Attachment 6 - Evaluation Criteria.pdf

Attachment 6

FA8601-26-R-0001

10 December 2025

ADDENDUM 52.212-2 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. PURPOSE

a. The Government will use FAR Part 13 Simplified Acquisition Procedures vs. FAR 15.3 Source Selection to evaluate offers submitted in response to the solicitation. The factors that shall be used to evaluate proposals are Technical Capability and Price, as expounded below. All Evaluation Factors are equal in importance; however, a proposal is unawardable at any price if, after final evaluation, the Technical Factor receives a rating of “Unacceptable”. The evaluation does not permit tradeoffs between price and non-price factors. Award will be made to the responsible offeror who submits a proposal that (1) conforms to the requirements of the solicitation; (2) receives a rating of “Acceptable” on the Technical Evaluation Factor; and (3) submits the proposal with the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP), provided that the TEP is not unbalanced and is fair and reasonable. The Government reserves the right to award no contract at all depending upon (1) the quality of proposals received and (2) the fair and reasonableness of the pricing of proposals received.

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or sub-factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

2. TECHNICAL CAPABILITY:

a. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s Mission Capability Proposal shall be made. Each proposal will be assigned a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable.

b. Each offeror must show evidence of a capability to provide the mandatory requirements set forth in the performance Work Statement (PWS) and elsewhere in the is solicitation. A technical review team composed of key Government personnel will use their technical skills, knowledge and experience to thoroughly review the adequacy of the proposals. In evaluating the Mission Capability Proposal, the Government will use the following evaluation criteria:

(1) Compliance with the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and this entire solicitation.

(2) Understanding of the requirement of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and this entire solicitation.

(3) Compliance and understanding of the requirements of the PWS and applied specifically to each factor/subfactor listed below.

c. The following specific factors and subfactors will be evaluated in the Technical Capability

Proposal:

(1) SUBFACTOR 1: Quality Control Plan (PWS 2.1)

i. Description: This element will evaluate the offeror’s approach for ensuring performance will be in accordance with (IAW) the standards in the PWS throughout the life of the contract.

ii. Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror provides a detailed Quality Control Plan (QCP) that is likely to ensure that performance will be in accordance with (IAW) the standards in the PWS throughout the life of the contract to include:

• Identification of personnel responsible for quality control

• A description of the offeror’s inspection system with types and frequencies of inspection to be conducted and personnel responsible for conducting inspections

• A system for preventing the occurrence of deficiencies; and

• A description of how inspections will be documented with sample inspection records for each type of inspection to be conducted

(2) SUBFACTOR 2: Key Control (PWS Para. 4.18)

i. Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s ability to maintain control of

Government issued keys/combinations/entry cards IAW the terms and conditions of the contract.

ii. Measure of Merit: This merit is met when the offeror provides an effective plan, which is to ensure that keys/combinations/entry cards will be used only by authorized personnel, will not be lost, misused or duplicated without authorization, and will be returned by the contractor to the government upon termination of employment/contract as applicable.

The offeror must also provide a sample key control log that identifies the following.

• Key Number/Identification

• Printed name and signature of employee.

• Date and time key was signed out and signed back in.

• Annotation if lost/stole/possible duplication and the Contracting Officer

(CO) and Contracting Officer Representative (COR) was notified within 24 hours of occurrence in writing.

(3) SUBFACTOR 3: Scheduling/Staffing Methodologies (PWS Para. 4.19)

i. Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide a workable schedule that demonstrates an understanding of services identified in section 1.0 of the PWS, including an appropriate staffing plan in relation to the required services.

ii. Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror provides a work schedule that ensures timely performance of required services reflecting building numbers, level of service, and completion time, with a sufficient number of employees to meet all requirements outlined in the PWS.

(4) SUBFACTOR 4: Equipment and Supplies (PWS Para. 1.5)

i. Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide a detailed list of all equipment and supplies that will be supplied to fulfill contract requirements listed in the PWS.

ii. Measure of Merit: The measure of merit is met when the offeror submits a proposal that includes a complete list of the size, number, and type of equipment and supplies that demonstrate an adequate understanding of the scope and size of service required in the

PWS.

(5) SUBFACTOR 5: Prior Experience

i. Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s prior experience, based on prior experience, relevancy, and size. (Prior experience, for the purpose of this evaluation, is a custodial contract that either began or ended within the last five years). Provide at least 3 contracts with relevant experience.

ii. Measure of Merit: This merit is met when the offeror provides acceptable prior experience IAW the description below and includes at least one of their references with square footage comparable to the size of this contract (825,000 square feet).

• Company/Division Name

• Contracting Agency

• Contract Number

• Type of Contract (Fixed Price)

• Dates of Performance

• Contract Value (including option years)

e. The above specified technical factors/subfactors will be evaluated in the Technical Capability Proposal. Any subfactor judged unacceptable may render the entire Technical Capability Proposal as unacceptable. Upon final determination that a proposal is “ unacceptable”, the Contracting Officer shall promptly notify the firm submitting the proposal that it will not be considered for award and shall indicate the basis for the determination.

