Attachment 6 - Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 -123A94-24-Q-0018.docx

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION—Commercial Products and Commercial Services (NOV 2021)

The Government intends to award one contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation is the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) Offer. LPTA means the best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price. Pursuant to FAR 52.212-2, the criteria for evaluation are (1) Technical Approach, (2) Price, and (3) Satisfactory Past Performance. The lowest priced proposal will first be evaluated based on the total evaluated price found in Attachment 2 for technical acceptability in accordance with the minimum specifications identified in Attachment 5. If determined not technically acceptable, it will be removed from competition and the next lowest priced proposal will be evaluated for technical acceptability. This will continue until the lowest priced proposal is determined technically acceptable. Once the lowest priced proposal is determined technically acceptable, then a determination of responsibility will be completed. If found responsible, evaluations will be closed, and award will be made. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors.

The evaluation and award procedures in FAR 13.106 apply. Technically acceptable shall further be met by the offeror’s ability to meet all the requirements identified in the SOW and offeror’s demonstrated ability to perform the contract successfully through Past Performance.

Factor #1: Technical Approach (Acceptable/Unacceptable) - The Offeror must be deemed technically acceptable in all the following sub-factors to receive a rating of Pass for Technical Approach:

a) The Government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to meet all the requirements identified in the SOW and the minimum specifications found in Attachment 5 and below. Technical approach will be rated to the extent the Offeror can clearly and fully demonstrate that it has a thorough understanding of the requirements and can successfully meet the requirements. The technical acceptability factor contains three non-cost subfactors:

1. Ability to provide Portable Audiometric Testing-Device Services (PATS) on a tablet-based system- Contractor shall provide PATS incorporating the following:

a. Phase in Approach (Section C of SOW) – Contractor shall provide enough information in their proposal to adequately address all factors of the phase in approach and are able to adhere to the timelines.

b. Technical Requirements (Section F of SOW)- Contractor shall ensure the following minimum requirements are met to be deemed acceptable for this factor:

i. PATS designed and optimized for use outside of a sound booth. (SOW F.1)

ii. Portable is defined as a device (tablet-based system) light weight - not to exceed 5 pounds and small enough to be easily carried or moved by a single individual, practical and ultra compact in design. Shall also be available to transport easily to various test sites by one individual user. (SOW F.2)

iii. Acoustic Headphones with foam insulation shall be used and included. Headphones shall have annual calibration at no additional cost to FSIS and meet current ANSI S3.6 & CSA Z107.6-16 standards & IEC 60645-1 & 60645-3. A DD450 Headphone has been found to be acceptable. That headphone standard or better (if available) shall be used. If a microphone is needed, a class 2 Microphone is required at no additional cost. (SOW F.3)

iv. Provides option between fully automated/self-test or assisted test modes for employees who require assistance. Software must allow for user to retest at pure tone frequency if background noise levels are exceeded or as other anomalies occur. (SOW F.4)

v. Software must ensure employees verify the correctness of their personal information and to contact Human Resources if corrections are required. (SOW F.5)

vi. Software must incorporate agency Privacy Act Statement requirements and shall include a paragraph notifying employees of their rights and responsibilities. (SOW F.6)

vii. Portable Audiometers / No Tele-Hybrid Solutions (no Technicians are allowed onsite at FSIS establishments to proctor exams) (SOW F.7)

viii. Portable Audiometer support administering of hearing exams without connection to Wi-Fi to include troubleshooting of test administration. (SOW F.8)

ix. Pricing Structure supports testing for up to 7800 employees over 10 Districts (go to pricing on evaluation) (SOW F.9)

x. Secure Database/Cloud audiogram records retention and access (SOW F.10)

xi. Incorporation of Employee Baseline Audiogram to the system (SOW F.11)

xii. Equipment Life Cycle: Must maintain compliance with ANSI S3.6 standards for annual calibration and must include hardware/software upgrades as required by manufacturer. To maintain stander with ANSI S3.6 annual calibration is required at no additional cost to FSIS. Faulty hardware shall be replaced at no cost to FSIS due to normal wear and tear. (SOW F.12)

xiii. Breakdown of Audiological and other Professional support services to include troubleshooting of instrumentation and software. (SOW F.13)

2. IT Systems & Data Requirements and Contractor Privacy Act Requirements- Contractor shall provide adequate information to assure comprehension of Sections G & H of the SOW.

a. Incorporation on Privacy Act requirements into software prior to administering audiogram (H.1)

b. Compliance with Privacy Act 1974 and completion of all USDA Privacy Impact Assessment requirements (H.2)

c. Compliance with USDA IT Security Privacy Language (H.3)

d. Compliance with the Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA) and the OMB Memorandum M-17-12 (H.3/4)

3. Recordkeeping, Reports, and Records Disposition Contractor shall provide adequate information to assure comprehension and compliance with the USDA IT Security Privacy Language and Liquidated damages in Section H (Contractor Privacy Act Requirements):

a. Contractor shall have an electronic record keeping database that stores all FSIS audiogram tables or audiometric test charts as specified in 29 CFR 1910.95(m).

