Attachment 4 _ Addenda to 52.212‐2.pdf

ADDENDA TO 52.212-2 EVALUATION

SOURCE SELECTION METHOD -- BEST VALUE

(a) Trade-off Process Non-Price Factors and Price: Award shall be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation and is determined to be the most advantageous to the Government, non-price factors and price considered. The offer selected as best value will represent the best trade-off to the Government among past performance and price. Past Performance is more important than price, but when combined, non-price factors will be significantly more important than price. The Government will determine best value on the basis of an assessment of the following factors:

(1) Past Performance Factor – The Government will evaluate past performance in accordance with the Past Performance Proposal and Evaluation clause in this solicitation.

(2) Price Factor – The Government will evaluate the offered prices for price reasonableness in accordance with the requirements of FAR 13.106-3(a).

(b) Options.

(1) 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 total evaluated price will be for the base period and any option periods, plus an additional 20% of the value of the last priced performance period in the bid schedule. This additional sum is for evaluation purposes only to address the possible use of FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, for a period not to exceed 6 months.

(2) Please note that if the FAR 52.217-8 option is exercised, the applicable unit prices for the option will be the same as the immediately preceding period of performance. Therefore, if the option under FAR 52.217-8 is exercised prior to the end of the base period, the unit prices from the base period will be used during the extension period. If the option under FAR 52.217-8 is exercised prior to the end of any option period, the unit prices from the applicable option period will be used during the extension period.

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Evaluation of Past Performance

(1) Except under the circumstances noted in the solicitation paragraph titled Efficiency in Competition, the Government will conduct a Performance Confidence Assessment for each offeror based upon submitted current, relevant PPI as it relates to the expectation of the offeror being able to successfully perform the requirement. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: (1) The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Services performed within the last 2 years will be considered recent and further evaluated under the remaining past performance evaluation aspects

(2) The determination of relevance to this solicitation in scope, magnitude and complexity and (3) How well the offeror performed on its contracts. Past performance will be rated on an adjectival scale. Thus, an offeror with a higher confidence assessment rating for past performance will have a higher expectation of meeting the solicitation requirements than a firm with a lower confidence assessment rating. The

Government’s subjective evaluation of the overall quality of an offeror’s submitted PPI will be a factor in determining the relative merits of that offeror’s proposal and in selecting for award an offeror whose proposal is considered the best value to the Government.

(2) In addition to using independently submitted and timely questionnaires received in evaluating past performance, the Government may consider information in the offeror’s proposal using readily available information obtained from other sources, including but not limited to the Contractor Performance Reporting System (CPARS), DLA Disposition Services personnel administering DLA Disposition Services contracts, past and present customers and their employees, other government agencies, including state and local agencies, consumer protection organizations and better business bureaus, former subcontractors, and others who may have relevant information. The Government may also consider negative information for contracts that are not included in the offeror’s past performance proposal if it is determined that the offeror did not identify that contract due to performance problems and/or the contract was for hazardous waste disposal services with the same or similar requirements as the solicitation within the last 2 years.

(3) Evaluation of past performance will be a subjective assessment based on a consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances. It will not be based on absolute standards of acceptable performance.

This is a matter of judgement. Offerors will be given an opportunity to address especially unfavorable reports of past performance, and an offeror’s response, or lack thereof, will be taken into consideration.

(4) In the case of an offeror without an identifiable record of past performance or for whom information on past performance is unavailable and/or a corresponding PPI questionnaire was not independently received by the Government before the date offers are due, the offeror will not be assessed either favorably or unfavorably on Performance Confidence, as the degree of confidence known to the Government cannot be adequately determined and is therefore unknown.

EFFICIENCY IN COMPETITION

Offerors are advised that the Government may not evaluate the entire proposal of all offerors under this solicitation. The Government will first review the total evaluated price of all proposals received. The non-price factors (past performance evaluations) of those offerors whose pricing is determined by the Contracting Officer to be most competitive may be reviewed prior to the non-price factors of other proposals received. Based on the initial review of the non-price factors, the Government may not evaluate the non-price factors received from other offerors, whose total evaluated pricing was not determined most competitive by the Contracting Officer. This would occur when the Contracting Officer determines that the superiority of any possible combination of past performance and price of an unevaluated and higher priced proposal, over a lower priced proposal that was already evaluated and assigned the highest past performance rating, would not warrant the additional price premium.