Attachment 3. Addendum to 52.212-2 Propane IDIQ.pdf

FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2 EVALUATION –COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL

SERVICES

THIS SECTION IS FOR SOLICITATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS SECTION WILL BE PHYSICALLY

REMOVED FROM ANY RESULTANT AWARD BUT WILL BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY

REFERENCE. THIS ADDENDA SUPPLEMENTS FAR 52.212-2.

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

A. Basis for Contract Award.

1. This is a Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items, competitive best value acquisition conducted in accordance with FAR 13.5, Simplified Procedures for Certain Commercial Products and Commercial Services, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS).

The Government will award a single-award Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) with Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation represents the best value to the Government, price and other factors considered. To be considered for award, the offeror must conform to the evaluation criteria described herein, conform to all Request for Quotation (RFQ) requirements, and other information required in accordance (IAW) with Instructions to Offerors, and the offeror must be deemed responsible IAW FAR Part 9.104-1.

2. By submission of its offer, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors.

3. The Government will conduct a price evaluation of all quotations submitted. Total evaluated price (TEP) will include the Base and all Option CLINs and be determined by multiplying the quantities identified by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line-Item Number (CLIN) and then totaling all CLINs.

4. The Contracting Officer (CO) has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the CO will review this determination and if, in the CO's opinion, adequate price competition exists, no additional cost information will be requested. However, if at any time during this solicitation process, the CO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, Offerors may be required to submit data other than certified cost or pricing data to the extent necessary for the CO to determine the reasonableness of the price.

5. Assumptions, conditions, or exceptions within the Offeror’s quotation shall be reviewed for potential impact on the Offeror’s ability to successfully meet the Government’s requirements. Any assumptions, conditions, or exceptions, which may negatively impact performance of this requirement, could render the quotation ineligible for award.

B. Interchanges.

The Government may hold interchanges with offerors. The formal restrictions for Communications, Clarifications, or Discussions do not apply to this FAR Part 13 acquisition. Interchanges allow for informal interaction between the CO and the offerors that may address any aspect of the quotation. It is the Government's intent to award without interchanges with offerors. Interchanges may be necessary pertaining to technical or price, or deal with contract documentation including any other matter in the evaluation process. Offerors are encouraged to present their best technical solution and prices in their initial quotation submission. However, should interchanges be necessary, the Government reserves the right to conduct them with one, some, or all the offerors at its discretion. If the Government awards without interchanges, the Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of quotations or to resolve minor clerical errors. The Government may reject any or all offers if such action is in the public interest.

C. Evaluation Criteria The Government will select the offer representing the best value to the Government, based upon an assessment of Technical, Past Performance, and Price. For this requirement, a single FFP with EPA IDIQ contract shall be made to the responsible contractor, who is registered and has current reps and certs in SAM.gov, is not listed on the SAM excluded list, and whose quotation complies with the terms and conditions of the RFQ, is deemed technically acceptable, and is considered to be the best value based upon a past performance/price trade-off. The Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest priced quotation or the highest rated past performance.

Relative Importance of Factors and Sub-Factors.

The Government will utilize competitive Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) selection methodology where Past Performance is approximately equal to Price and significantly more important than Technical. Only those Offerors with an "Acceptable" technical rating will then be evaluated on Past Performance and Price and will be considered for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

The quotations will be evaluated based on the following three (3) evaluation factors.

a. Factor 1: Technical

• Sub-Factor 1: Technical Acceptability

b. Factor 2: Past Performance

c. Factor 3: Price

Failure to meet a factor or sub-factor will result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable.

Factor 1 – Technical The Government will first evaluate each quotation for Technical Acceptability to determine whether the Offeror meets the minimum requirements of the PWS. Any quotation determined to be Technically Unacceptable will be ineligible for award and will not be evaluated further under any remaining evaluation factors including Past Performance and Price. Only those quotations determined to be Technically Acceptable will proceed to evaluation under the remaining factors. The Government reserves the right to eliminate quotations from further consideration at any point during the evaluation process when the quotation is determined to be Technically Unacceptable.

Factor 1 - Technical Acceptability

Evaluation Method: To be considered Acceptable, the quotation must clearly demonstrate the Offeror's ability to meet all minimum requirements outlined below. Failure to meet any requirement will result in an Unacceptable rating and will not be evaluated further under any remaining evaluation factors. Offerors shall submit a brief technical narrative, not to exceed 10 pages, confirming compliance with the PWS. At a minimum, the technical narrative shall:

a) Demonstrates the ability to perform propane delivery services IAW PWS para. 3.2.

b) Demonstrates the ability to perform preventative and on-call maintenance IAW PWS para. 3.3.

c) Demonstrates the proposed staffing meets certification and safety requirements IAW PWS para.

3.3.2.3.

d) Demonstrates the ability to meet response times and reporting requirements IAW PWS para. 3.3.2.4.

Technical Acceptability Rating: The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical quotations on a pass/fail basis, assigning a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable, using the rating descriptions shown below:

Rating Description Acceptable Quotation clearly meets all minimum requirements of the solicitation Unacceptable Quotation does not clearly meet one or more minimum requirements of the solicitation

Factor 2 - Past Performance The Government will evaluate past performance to assess how well the Offeror has performed work relevant to the requirement described in the solicitation as an indicator of an Offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully.

Evaluation Process: The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance and Performance Quality. The Government will evaluate recent and relevant performance information and Performance Quality for all offerors based on i) information provided by the offeror within the Past Performance Summary Sheet (PPSS) and ii) any data independently obtained by the Government. However, the Government will not assign a specific relevancy rating or performance quality rating for each past performance information reviewed. Instead, the Government will assign each offeror an integrated overall Performance Confidence Assessment rating from the Past Performance Rating Table below by considering in the aggregate of each offeror’s submitted past performance information for recency, relevancy, and performance quality.

The Government reserves the right to use the information provided in the Offeror’s past performance volume and may also use information obtained from other sources available to the Government. The Government may also consider the past performance of affiliated companies or operating divisions within the parent company or joint ventures of the parent company, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when it is reasonable to attribute the experience of the past efforts to the proposed effort and when the quotation clearly demonstrates the resources (e.g. financial resources, overall oversight and management, or other resources) of the parent or affiliated division will meaningfully affect performance of the instant acquisition.

Recency is defined as ongoing contracts or those completed within three (3) years of the date of issuance of this solicitation.

Relevancy is defined as characteristics or aspects with comparable requirements to the solicited task with at least one year of continuous performance.

Performance Quality Assessment: The Performance Quality Assessment establishes the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. Performance quality will be assessed on the information in the PPSS and CPARS evaluation ratings, if available.

Past Performance Summary Sheet: Provide at least one (1) and no more than three (3) of the most relevant contracts performed, along with associated CPARS for each contract referenced. The offeror shall complete the Past Performance Summary Sheet (Attachment 6) for each contract/project submitted and provide the information requested therein. Include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance and identify aspects of the contracts deemed relevant and how they relate to the proposed effort. If an offeror has no past performance history of relevance, the offeror must affirmatively state it possesses no past performance history of relevance.

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating: Based on an integrated overall assessment of recency, relevancy, and performance quality, the Government will assign an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment Rating for each Offeror based on the table below. The Performance Confidence Assessment Rating represents the overall evaluation of contractor past performance.

Adjectival Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of "Neutral". A "Substantial" or "Satisfactory" confidence rating may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating.

Factor 3 - Price The Government will evaluate the price information submitted in each Offeror's price quotation as described below. Any other data provided by the Offeror with their price quotation that is not required IAW 52.212-1 will not be considered or evaluated. The price information submitted in each Offeror's price quotation as required by 52.212-1, will be evaluated to determine if proposed prices are fair and reasonable, complete, and balanced IAW FAR 15.404-1(b). A contract will not be awarded to an Offeror whose price is not determined to be fair and reasonable.

Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The TEP will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified by the proposed unit price for each CLIN and then totaling all CLINs.

Price Reasonableness: The Offeror submitted a price that was determined fair and reasonable IAW FAR 15.404-1(b) in its nature and amount, and it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

If at any time during this competition the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) has determined that adequate price competition no longer exists, or that price reasonableness cannot be determined, Offerors may be required to submit other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, and may use other proposal analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404; to the extent necessary, in order to make a determination of price reasonableness.

Balanced Pricing: Proposed unit prices may be evaluated for unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g).

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items or sub-line item(s) appear to be significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. An Offeror’s quotation may be rejected if the PCO determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. If an Offeror’s pricing is determined to be unbalanced IAW FAR 15.404-1(g), the Offeror may be ineligible for award.

Completeness: Offerors must propose on all FFP CLIN(s) for the base and all option years. Failure to fully complete pricing information in the Schedule B – Supplies or Services and Prices/Cost section of the SF 1449 will render the quotation unacceptable and ineligible for award in the absence of interchanges.

Responsibility Determination: The Government will perform a responsibility determination for the apparent awardee IAW FAR Part 9. If found not responsible, the Government may request a Certificate of Competency IAW FAR 19.6. If a Certificate of Competency cannot be obtained from the Small Business Administration, the apparent awardee will be deemed not responsible and be ineligible for award.