small Business: 3%

e. Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB): 3%

A document that fails to meet all of the goals above will be rated Unacceptable.

2. Standard for Qualitative Commitment (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

To be rated Acceptable, the offeror’s document must provide a complete and credible demonstration of its commitment to the proposed participation levels. This requires meeting all of the following standards for completeness and credibility:

a. Completeness of Information: The document must be complete and contain all information required by Parts 1 through 5 of the instructions at Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. This includes:

(1) Part 1: Prime Offeror Identification.

(2) Part 2: A Summary of Participation with all percentages and dollar values calculated.

(3) Part 3: A complete Team Identification table for the prime and all proposed subcontractors.

(4) Part 4: A Commitment Narrative with supporting documentation.

(5) Part 5: Past Performance in Small Business Utilization.

b. Credibility of Commitment: The Commitment Narrative (Part 4) and its supporting documentation must provide a credible basis for the Government to determine that the proposed participation is realistic. At a minimum, the narrative must describe the nature of commitments for proposed small business subcontractors. The credibility of these commitments will be assessed based on the documentation provided (e.g., binding letters of commitment, teaming agreements). Documents that rely solely on verbal agreements or plans lacking formal documentation may be determined to lack a credible commitment and be rated Unacceptable.

c. Credibility of Past Performance: The Past Performance submission (Part 5) must be complete and relevant. The Government will review this information to verify a history of compliance with small business utilization requirements. A document may be rated Unacceptable if the offeror’s past performance demonstrates a lack of commitment or a history of failure to meet subcontracting plan goals on similar contracts, which would call into question the credibility of the current document.

(End of Addendum)