Attachment 5 - FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation - Commercial Items.docx

FAR 52.212-2 - Evaluation-Commercial Items

(a) The government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

Past performance and price.

Past performance is significantly more important than price.

(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. FAR 52.217-8, Option To Extend Services, is included in this solicitation and will be evaluated. The government may determine that an offer 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 an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), 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 - Evaluation Factors for Award

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD. This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing offerors' past performance history will be evaluated on a basis where past performance is significantly more important than price. 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 and conditions of this model contract. All such offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

a. Initially, offers shall be ranked according to price, including option prices. An offeror's proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in the pricing schedule by the unit price for each item to confirm the extended amount for each. Copies of the pricing schedule will be necessary in order to submit a proposal for each option year. Proposal evaluation will then proceed according to this addendum.

b. The contracting officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information from all offerors on (1) the references provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources. Relevant present/past performance includes performance of efforts similar or greater in scope, magnitude and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation. Aspects of relevancy may include, but not limited to; ability to support minor and major Telecommunication infrastructure, technology changes, hardware and software systems upgrade, reconfigurations, new or additional equipment, local area network (LAN) cable installations and upgrade, and Dial Central Office (DCO) reconfigurations.

The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the government has in the offeror's ability to provide Base Telecommunication System Services in accordance with the performance work statement that meet users' needs based on the offeror's demonstrated record of performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Neutral Confidence as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5, Performance Confidence Assessments. 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. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history, or if the offeror's performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating "neutral confidence", meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s 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 past 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 no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

In evaluating past performance, the government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation. The government will use the following relevancy definitions as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4, Past Performance Relevancy Ratings, when assessing recent, relevant contracts.

Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

c. If the lowest priced evaluated offer is judged to have a "Substantial Confidence" performance confidence assessment rating, that offer represents the best value for the government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

d. If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have a "Substantial Confidence" performance confidence assessment rating, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror is judged to have a "Substantial Confidence" performance confidence assessment rating or until all offerors are evaluated. The SSA shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

e. The government reserves the right to award a contract to the other than lowest priced offer if that offeror is judged to have a performance confidence assessment risk rating of "Satisfactory Confidence" or lower. In that event, the contracting officer shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision. Although the source selection evaluation team may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, a "Substantial Confidence" or "Satisfactory Confidence" performance confidence assessment rating is worth more than a "Neutral Confidence" performance confidence assessment rating.

f. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and 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 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.