Attachment 5 _ Evaluation of Offerors.pdf

Attachment 5 – Evaluation of Offerors FA441724Q0236

Addendum to 52.212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Items

1. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Award will be made based on the evaluation of Price, Past Performance, and Technical where Past Performance and Technical, when combined, are more important than price. Simplified Procedures for Certain Commercial Items in accordance with FAR 13.5 and the procedures outlined in this addendum will be used to make a Best Value decision. The Government will utilize the Performance Price-Trade-off methodology as described below to determine the quote that represents the best value to the government.

2. SYNOPSIS OF EVALUATION

Step 1: Rank each quoter based on Total Evaluated Price (TEP) from lowest to highest.

Step 2: The lowest-priced quoter will then be evaluated to ensure they adhered to all submission requirements IAW Addendum to 52.212-1.

Step 3: If the lowest-priced quoter adhered to all submission requirements, evaluate quoter’s technical acceptability based on the evaluation factors. If deemed technically acceptable, move to the next step.

Step 4: Evaluate past performance. If the lowest-priced quoter’s past performance confidence rating is deemed to be a ‘Substantial Confidence’, the quoter is determined responsible, and the price is determined fair and reasonable, then the Government will proceed to award to this vendor and no further evaluations will be conducted.

If the lowest priced quoter did not adhere to submission requirements of instruction to offerors, receives an “Unacceptable” rating for the Technical factor, or receives a past performance rating other than “Substantial Confidence”, the Government will follow the same evaluation method for the next lowest quoter.

The process will continue until a quote is found that adheres to the instruction to offerors, has an acceptable rating for the Technical Factor and has a past performance confidence rating of ‘Substantial Confidence’. The Contracting officer will then make an integrated assessment to render the best value award decision. The Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest priced quoter if determined to be in the best interest of the Government but is not required to do so.

During all stages of the evaluation, the government reserves the right to enter into exchanges with one or multiple quoters, but is not required to do so. Therefore, respondents should provide their best available pricing in their initial quote. While we strive for maximum objectivity, the evaluation process is inherently subjective.

3. PRICE EVALUATION

To receive an acceptable rating for the Price Factor, the quoter’s price must:

1) adhere to all requirements of 52.212-1 and accompanying addendum and

2) be determined fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR 13.106-3.

Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated as follows: TEP = Base Period (CLIN 0001 through CLIN 0025) + Option Period 1 (CLIN 1001 through CLIN 1025) + Option Period 2 (CLIN 2001 through CLIN 2025) + Option Period 3 (CLIN 3001 through CLIN 3025) + Option Period 4 (CLIN 4001 through CLIN 4025) + Option to Extend Services IAW FAR 52.217-8. Quantities identified will be multiplied by the unit price to confirm the extended price and then the extended price for all CLINS will be added together for a total for that specific period. Unit prices shall be used in the event Total price will be calculated by totaling all CLINs inclusive of all option years and the option to extend services IAW FAR 52.217-8.

FAR 52.217-8 will be included in the price evaluation by adding 50% of the value of each CLIN in option year four (CLIN 4001 through CLIN 40025) to the total price. This amount is for evaluation purposes only and will not be included in the awarded contract value. Prices will be rounded off to two decimal points. Total price will be evaluated for price reasonableness.

FAR clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services six-month extension is included in the TEP for evaluation purposes only. The Option to Extend Services price totals will not be included in the awarded contract value. If the Government exercises FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, the extension will not exceed six (6) months total and CLINS will be added to the contract at the time FAR 52.217-8 is exercised at a monthly price equal to the preceding period of performance's monthly price in accordance with FAR 52.217-8. The CO may exercise this clause during the life of the contract at any option period to extend services for up to 6-months.

Prices will be evaluated for completeness, fair and reasonableness, and unbalanced pricing. Offers whose price is determined to be incomplete or unreasonable will not be considered for award. Additionally, an offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the pricing to be unbalanced.

Completeness: The Government will review pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with the solicitation.

