Attachment_8_Addendum_to_FAR_52_212_2_FA9301_24_R_0001.pdf

Attachment-8 Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation—Commercial Items

FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION—Commercial Products and Commercial Services

(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:

(1) PRICE

(2) TECHNICAL

(3) PAST PERFORMANCE

In the integrated assessment, upon which the award assessment will be made, Past Performance is approximately equal to Price when being evaluated. Technical factor is acceptable/unacceptable.

(b) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all years, to include the six-month extension under FAR 52.217-8, to arrive at the total evaluated price. The government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the annual prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of the FAR 52.217-8 option shall not obligate the government to exercise the option.

(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 whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (Nov 2021)

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive, best value source selection using the Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) source selection process IAW FAR 15.3, Source

Selection, as supplemented by the DFARS dated 30 October 2023 and the Department of the Air

Force Federal Acquisition Supplement (DAFFARS) dated 7 July 2023 in which competing offerors past and present performance history will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to price. These regulations are available electronically at Acquisition.gov, https://www.acquisition.gov/. By submission of its offer in accordance with the instructions provided in clause FAR 52.212-1, Instructions To Offerors, the offeror accedes to the terms of this model contract and all such offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. The tradeoff will occur only between the past performance factor and the price factor. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose quote conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the solicitation and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described herein.

Unbalanced, inaccurate, or incomplete price quotes may be grounds for eliminating a quote from competition. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable.

The Government intends to evaluate quotes and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, offerors’ initial quote should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

A. Price Evaluation. Initially offerors shall be ranked from lowest to highest according to the

TEP. TEP is the total price of all CLINS. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the totals for CLINs 0001 – 9025 (includes basic and option years). All

CLIN Prices will be evaluated for fair market price IAW the reasonable price guidelines found at

FAR 15.404-1(b) as required by FAR 19.202-6, specifically reasonableness and balance. Any offeror with CLIN prices found to be unreasonable IAW FAR 15.404 or unbalanced and posing an unacceptable risk IAW FAR 15.404-1(g) may not be considered for award.

B. Technical. Next, the Government will evaluate the technical proposal, on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, submitted by the lowest TEP ranked offeror found to have reasonable and balanced CLIN prices. The Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan will be evaluated to ensure that it reflects a sound, logical approach to the performance of mission-essential services during a time of emergency or crisis, AND the offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure the offer, at the due date for offers, provides either a Solid Waste Association of North America

(SWANA) (or equivalent) Certified Manager of Landfill Operations, or a SWANA (or equivalent) Certified Integrated Solid Waste Manager. Further the offer will be evaluated - does said proposed Manager have 5 years of demonstrated experience operating/managing a Class III

Sanitary Landfill. The offeror’s technical proposal will be rated Acceptable or Unacceptable as defined in Table 1 below. If the lowest priced offeror is deemed to be acceptable, they will advance to the Performance Confidence Assessment evaluation. If the lowest priced offeror is deemed unacceptable, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated for technical acceptability.

Table 1 – Technical Acceptability Rating

Rating Description

Acceptable Technical proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation

Unacceptable Technical proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

C. Performance Confidence Assessment. Finally, the Government will seek recent and relevant performance information on the lowest priced, technically acceptable offeror based on (1) the past efforts provided by the Prime Offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other

Government and commercial sources in order to determine the offeror’s Performance

Confidence Assessment, which is comprised of three factors: Recency, Relevancy, and Quality.

D. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent.

Performance that is more recent will have more impact than less recent performance. Recent contracts are: (a) contracts, which have been completed within the last 3 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation, or (b) contracts that are currently being performed (with a performance record of at least 6 months from the date of issuance of this solicitation).

E. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving Custodial Services that involved similar scope/complexity and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Scope/complexity is more important than magnitude; magnitude is more important than contract type and contract environment and contract type are equal. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial

Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence or No

Confidence as defined in Table 5 below. Offerors with no recent/relevant performance history or if the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating "Neutral Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably (neutral).

Table 2 – Relevancy Definitions

Assessment Area Very Relevant Relevant Somewhat

Relevant

Not

Relevant

Scope/Complexity Responsible for

Integrated

Municipal Solid waste services almost equal to or equal to the tasks required by the

Contract Line Item

Numbers and the

Edwards AFB

Performance Work

Statement including services for large public events such as an air show, performed as the prime contractor

Responsible for

Integrated Solid waste services somewhat less than the tasks required by the

Contract Line

Item Numbers and the Edwards

AFB

Performance

Work

Statement, performed as the prime contractor

Responsible for

Integrated Solid waste services significantly less than the tasks required by the

Contract Line

Item Numbers and the Edwards

AFB

Performance

Work Statement, performed as the prime contractor

Magnitude Performed as a

Prime Contractor on contracts/task orders concurrently or consecutively with a combined value of at least

$9.0M over 5 yrs or $1.75M/year.

Performed as a

Prime

Contractor on contracts/task orders concurrently or consecutively with a combined value of at least

$5.0M over 5 yrs or $1M/year.

Performed as a

Prime

Contractor on contracts/task orders concurrently or consecutively with a combined value of at least

$2.5M over 5 yrs or

$500K/year.

Contract Type Performance under a Firm-Fixed

Priced (FFP)

Indefinite

Delivery/Indefinite

Quantity (ID/IQ) or

Indefinite Delivery

Requirements contract

Performance under an FFP

(non-ID/IQ) contract, task order, or purchase order

Performance under a cost reimbursable contract or any other fixed price arrangement

Contract

Environment

Contract performance on an

Air Force Base or

Air Force Reserve

Base within the

United States

Contract performance on a DoD installation within the United States

Contract performance at a

Federal, State, County, or City facility within the United States

Table 3 – Technical Acceptability Rating

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of the efforts and complexities this solicitation requires

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of the efforts and complexities this solicitation requires

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of the efforts and complexities this solicitation requires

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of the efforts and complexities this solicitation requires

F. The Government will consider the performance quality of relevant efforts that are recent. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses and Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) information. It may include interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials, interviews with commercial clients, and interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the

Government. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

Table 4 – Past and Present Performance Questionnaire Ratings

E G S M U N

Exceptional Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactor y

Neutral

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the

Government’ s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the

Government’ s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or

Performance meets contractual requirements.

The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements

. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner.

The contractual performance of the element or

Performanc e was not observed or applicable to the current effort being reported against.

sub-element being assessed was accomplished with no more than a few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective sub-element being assessed was accomplished with no more than some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective accomplishe d with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s corrective actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear to be or were ineffective

G. 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.

H. If the lowest priced offer is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment, and receives an Acceptable rating on the technical evaluation, 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.

I. If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment, or receives an Unacceptable rating on the technical evaluation, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by TEP) until an offeror is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment, or until all offerors are evaluated in which case the Source Selection Authority (SSA) shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision to award to an offeror with other than a

“Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment or not award at all.

Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

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

J. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in 52.212-1

– Instructions to Offerors. Offeror’s may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their quote (for example, the relevance of past performance information) 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 quote revision.

K. The government anticipates adequate price competition and intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

(End of provision)