Attachment 5 - Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluations - Disc Golf and Install.pdf

PDF 83 KB Posted

Attached to
Disc Golf Course and Installation, DARB, GA
Solicitation number
FA670325Q0024
Issued by

About this file

This document is an Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 for Evaluation of Commercial Items (Solicitation FA670325Q0024), outlining the Government's acquisition approach for a firm fixed-price contract. The Government intends to award a contract to the lowest-priced technically acceptable (LPTA) responsible offeror using a two-step evaluation process: first ranking offers by price from lowest to highest, then technically evaluating the two lowest-priced offers for acceptability. The technical evaluation will be binary (acceptable/unacceptable), with any unacceptable rating rendering the entire proposal ineligible for award. Pricing will be assessed for completeness and reasonableness, with the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) calculated by multiplying unit prices by quantities, and the Government reserving the right to require additional pricing information if adequate competition is not demonstrated.

View the file

Other files

On GovTribe

Work with this file

  • Download the original file
  • Contacts named in this file
  • Similar government files
  • Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Text version

Attachment 5 FA670325Q0024

Attachment 5

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation -- Commercial Items

Basis for Contract Award

1. This acquisition is conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items and FAR 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures. The Government intends to award a firm fixed-price contract to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9.1, as supplemented, whose submission conforms to the solicitation's requirements and is judged to represent the lowest priced technically acceptable (LPTA) proposal.

2. The Government intends to make one contract award without discussions. Proposals should be submitted initially on the most accurate and favorable terms from a price and technical standpoint.

However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. Offerors should not assume they will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss and/or revise their submission. The Government reserves the right to reject any or all offers if such action is in the Government's best interests.

3. If, during the evaluation process, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror responses and/or any revision(s) to an Offeror’s proposal will be considered in making the award decision. If the Offeror's proposal was evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the revised proposal are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror's proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

4. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. 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 and the submission therefore, ineligible for award.

EVALUATION PROCESS.

The Government will use the following procedures to evaluate offers:

1. Each responsive offer received will be ranked by price from lowest to highest.

2. The two (2) lowest priced offers will be evaluated for technical acceptability in accordance with Table 1 below. Should one (1) of the two (2) lowest priced offers be rated unacceptable, the Government will evaluate the next lowest priced offer for technical acceptability. Once the Government determines two (2) low offers acceptable, the Government will end its evaluation process with no other offers being evaluated.

3. Award will be made to the LPTA responsible Offeror.

Attachment 5 FA670325Q0024

Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The following evaluation factor and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Any factor or subfactor determined to be unacceptable will render the entire proposal ineligible for award.

Factor 1 – Technical Capability

The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical factor/subfactors on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below. A technical factor/subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Only those offerors determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the Offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial submission, as received, without discussion.

TABLE 1 – TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

Factor 2 - Price

1. Offeror’s price must adhere to all requirements of FAR 52.212-1 and Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. The Offeror’s Price will be evaluated for award purposes, based upon the total evaluated price proposed. The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) shall be calculated by multiplying the unit price by the quantity to calculate the extended prices for all of the firm fixed priced line items, then totaling those amounts.

2. The Offeror's price will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness. An Offeror whose price is determined to be unfair or unreasonable may not be considered for award.

FAIR AND REASONABLE: The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of fair and reasonable pricing. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government obtained information, additional information may be required to support the proposed price.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .