Attachment II - Addendum to 52.212-2_Final.pdf

Attachment II: Addendum to 52.212-2

EVALUATION CRITERIA

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the Offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, represents the best value to the Government, when technical capability, past performance, and price are considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate the offer:

Order of Importance:

(i) Technical Capability

(ii) Past Performance

(iii) Price

Basis for Award: Award of this requirement will be made on a best value basis, technical capability, past performance, and price considered. The Government intends to award without discussions. The Government reserves the right to hold discussions if deemed necessary. The Offeror MUST provide their best complete proposal upon initial submission.

The Government evaluator(s) will not assume that the Offeror possesses any capability or knowledge unless it is specified in the proposal. If Technical Capability received an individual rating of “unacceptable” the collective overall rating will also be “unacceptable.” Only a proposal receiving an overall rating of “acceptable” will be further considered for award.

Factor 1: Technical Capability Technical Capability will be evaluated to the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates overall ability to perform the services and their understanding of the requirements set forth in the performance work statement (PWS). The Offeror shall clearly outline the proposed labor mix (proposed labor category and quantities per labor category).

Factor 2: Past Performance Past Performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying services that meet this contract’s requirements. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

Recency: The first aspect to be evaluated is recency. To be considered recent, the offeror’s past performance references must be active or have been completed not more than three (3) years prior to the posting of this combined synopses/solicitation. Past performance will be assigned a value of Recent or Not Recent. If an offeror’s past performance reference has been assigned a value of Not Recent, it will not be further evaluated.

Relevancy: The second aspect to be evaluated is relevancy. To be considered relevant, the offeror’s past performance references must be for non-personal services similar in complexity and magnitude to the services described in the Performance Work Statement included in this solicitation. Past performance will be assigned a value of Relevant or Not Relevant. If an offeror’s past performance reference has been assigned a value of Not Relevant, it will not be further evaluated.

Quality of Performance: The third aspect to be evaluated is the overall quality of the offeror’s past

Ratings Description Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

performance. During this evaluation, information will be collected regarding the level of performance provided for each past performance reference. The Government reserves the right to use information obtained from any sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, CPARS, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and commercial sources and/or non-Government sources.

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant past performance record, the Government will assign an overall Performance Confidence Assessment rating as described in the below table.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

RATING DESCRIPTION

SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE

Based on the contractor’s relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the contractor will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the contractor’s relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the contractor will successfully perform the required effort.

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

Based on the contractor’s relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the contractor will successfully perform the required effort.

NO CONFIDENCE

Based on the contractor’s relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the contractor will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

NEUTRAL CONFIDENCE

No relevant performance record is available or the contractor’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The contractor may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance. In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral.”

Factor 3: Price Price will be evaluated/analyzed separately from Technical Capability. Price will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 12.209 and 13.106-3 for fair and reasonableness in terms of:

- pricing is proposed based on level of effort within the solicitation

- pricing is proposed for all CLINs

(b) Price will be evaluated for:

- Reasonableness: The offeror’s proposed line-item prices and total price will be evaluated to determine the degree to which the prices compare to the prices a reasonably prudent person would expect to incur for the same or similar service. An offeror with pricing that is determined to be questionable for reasonableness (for any period of performance) may not be further considered for award.

- Completeness: The Government will evaluate if pricing information in the solicitation is complete, and all required pricing has been submitted. This includes all required pricing for the base period and all option periods. In the event that any of the pricing is incomplete, the Contracting Officer may exclude the offeror’s proposal from further evaluation.