Attachment 5 - Addendum 52 212-2 Evaluation Factors.pdf

Addendum to 52.212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Items

1. Basis for Contract Award

This solicitation will select the proposal that best meets the terms and conditions of the solicitation and it will use simplified procedures for the acquisition of services found in FAR Subpart 13.5, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) and Air Force Mandatory Procedures. These regulations are available electronically at the following website, http://acquisition.gov. The Government will select the proposal with the lowest evaluated price among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors. Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by addendum to 52.212-1 and 52.212-2 of this solicitation).

2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one (1) Firm Fixed-Price contract for all personnel, equipment, tools, materials, vehicles, supervision, and other items and services necessary to perform the Recycle Center Management Program at F.E. Warren AFB, Wyoming. Additionally, the Government reserves the right to make no award.

3. Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions, however; if, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, FAR Subpart 15.306 will be used to conduct the discussions.

4. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, in addition to those evaluation factors listed below. 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.

EVALUATION FACTORS

1. Evaluation Factors

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability, but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors.

Factor 1: Price

Factor 2: Past Performance

2. Evaluation Process

First, the Government shall rank all offers by the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in Section B by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number or Subcontract Line Item Number to confirm the extended amount for each. Once the offers are ranked by TEP, the Government will evaluate the lowest-priced proposal for past performance. If the past performance of the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” past performance rating, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by TEP) until an offeror is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” past performance rating and is reasonably priced or until all offerors are evaluated. The Government reserves the right to not make an award if there are no offers that meet these conditions. The factors shall be evaluated as follows:

http://acquisition.gov/

3. Price Factor

3.1. Offers conforming to all requirements of the solicitation will be ordered from lowest to highest according to Total Evaluated Price (TEP). TEP will be calculated as follows:

3.1.1. TEP includes the price for the basic year and all priced option years to include the 6-month extension of services. The six month extension of service prices will be evaluated at half the price for Option Year 4.

3.1.1.1. TEP and Evaluation of Options at Award: The Government will evaluate TEP based upon the offerors proposed unit price multiplied by the corresponding quantities specified in the bid schedule in the SF 1449.

3.1.1.2. Additionally, the 6-month extension available at FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services is included in this solicitation. The result of the inclusion of the 6-month extension will be used only for evaluation purposes as part of TEP, but will not be included in the NTE of the awarded contract.

3.2. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

3.3. Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices, variable quantity matrix factors, and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

4. Past Performance Factor

Limited to no more than 2 pages per contract listed. Only references for the same or similar type contract desired. Submit one copy.

4.1. Using self-generated past performance data and the past performance surveys, the contracting officer shall seek relevant performance information on each offeror based on the following;

4.1.1. The past and present efforts provided by the offeror.

4.1.2. Data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources.

4.2. The Government will evaluate the recency, relevancy, and quality of the offeror’s past performance by analyzing offeror provided past performance information, past performance questionnaires received, and other past performance information data independently obtained from Government and/or commercial sources which may include, but not limited to: the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); or other databases.

4.2.1. Past Performance will first be evaluated for recency. 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. Recency will be evaluated as “meets” or “does not meet.”

4.2.2. Past Performance will then be evaluated for relevancy. The offeror shall identify what elements of each contract are deemed relevant to this solicitation and indicate what percentage of service was performed by the offeror (prime), subcontractor (if applicable) and teaming contractor (if applicable). The final determination of the identified and demonstrated relevancy elements of each contract will be the decision of the Government. Relevant past performance requires performance of Recycle Center contracts similar in scope, magnitude (dollar value), and complexity to the requirements defined in this solicitation.

Performance relevancy will be assessed as one of the following rating categories:

Table C-2. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Rating Description Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities 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.

4.2.3. Finally, Past Performance will be evaluated for quality and assigned a performance confidence assessment rating. Performance confidence assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood that the offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements based upon the offeror’s past performance information. Performance confidence will be assessed as one of the following rating categories:

Table C-3. Past Performance Confidence Ratings Rating Description Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offerors 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 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 a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

**NOTE: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance.

4.2.4. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will not be considered as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror.

4.2.5. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information in the format specified in the proposal preparation instructions to permit a meaningful assessment of past performance. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal 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 performance information that supports a less than satisfactory confidence rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

(End of provision)