Attachment 5- FAR 52.212-2 Addendum to Evaluation - Commercial Items.pdf

Attachment 5 – Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items Solicitation#FA527020Q0026

52.212-2 Addendum Evaluation – Commercial Items

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

(d) BASIS FOR AWARD. This is a competitive, Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Parts 12 and 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). By submission of its offer in accordance with the instructions provided in clause FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items, the offeror accedes to the terms of this model contract.

Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined unacceptable. Award will be made to the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP) offer that meets the acceptability standards for technical with an acceptable past performance rating.

1. The evaluation process will include the following:

(I) Price Evaluation. The government will rank all offers by TEP, including all option prices.

The price evaluation will document the fairness and reasonableness of the TEP.

Total Evaluated Price: A TEP will be computed for each offer in order to meet the requirements of FAR Parts 6 and 17. The price of a six-month extension authorized by 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, will be added to the proposed price for each potential contract performance period.

The TEP is a two-part computation. First, the offeror’s total proposed price will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in Section B by the unit price, limited to two decimal places, for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) to confirm the extended total amount for each CLIN; the sum of all extended amounts will be the offeror’s total proposed price. Second, the total proposed price (total amount for CLINs 0001 – 4001) plus the sum of Option to Extend Services clause 52.217-8 formula (shown below) will constitute the TEP. The formula for the Option to Extend Services amount is as follows:

Base Year = CLIN Extended Amount x 1 Option Year 1 = CLIN Extended Amount x 0.5 Option Year 2 = CLIN Extended Amount x 0.5 Option Year 3 = CLIN Extended Amount x 0.5 Option Year 4 = CLIN Extended Amount x 0.5

Evaluation of Option CLINs does not obligate the government to exercise the Options.

(II) Technical Acceptability. Offerors will be evaluated in accordance with the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial. Technical acceptability is based on successfully meeting the requirement. Each outlined factor/sub factor will be rated “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” as follows:

Table 1. Technical Ratings Rating Description Acceptable 1. Required submission(s) clearly explains the contractor’s approach to the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

2. Offeror clearly has a plan and the capabilities to hire acceptable applicants for each position.

3. Offerors personnel qualifications for the required position meet all requirements as outlined in the PWS.

Unacceptable The offeror failed to submit the required documents for proposal submission;

OR

1. Required submission(s) do/does not clearly explain(s) the contractor’s approach to the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

2. Offeror does not clearly have a plan and the capabilities to hire acceptable applicants for each position.

3. Offerors personnel qualifications for the required position do not meets all requirements as outlined in the PWS.

Offerors must receive “Acceptable” rating for each sub factor to receive an overall “Acceptable” rating in the technical evaluation. In the event one or more subfactors receive an “Unacceptable” rating, the proposal will receive an overall “Unacceptable” rating in the technical evaluation.

(III) Past and Present Performance Factor. The government will seek recent and relevant performance information on all technically acceptable offerors based on the past and present performance information provided and data independently obtained from other Government or commercial sources.

The government will evaluate past and present performance utilizing information provided by the offeror to include contracts performed and/or being performed for any customer within the last three (3) years prior to the issuance date of this solicitation. For evaluation purposes, the scope, magnitude, and complexity are all weighted equally.

If a contractor is unable to provide recent and relevant data, they most so state. If this is the case, they will be a assigned a “Neutral” rating. This rating is neither positive nor negative, and shall not disqualify an offeror from award consideration.

The government will assess relevancy for each contract and assign a rating as described in Table 2 below:

Table 2. Past Performance Recency/Relevancy Ratings

Rating Rating Definition

Recent

Present/past performance effort was worked/completed within the last three (3) years prior to the issuance date of this solicitation.

Not Recent

Present/past performance effort was not worked/completed within the last three (3) years prior to the issuance date of this solicitation.

Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexity that 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.

2. Award shall be based on All or None acceptable quotation.

3. In order to be considered for award, the offeror’s technical quotation must be rated as “Acceptable”.

4. Past Performance must be rated either “Recent” and “Relevant”, or neutral. Additionally, the government reserves the right to contact any/all Points of Contact (POC) listed in the Past Performance information. In accordance with FAR 9.104-3 – Application of Standards, if it is found that the contractor is or recently has been seriously deficient in contract performance, (the contractor) shall be presumed to be nonresponsible, unless the contracting officer determines that the circumstances were properly beyond the contractor’s control, or that the contractor has taken appropriate corrective action. The government reserves the right to review all available tools to ensure responsibility, including but not limited to the PPIRS, CPARS, SAM, and FAPIIS systems.

Being deemed “nonresponsible” may disqualify the contractor from award.

(End of Clause)

Being deemed “nonresponsible” may disqualify the contractor from award.