Reasonableness: The Government may use the following various price analysis techniques established in FAR 13.106-3 to ensure a fair and reasonable price to include: comparison of proposed prices received (adequate price competition), comparison of previously proposed prices and previous Government contract prices, use of parametric estimating/rough yardsticks, comparison with competitive published price lists or market prices, comparison with Independent Government estimates, comparison with market research, and/or analysis of pricing information provided by the offeror.

Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze each offer to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices proposed on different CLINs for the same or similar services in the same or similar quantities with respect to option pricing. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the prices are significantly unbalanced or if the unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Offerors are cautioned against submitting an unbalanced offer. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite a reasonable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to price. An example of an unbalanced offer would be proposed contract line items that are significantly less than or significantly overstated in relation to the other proposed contracted line items (either of the offeror's offer or the same contract line items as proposed by other offerors). The Government may also consider an offer unbalanced if there is a significant difference between proposed contract line items in the same contract line items category between option periods or the proposed prices from year to year or above what would be considered a reasonable adjustment for inflation. An offer may be rejected if the CO determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

If the Government cannot determine the proposed pricing to be fair and reasonable, other than certified cost and pricing data may be obtained from the offerors.

4. TECHNICAL EVALUATION

The technical rating reflects the degree to which the offeror's offer meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements. The focus is on the ability of the offeror to meet the minimum requirements of the SOW.

The government will evaluate technical offers and the below listed sub-factors on a pass/fail-basis, assigning an overall rating of Acceptable, or Unacceptable. An unacceptable rating for any of the below sub-factors will result in an unacceptable rating for the Technical Capability primary factor.

Definitions: Evaluators shall assign a rating which falls within one of the following definitions according to the degree which the offeror's technical offer meets the minimum requirement described below:

Acceptable: Offer meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable: Offer does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Technical Acceptability shall be evaluated against the following sub-factors where all sub-factors are considered equal:

Subfactor 1: Emergency Response Plan

Criteria: The offeror shall submit a plan explaining how emergency responses will be completed within the required four-hour response time.

Technical Merit: To receive an Acceptable rating for this subfactor, the offeror must adequately demonstrate reasonable approach on how the contractor will respond to an emergency with the required four hours as detailed in the SOW paragraph 1.6.

Subfactor 2: Accident Prevention Plan

Criteria: The offeror shall submit a plan detailing the procedures and methods to be utilized in response to spills, hazardous or non-hazardous.

Technical Merit: To receive an Acceptable rating for this subfactor, offeror must adequately demonstrate the approach in the methods and procedures utilized in response to a spill at the job site as detailed in the SOW paragraphs: 5.1; 5.1.1; 5.1.2; and 5.1.3.

Subfactor 3: Company Safety Plan

Criteria: The offeror shall submit detailed plan identifying hazards and safety precautions associated with this contract.

Technical Merit: To receive an Acceptable rating for this subfactor, the offeror must adequately demonstrate the approach in identifying and detailing all hazards and safety precautions associated with this contract as detailed in the SOW paragraphs: 5.1; 5.1.1; 5.1.2; and 5.1.3. This submission shall include compliance to company's employees and subcontractors associated with the contract.

5. PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Using the Past and Present Performance questionnaires (PPQ), the contracting officer shall seek performance information for only those offerors rated technically acceptable. Each offer shall provide recent and relevant information regarding an offeror’s actions under previously awarded contracts. The Government will evaluate the offerors previous performance and may evaluate information on problems identified/ encountered on previous contracts and corrective actions taken by the offeror.

Past performance will be evaluated on recency, relevancy, and quality of performance and be used as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the quoter’s ability to successfully perform based on previous and current contract efforts.

Performance confidence ratings assess the probability of the quoter successfully accomplishing the proposed effort based on the quoters past performance. The government will use past performance information submitted by the quoter’s references, other sources such as other Federal Government offices, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)/Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS), and private and commercial sources.

Recency. Past Performance will first be evaluated for recency. For the purpose of this evaluation, "recent" is defined as performance occurring within three (3) years from the date of issuance of the solicitation. All performance prior to three years from the date of the issuance of solicitation or not yet performed on the date of this solicitation will not be evaluated.

