Attachment 6 - Evaluation Factors May 2024.pdf

Attachment 6

FA8601-24-R-0014

13 May 2024

ADDENDUM 52.212-2 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. The Government will use FAR Part 12.602 Streamlined Evaluation of Offers 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 shall be made to the responsible offeror who submits a proposal that (1) conforms to the requirements of the solicitation; (2) that receives a rating of “Acceptable” on the technical evaluation factor; and (3) that 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.

2. TECHNICAL CAPABILITY:

a. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s Technical 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 this solicitation. A technical review team composed of key Government personnel shall use their technical skills, knowledge, and experience to thoroughly review the adequacy of the proposals.

In evaluating the Mission Capability Proposal, the Government shall use the following evaluation criteria:

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

(2) Understanding of the requirements of the PWS and this entire solicitation.

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

c. The following specific factors and subfactors shall be evaluated in the Technical Capability Proposal. Any factor or subfactor determined unacceptable shall render the entire Technical Capability Proposal as unacceptable. Upon final determination that a proposal is unacceptable, the Contracting Officer (CO) shall promptly notify the firm submitting the proposal that it shall not be considered for award and shall indicate in general terms the basis for the determination.

d. Technical Capability Evaluation Factors and Sub Factors are as follows:

(1) SUBFACTOR 1: Quality Control Plan (PWS Para. 2)

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

1. Identification of personnel responsible for quality control

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

3. A system for preventing the occurrence of deficiencies; and

4. 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)

Measure of Merit: This subfactor is met when the offeror provides an effective plan, which is likely 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.

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

Measure of Merit: This subfactor is met when the offeror provides a schedule that ensures timely performance of required services within the allotted time frames, with a sufficient number of employees to meet all requirements outlined in the PWS.

(4) SUBFACTOR 4: Equipment and Supplies (PWS Para. 1.5,1.5.1, 1.5.2)

Measure of Merit: The subfactor 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

Measure of Merit: This subfactor is met when the offeror provides acceptable prior experience IAW the subfactor description provided in Attachment 5 - Instructions to Offerors, and includes (in at least one of their three references), square footage equal to, or greater than the size of this contract.

e. The above specific technical factors/subfactors shall be evaluated in the Technical Capability Proposal. Any subfactor judged unacceptable shall 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.

3. PRICE: Price proposals shall be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) unbalanced pricing, (3) fair and reasonableness, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

(1) Completeness: The Government shall review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with solicitation clause FAR 52.212-1 and Appendix 1—Additional Instructions to Offerors.

(2) Unbalanced Pricing: The Government shall analyze each proposal to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices proposed on different Contract Line Items Numbers (CLIN) 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 shall be evaluated using price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) or DFARS 215.371-3 if only one offer is received.

(4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The Government shall 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:

The sum of the extended prices (unit quantity multiplied by unit price) for CLINs 0001 through 0010 for the base performance period and option periods I through IV as well as a 6 month extension.

The spreadsheet below illustrates calculation of a proposal’s TEP using the methodology described above. The spreadsheet is provided for illustration purposes only. Prices reflected in the spreadsheet 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 CLIN (Example) Notional Proposed Price (Example)

Base 12 Months 0001 $26,745.13 Option I 12 Months 1001 $28,235.27 Option II 12 Months 2001 $29,876.69 Option III 12 Months 3001 $30,000.16 Option IV 12 Months 4001 $31,000.00 Total Proposed Price for Base Period & Options I through IV $145,857.25 Evaluated Value of Maximum 6-Month Option to Extend Services

IAW FAR 52.217-8

$14,938.35

Total Evaluated Price $160,795.60

4. EVALUATION PROCESS

(a) The Government shall initiate concurrent evaluation of all evaluation factors on all proposals. The Government shall 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 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.

(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 shall 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 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.