3. PRICE:

a. Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) unbalanced pricing, (3) fair and reasonableness, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, significantly unbalanced of contains otherwise unbalanced pricing that poses an unacceptable risk to the Government, or unreasonable will not be considered for award.

(1) Completeness: The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with solicitation clause FAR 52.212-1 and Attachment 5 - Instructions to Offerors.

(2) Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze each proposal to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices proposed on different Contract Line Items Numbers (CLINs) for the same or similar services and/or supplies in the same or similar quantities and with respect to option pricing. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer (CO) determines that the option prices are significantly unbalanced or that otherwise unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(3) Fair and Reasonableness: The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, Proposal Analysis, in order to determine if it is reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1(b), Price analysis for commercial and non-commercial items. For additional information, reference FAR 31.201-3, Determining Reasonableness.

(4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The Government will add the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement to arrive at a total evaluated price (TEP).

The TEP will be calculated as:

i. The sum of the extended prices (unit quantity multiplied by unit price) for CLINs0001 through 4006 for the base performance period and option periods I through IV; and

ii. To account for the maximum six (6) month extension possible under the clause at FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, the Government will use the sum of the proposed prices of the final option period (CLINs 4001 through 4006),prorate it to a six (6) month value, and add that amount to the sum of all CLINs(Base performance period and option periods I through IV). Please note that this calculation is used for evaluation purposes only. After award, the Government reserves the right to exercise the Option to Extend Services at any time allowed by 52.217-8, and at the price allowed by 52.217-8.

iii. The table below illustrates calculation of a proposal’s TEP using the methodology described above. The table is provided for illustration purposes only. Prices reflected in the table are notional and in no way reflect the actual value of the requirement or an actual evaluation of proposed prices submitted in response to this solicitation or any other solicitation for the same or similar requirements.

Period of Performance POP Length CLINS (Example) Notional Proposed

Price (Example) Base 12 Months 0001-0004 $100,000 Option I 12 Months 1001-1004 $103,000 Option II 12 Months 2001-2004 $106,000 Option III 12 Months 3001-3004 $109,000 Option IV 12 Months 4001-4004 $112,000 6 Month Option 6 Months 5001-5004 $56,000

Total Evaluated Price $586,000

4. EVALUATION PROCESS

a. The Government will initiate concurrent evaluation of all evaluation factors on all proposals.

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of a proposal including whether any proposal deficiency can be rectified and whether any uncertainty can be resolved. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government.

b. If pursuant to initial evaluation, the Government rates the Technical factor as “Unacceptable” or if the Government determines that there is some other deficiency or uncertainty relative to an offeror’s proposal, and in the Government’s judgment, the deficiency is rectifiable or the uncertainty is resolvable; the Contracting Officer (CO) may open discussions and may continue discussions as long as, in the Government’s judgment, the deficiency is rectifiable or the uncertainty is resolvable.

c. For the purpose of conducting discussions, if the Government rates the Technical factor as “Unacceptable” or if the Government determines that there is some other deficiency or uncertainty relative to an offeror’s proposal, the entire proposal will be rated “Unacceptable.” At the conclusion of discussions, if the Technical factor is rated “Unacceptable” or if any deficiency or uncertainty relative to the proposal has not been unresolved, evaluation of that proposal will be considered final. The entire proposal will be rated “Unacceptable” and no further consideration will be given to that proposal for award.

d. For the purpose of award without discussions, if pursuant to initial evaluation, the Government rates the Technical factor as “Unacceptable” or if the Government determines that there is some other deficiency or uncertainty relative to an offeror’s proposal, notwithstanding that any deficiency may be rectifiable or any uncertainty may be resolvable, the entire proposal will be rated “Unacceptable,” the initial evaluation will be the final evaluation, and no further consideration will be given to that proposal for award.

e. The Government reserves the right to create a competitive range if it is in the best interest of the Government.

5. 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.

(a) For the purpose of conducting discussions, if the Government rates the Technical factor as “Unacceptable” or if the Government determines that there is some other deficiency or uncertainty relative to an offeror’s proposal, the entire proposal shall be rated “Unacceptable.” At the conclusion of discussions, if the Technical factor is rated “Unacceptable” or if any deficiency or uncertainty relative to the proposal has not been unresolved, evaluation of that proposal shall be considered final. The entire proposal shall be rated “Unacceptable” and no further consideration shall be given to that proposal for award.

(b) For the purpose of award without discussions, if pursuant to initial evaluation, the

Government rates the Technical factor as “Unacceptable” or if the Government determines that there is some other deficiency or uncertainty relative to an offeror’s proposal, notwithstanding that any deficiency may be rectifiable or any uncertainty may be resolvable, the entire proposal shall be rated “Unacceptable,” the initial evaluation will be the final evaluation, and no further consideration will be given to that proposal for award.

(c) The Government reserves the right to award without discussions.

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.