Relevancy. Past Performance will then be evaluated for relevancy and shall be assigned one of the relevancy definition ratings as described below when the offeror has identified and demonstrated 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.

Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the Oil Water Grease Trap Maintenance performed under those contracts relate to the scope, magnitude/complexity, contract environment and the cost/price factors of the Hurlburt Field AFB requirement. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the scope, magnitude/complexity and contract environment aspects (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to efforts that are considered to be of the type that are similar in scope, magnitude/complexity, and contract environment when compared to the services described in this solicitation. A relevancy determination of the offeror's past performance will be made based upon the afore mentioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s). In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror or teaming partner whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance questionnaires and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. A relevancy determination of the offeror's past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s). In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror or teaming partner whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance questionnaires and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance.

The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent contracts:

VERY RELEVANT. Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. In order to be defined as Very Relevant, the effort shall have included the below services:

(1) Five (5) or more years’ experience with Oil/Water Separators Maintenance and Grease Trap Maintenance, as identified in this Solicitation

(2) Five (5) or more years’ experience with maintaining, cleaning, and disposing of holding tanks and main sewage lift stations, as identified in this Solicitation

RELEVANT. Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. In order to be defined as Relevant, the effort shall have included the below services:

(1) Four (4) or more years’ experience with Oil/Water Separators Maintenance and Grease Trap

(2) Four (4) or more years’ experience with maintaining, cleaning, and disposing of holding tanks

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT. Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. In order to be defined as Relevant, the effort shall have included the below services:

(1) Three (3) or more years’ experience with Oil/Water Separators Maintenance and Grease Trap

(2) Three (3) or more years’ experience with maintaining, cleaning, and disposing of holding tanks

NOT RELEVANT. Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities that this solicitation requires.

(1) 24 months, or less, of experience with Oil/Water Separators Maintenance and Grease Trap

(2) 24 months, or less, of experience with maintaining, cleaning, and disposing of holding tanks and main sewage lift stations, as identified in this Solicitation

Quality of Performance. All past performance that is recent and determined to be very relevant, relevant, or somewhat relevant, will be reviewed to determine the quality of the offeror's performance. This information will be used by the evaluation team in determining the overall performance confidence assessment rating.

Assigning Performance Assessment Confidence Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and quality of the performance of the recent contracts, evaluated offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. The past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the technical factors. The resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor. More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence

Assessment than less recent effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

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

If a Teaming Agreement is submitted as part of the proposal, each teaming offeror's past performance will be evaluated separately using the same evaluation methods described above. The Prime Contractor's past performance will be weighted slightly more than equal based on their overall responsibility for contract management. The separate ratings of each party in the Teaming Agreement will be combined to determine an aggregate PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT CONFIDENCE RATING.

One of the following performance confidence assessment confidence ratings will be assigned to the evaluated quote:

a) Substantial Confidence: Based on the quoter’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the quoter will successfully perform the required effort.

b) Satisfactory Confidence: Based on the quoter’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a reasonable expectation that the quoter will successfully perform the required effort.

c) Neutral (Unknown) Confidence: No recent/relevant performance record is available, the quoter’s performance record is not recent or relevant, or the quoter’s record of past performance is so sparse that a meaningful confidence rating cannot be reasonably determined.

d) Limited Confidence: Based on the quoter’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a low expectation that the quoter will successfully perform the required effort.

e) No Confidence: Based on the quoter’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the quoter will successfully perform the required effort.

Confidence that the quoter can or cannot successfully perform all required services within the SOW will be based upon the past performance information submitted by the quoter as well as the Government’s independent investigation of the quoter’s past performance. It is recommended that the quoter submit all documentation addressing adverse past performance ratings for recent and relevant contracts. Failure to do so may result in the Government assigning an unfavorable rating for this factor. Quoters that do not have a record of recent and relevant past performance will receive a neutral rating for this factor and will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably.

(End of Addendum to FAR 52.212-2)