The proposed supplies/services shall meet the solicitation requirements including any required parts, delivery dates, and terms and conditions stated in the solicitation.

Technical Approach evaluations will result in one of the following ratings:

Acceptable- proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable- proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

A proposal must be rated "ACCEPTABLE" for the proposal to be eligible for award. An "UNACCEPTABLE" rating for Technical Capability/Approach factor will result in the entire proposal being rated "UNACCEPTABLE" overall; an overall rating of "UNACCEPTABLE" makes a proposal ineligible for award. A proposal must contain sufficient information to enable evaluators to determine acceptability; if there is insufficient information to determine acceptability of the proposal, the proposal will be rated “UNACCEPTABLE” overall.

Factor #2: Price - Pricing Structure shall support testing for up to 7400 employees annually over 10 Districts. The Government will evaluate the offer for award purposes by adding the total price for all CLINS and use the total evaluated price found in Attachment 2. The Government will evaluate the offer for price reasonableness. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options does not obligate the Government to exercise them. Any quantity price discounts and discounts for prompt payment should be included in this section. The Government intends to select one offeror for this acquisition. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

Factor #3: Satisfactory Past Performance (Rating 1-5) – Offerors are instructed to identify 3 relevant and recent customers that can provide insight into the declared past performance, which can include major subcontractors. In order to be deemed “relevant”, the declared past performance must be similar in size, scope and complexity to the requirements outlined in the SOW. For an offer to be eligible for award, it must have either a Satisfactory or neutral past performance. Offers with negative past performance information from any source may not be considered for award. Lack of relevant and recent past performance information and any PPQs not received from references submitted by the Offeror shall be rated as a “Neutral.” When performance is evaluated, the outcome is rated on a scale of 1-5 (1=poor; 5=excellent). Poor performance will disqualify an Offeror from award. Satisfactory or neutrally rated past performance will be rated as favorably. The Government may utilize any references provided by the Contractor, along with information available from past contracts/orders with the USDA and any information found using sources such as Federal Government sources, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) to determine if the Contractor has acceptable or neutral Past Performance. The Government reserves the right to limit or expand the number of references it decides to contact and to contact references other than those provided by the offeror.

The past performance evaluation form that is presented as Attachment 3 to this solicitation must be delivered by the offeror to the customer that will be completing the evaluation of the received services. The customer that completes the evaluation must deliver it directly to reginald.brown@.usda.gov proposal due date. FSIS will not accept evaluations completed by the offeror.

RATING GUIDELINES

Rating

Quality of Services

Timeliness

Cost/Price Control

Business Practices

5= Excellent

Demonstrates exceptional performance by enhancing/exceeding contractual requirements.

Meets and exceeds contract milestones and/or deliverables.

Demonstrates exceptional ability to manage cost/price issues.

Always works effectively and responsively with contracting and technical personnel on administrative and technical issues.

4= Very Good

Complies with contractual requirements and/or nonconformances do not impact achievement of contract requirements.

No unexcused delays and/or delays in contract milestones and/or deliverables do not impact achievement of contract requirements.

No cost/price issues and/or cost/price issues do impact achievement of contract requirements.

Usually works effectively and responsively with contracting and technical personnel on administrative and technical issues.

3= Good

Nonconformances require minor customer assistance to ensure achievement of contract requirements.

Delays in contract milestones and/or deliverables require minor customer assistance to ensure achievement of contract requirements.

Cost/price issues require minor customer assistance to ensure achievement of contract requirements.

Somewhat works effectively and responsively with contracting and technical personnel on administrative and technical issues.

2= Fair

Nonconformances require major customer assistance to ensure achievement of contract requirements.

Delays in contract milestones and/or deliverables require major customer assistance to ensure achievement of contract requirements.

Cost/price issues require major customer assistance to ensure achievement of contract requirements.

Marginally works effectively and responsively with contracting and technical personnel on administrative and technical issues.

1= Poor

Nonconformances are compromising the achievement of contract requirements despite use of customer assistance.

Delays in contract milestones and/or deliverables are compromising performance of contract requirements.

Cost/price issues are compromising performance of contract requirements.

Does not work effectively and responsively with contracting and technical personnel on administrative and technical issues.

Rejection of Unreasonable Offers: The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unreasonable in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unreasonably high or low in cost when compared to Government estimates, such that the quotation is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.