Attachment 6 Addendum to FAR 52.212-2.pdf

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2 -- EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS

A. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

1. The Government will use the lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) source selection process to make a best value award decision. Award will be made to the lowest priced technically acceptable offeror whose proposal conforms to all of the stated solicitation's requirements. The resultant contract will be a firm-fixed price (FFP) contract. The LPTA evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

2. Proposals shall be ranked lowest to highest by Total Evaluated Price (TEP) as defined in the Addendum to 52.212-1. The Government shall proceed to evaluate Factor 1 (Technical) of the two lowest priced proposals. In the event that either of the two lowest priced proposals are not rated acceptable for Factor 1 (Technical), the Government will continue to evaluate the next lowest priced proposal until a minimum of two proposals have received acceptable ratings for Factor 1 (Technical).

B. SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

By submission of its proposal in strict adherence with the instructions provided in the FAR Clause 52.212-1 Addendum, the offeror agrees to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors.

Proposals that fail to strictly comply with instructions identified in the Addendum to 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors, will be determined unresponsive and may be ineligible for award.

C. DISCUSSIONS:

The Government intends to evaluate offers and make an award without discussions. Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their written proposals (e.g., defining the relevance of the offeror's technical information to which an offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor clerical errors.

Any such exchange between the offeror and the Government will be for clarification only and will not constitute discussions. Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a technical and price standpoint. The Government reserves the right to open and enter into discussions if at any time during the evaluation process it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

D. EVALUATION FACTORS:

Proposals will be evaluated using the following two evaluation factors: (1) Technical and (2) Price. Each technical subfactor will receive either an acceptable or unacceptable rating. An unacceptable technical subfactor rating will render the entire technical factor unacceptable.

E. TECHNICAL FACTOR RATINGS:

The offerors' proposed technical volume shall demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the nature and scope of work required. The Government will not search for data to cure problems or address inconsistencies in an offeror's technical volume. This factor will be evaluated as technically acceptable/technically unacceptable at the subfactor level. A technically unacceptable rating of any subfactor will render the technical volume technically unacceptable IAW the rating definitions below. A rating of unacceptable for any subfactor element will result in the entire subfactor being rated unacceptable.

Rating Definition Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

To be eligible for award, an acceptable rating for both technical subfactors is required. The technical subfactors may contain multiple elements. Each element will be assigned a rating of acceptable or unacceptable based on whether the proposal meets the stated requirement, and satisfactorily addresses the evaluation criteria identified within each element. Any element rating of unacceptable will result in a subfactor rating of unacceptable. Proposals that exceed the evaluation criteria will not receive higher ratings.

VOLUME II - TECHNICAL - EVALUATION FACTOR 1 (Not to Exceed 25 pages for Subfactors 1 and 2)

Tab 1. Table of Contents

Tab 2. Subfactor 1 – Staffing Approach

The offeror’s staffing approach will be rated acceptable if it demonstrates the following:

a. Identification of a sufficient quantity of personnel, to include a description of their assigned responsibilities, to meet the performance objectives identified in the following PWS paragraphs: 1.1 Vehicle Maintenance, 1.3 Customer Service, 1.4 Fleet Management and Analysis, and 1.6 Weapon System Maintenance & Management.

a. Verification that all automotive technicians (e.g. mechanics, service technicians) that the offeror intends to staff to fulfill the requirements of the PWS, possess either current Automotive Service Excellence (ASE) certification in medium/heavy duty truck specialty or possess a minimum cumulative total of three years’ experience in medium/heavy duty vehicle maintenance as required by PWS paragraph 4.1.4.

Tab 3. Subfactor 2 – Experience (Fleet Management)

The Experience (Fleet Management) subfactor will be rated acceptable when the offeror demonstrates that it possesses a minimum of two years of vehicle Fleet Management experience for a vehicle fleet of at least 200 vehicles.

Experience can be demonstrated as either a prime contractor, subcontractor, or as a party to a teaming effort, and either through one single prior or current contract or by a combination of prior/current contracts.Tab 4. Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms VOLUME III - PRICE - EVALUATION FACTOR 2 Tab 1: SF 1449 and All Amendments

F. PRICING EVALUATION PROCESS:

1. The Government will evaluate the price/cost information submitted in each Offeror's price proposal, as required by the FAR Clause 52.212-1 Addendum, to determine if proposed prices are fair and reasonable using one or more of the proposal analysis techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1. In addition to the price analysis as described in FAR 15.404-1(b), price proposals will be analyzed to identify any potential unbalanced pricing (See FAR 15.404-1(g)).

Unbalanced pricing may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an Offeror's proposal. Comparison of proposed prices in response to the solicitation is the preferred and intended price analysis technique. Other techniques and procedures, if deemed necessary, may be used to ensure a fair and reasonable price.

2. General Instructions: These instructions are to assist you in submitting information that is required to evaluate the price reasonableness, completeness, and balance of the proposal. Proposals shall be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their price reasonableness, completeness, and balance. The government may not award a contract based on a proposal with unbalanced pricing. Compliance with these instructions is mandatory and failure to comply may render your proposal ineligible for award. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed prices rests with the offeror.

2.1. Price Reasonableness: A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. It is expected that price reasonableness will be determined based on the comparison of each offeror's total evaluated price (TEP) to the TEPs of all evaluated technically acceptable proposals.

2.2. Unbalanced Pricing: 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 proposal 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.

2.3. Price Competition: The government has determined there is a reasonable expectation of adequate price competition in this acquisition. However, IAW FAR 15.403-1(b) and FAR 15.403-3(a), data other than certified cost or pricing data may be required to support a determination of price reasonableness. If, after receipt of proposals, the CO determines that there is insufficient information available to determine price reasonableness, the offeror may be required to submit other than certified cost or pricing data. All information relating to the proposed price including all required supporting documentation must be included in the Price Volume. Extreme care should be exercised by offerors to ensure that no price data of any kind are included in any other volume of the proposal.

3. SF 1449. Offeror shall complete blocks 12, 17a, and 30a, b, and c of the SF 1449. In doing so, the Offeror agrees to the contract terms and conditions as written in the solicitation, with attachments. The solicitation constitutes the model contract.

4. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The offeror’s proposed Price Volume will be evaluated based on the TEP, which will be calculated as the sum of the following Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) extended prices:

a. CLINs 0001, 1001, 2001, 3001, and 4001;

b. Additionally, for the purposes of calculating the TEP, the Government will take the offeror’s highest proposed unit price for CLINs X001, and multiply it by 6 to account for the 6 months of extended services authorized under FAR Clause 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services.

(End of Addendum)