Attachment 5 - Evaluation factors.pdf

Attachment 5

FA441924Q0026

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

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

PHYSICALLY REMOVED FROM ANY RESULTANT AWARD.

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose quote conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the

Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate quotes:

Price

Technical Acceptability

Past Performance Acceptability

(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 a quote is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of a quote, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the quote, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the quote’s specified expiration time, the

Government may accept a quote (or part of a quote), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of provision)

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

Best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable quote with the lowest evaluated price from the responsible vendor with acceptable past performance. The Subjective

Best Value technique chosen for this acquisition will be a Tradeoff, where technical acceptance and past performance are more important than price. No contract award shall be made unless the

Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility in accordance with

FAR 9.104.

By submission of its quote, the vendor accepts all solicitation requirements, including all technical requirements and terms and conditions. Failure to conform to solicitation requirements may result in a quote being determined not awardable without further evaluation. Vendors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation and provide complete accompanying rationale.

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY:

The evaluation will begin with a cursory review all submissions for completeness. If an offeror fails to submit a complete submission, to include a complete compensation plan and acceptable resume, the offeror will be rendered non-responsive, and no further evaluation will be conducted.

Complete quotes will be ranked by Total Evaluated Price (TEP) from lowest to highest (see below detailed explanation on the calculation of TEP). The evaluation will begin by evaluating the technical submissions of the three (3) lowest ranked quotes. If the technical submissions of the three lowest ranked offers are acceptable, the evaluation process will proceed to the next step.

If the evaluation of the compensation plan and resume of any of the three (3) lowest ranked offers results in an unacceptable rating, the evaluation team will evaluate the next lowest offeror, as initially ranked TEP, for technical acceptability. Evaluation at this step will continue until there are three (3) lowest ranked, technically acceptable offerors. The first three (3) of the lowest priced, technically acceptable, responsive offers will then be evaluated for past performance. If the first three (3) evaluated offers do not yield at least two (2) offerors with an acceptable past performance rating, the evaluation process will continue until a minimum of two (2) acceptable offers are identified or all quotes are evaluated. This process will continue until a best value determination can be made or until all offerors have been evaluated.

Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose quote conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the solicitation and provides the best value to the Government.

A detailed look at the evaluation criteria is below:

FACTOR 1 - PRICE

The total evaluated price will be determined by adding the value of each Contract Line Item

(CLIN), plus 50% of option year four (4) CLIN. The additional 50% of the final option year prices represents the total cumulative price of 52.217-8. Should IAW FAR clause 52.217-8 be exercised in the future, the price will be pro-rated to the actual performance required. Before a contract may be awarded, the contracting officer must determine the price fair and reasonable per

FAR 13.106-3.

The Government reserves the right to conduct an analysis for balance on the vendor’s quote. A quote may be not awardable if it is determined to be unbalanced.

FACTOR 2 – TECHNICAL

The term “technical,” as used herein, refers to non-price factors other than past performance. The purpose of the technical factor is to assess whether the vendor’s proposal will satisfy the

Government’s minimum requirements.

COMPENSATION PLAN SUBFACTOR: Altus AFB is considered a “remote and isolated” location and is historically “hard to fill” for these types of requirements. To demonstrate the employee compensation plan is sufficient to attract and retain qualified individuals, the Government will evaluate the Employee Compensation Plan for each labor category, to include direct pay rate and fringe benefits on the following adjectival rating scheme below:

Rating Description:

“Acceptable” – the Total Employee Compensation is sufficient to recruit and retain qualified candidates to support this requirement.

“Unacceptable” – the Total Employee Compensation is insufficient to recruit and retain qualified candidates to support this requirement.

RESUME SUBFACTOR: The resume will be reviewed and compared to the

Performance Work Statement to ensure that the applicant meets the minimum requirements for performance. The Government will evaluate based on the following adjectival rating scheme below:

Rating Description:

“Acceptable” – the resume of the intended individual performing the work meets the minimum requirements in the Performance Work Statement.

“Unacceptable” – the resume of the intended individual performing the work does not meet the minimum requirements in the Performance Work Statement.

Quotes must be rated as “acceptable” on both subfactors to be eligible for award. A subfactor rating of “unacceptable” on one or both subfactors will result in removal from award consideration.

FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE

The past performance evaluation results are an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertains to the services outlined in the solicitation requirements. Past performance information will be gathered from information provided by the offeror, information gathered from the Contractor Performance

Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), and any other reasonable source that 97 CONF can obtain (surveys, telephone interview, etc.). There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: a) recency & relevancy; b) performance acceptability.

Contractors must submit no more than three (3) recent and relevant contracts performed for

Federal agencies or commercial customers where offerors performed as the prime contractor that demonstrate offeror’s ability to successfully perform the scope and breadth of the requirements described in the Performance Work Statement of this solicitation. Past performance information submitted more than the first three contracts will not be evaluated.

Recency & Relevancy

Each vendor’s present/past performance will be evaluated to determine whether it is recent and relevant. Recent past performance is defined as efforts where performance is ongoing or performed within the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Each vendor’s present/past performance will also be evaluated to determine whether it is relevant to the effort being acquired. Relevant past performance includes performance of efforts involving requirements that are similar or greater in scope and/or complexity than the effort described in this solicitation.

Each vendor’s recent and relevant past performance will be evaluated, and the vendor will be assigned a single rating of “acceptable” or “unacceptable” based on the vendors probability of meeting contract performance requirements.

Rating Descriptions:

“Acceptable” – Based on the vendor’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the vendor will successfully perform the required effort, or the vendor’s performance record is unknown.

“Unacceptable” – Based on the vendor’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the vendor will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

At a minimum, the first three (3) lowest priced, technically acceptable offers will be evaluated for past performance. Evaluations will continue as necessary until at least two (2) offers are determined to have an acceptable Past Performance rating or until all quotes have been evaluated. The Government will then make an integrated assessment to render the best value award decision or may open discussions if determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

(End of addendum)