Attachment 3 - Evaluation Criteria.pdf

Evaluation Provision Template – Commercial Products and Commercial Services

Subjective Tradeoff Technically Acceptable (STOTA) Approach

52.212-2, Evaluation--Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Nov 2021)

(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 will be used to evaluate offers:

(1) Technical

(2) Past Performance

(3) Price

Past Performance and Technical “acceptability” combined are more important than 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 will 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, will 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) unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation - Commercial Products and Commercial Services

The following is inserted as new paragraph (d) of the provision:

“(d) BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive Subjective Tradeoff Technically Acceptable (STOTA) best value proposal conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Parts 12, 13 and 15, Department of Defense (DoD) FAR Supplement Procedures, Guidance and Information Subpart 215.3, and Department of the Air Force FAR Supplement (DAFFARS) Mandatory Procedure (MP) 5315.3 in which competing offerors’ combined past performance information and technical “acceptability” will be evaluated on a basis more important than price. 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 subfactors. All technically acceptable offers will be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined unacceptable.

The government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP). In that event, among the technically “Acceptable” proposals, the Contracting Officer (CO) will make an integrated assessment best value award decision using the TEP and the Past Performance Confidence Rating. The evaluation process will include the following:

(1) Technical Acceptability Factor. The government will evaluate technical proposals on a pass/fail basis and assign an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating as described in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Technical Ratings Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

The proposals will be evaluated against the following subfactor(s):

Subfactor 1, Technical Certifications and Compliance

The subfactor is met when the offeror demonstrates compliance or ability to comply with required certifications, state courses, and regulations governing cleaning, inspection, and maintenance of Ventilation Control and Fire Protection of Commercial Cooking Operations as listed in the PWS requirements.

Subfactor 2, Service Call Response Time The subfactor is met with the offeror demonstrates the ability to respond to both regular service calls and emergency calls within the time frames as listed in the PWS requirements.

(2) Price Evaluation Factor. The government will rank all offers by price, including all option prices. The price evaluation will document the fairness and reasonableness of the TEP. In addition, each offeror’s separately priced line items or subline items shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g). The government reserves the right to perform price realism analysis. If the Government elects to perform a price realism analysis, the Government reserves discretion over the method within which it performs its price realism analysis. If the Government elects to perform a price realism analysis and finds a proposal unrealistic, the Government may withhold award to that offeror.

Total Evaluated Price: A TEP will be computed for each offer to meet the requirements of FAR Parts 6 and 17. The price of a six-month extension authorized by 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services will be added to the proposed price for each potential contract performance period.

The TEP is a two-part computation. First, the offeror’s total proposed price will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in the Pricing Schedule (SF 1449, continuation of blocks 19 – 24) by the unit price, limited to two decimal places, for each Contract Line-Item Number (CLIN) to confirm the extended total amount for each CLIN; the sum of all extended amounts will be the offeror’s total proposed price. Second, the total proposed price (total amount for CLINs 0001 – 4009) plus the sum of Option to Extend Services clause 52.217-8 formula (shown below) will constitute the TEP.

The formula for the Option to Extend Services amount is as follows:

Base Year = CLIN Extended Amount x 0.5 Option Year 1 = CLIN Extended Amount x 0.5 Option Year 2 = CLIN Extended Amount x 0.5 Option Year 3 = CLIN Extended Amount x 0.5

Option Year 4 = CLIN Extended Amount x 0.5

Evaluating the Option CLINs does not obligate the government to exercise the Options.

(3) Past Performance Factor. The Past Performance evaluation results in an integrated assessment of the contractor’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements and the assignment of an overall rating (Table 3) based on consideration of the contractor’s recent, relevant and quality past performance based on the contractor’s past performance information found in various government databases. Contractors may provide past performance information for those contracts/projects not found in government databases, and the government will include them in their past performance determination.

The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance. The assessment process will result in an offeror’s overall performance confidence assessment (PCA) rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, or No Confidence.

Offerors with no recent past or present performance history or the offeror’s performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will receive the rating “Neutral Confidence,” meaning the offeror is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably (neutral). As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments, offerors will receive an integrated past performance confidence assessment rating as described in Table 2 below:

Table 2. Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

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 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 successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In evaluating past performance, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorable than a less relevant record of favorable performance. A strong record of relevant past performance will be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating.

Below are the definitions and past performance evaluation process that the government will utilize: The following three (3) definitions will be utilized for the PCA determination:

(A) Recency Assessment: Recent past performance information includes contracts performed and/or being performed for any customer within the last three (3) years prior to the issuance date of the solicitation. For projects/contracts/TOs that are actively being performed, performance must be a minimum of 80% complete as of the date of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(B) Relevancy Assessment: Relevant contracts performance effort involved similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities to that required by this solicitation. The government will assess relevancy for each contract and assign a rating as described in Table 3 below:

Table 3. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as the effort 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.

(4) Integrated Assessment. To be considered for award, the offeror’s technical proposal must be rated as “Acceptable.” The government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest TEP. In that event, the CO will make an integrated assessment of the best value award decision using the TEP and the Past Performance Confidence Rating. Offerors should note that the past performance evaluators may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance; the CO, however, may determine that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in the integrated assessment and best value tradeoff decision.”

(End of addendum)”