Attachment III - FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation Commercial Items.pdf

FAR 52.212-2, “Evaluation – Commercial Items”

ARTICLE M.1. FAR CLAUSE 52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

(a) Basis for Award. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), as supplemented by the Health and Human Services Acquisition Regulation (HHSAR) will be used to evaluate the quote and award this requirement. The major evaluation factors for this solicitation include Technical Capability (which encompasses two (2) factors), Previous Demonstrated Experience and Past Performance, (which encompasses one (1) factor) and Price. Although the Mission Capability factor is of paramount consideration in the award of the contract, past performance and price are also important to the overall contract award decision. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price. The Government will utilize a tradeoff approach to determine the Quoter who provides the best value to the Government. The Government intends to make one (1) award to the Quoter whose submission provides the best overall value to the Government.

The government will evaluate information based on the following evaluation criteria: (1) technical capability factor meeting or exceeding the requirement, (2) past performance, and (3) price.

I. Technical Capability (encompasses 2 Factors)

• Factor 1 – Manuscript Handling System

• Factor 2 – Customer Service

II. Factor 3– Previous Demonstrated Experience and Past Performance III. Factor 4 - Price

I. TECHNICAL CAPABILITY: The Government will evaluate the technical submission to ensure it is acceptable or higher. Each submission will be rated utilizing the ratings defined below (price excluded).

Technical Factor evaluation provides an assessment of the Quoter’s capability to satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements.

• Factor 1 – Manuscript Handling System: In order to be considered acceptable the Quoter’s responses shall at a minimum demonstrate:

o Submission system be customized to EHP’s workflow during setup, meeting all Technical Requirements articulated in the Statement of Work o The production system meets the need to work with both staff and external contractors (Ability to traffic files into and out of the system via ftp with XML metadata) o Self-service options for customizing the system, including workflow modifications, submission and review requirements, metadata storage/acquisition, presentation and communication options o Frequency of updates issued to the system and feature request process

• Factor 2 – Customer Service: In order to be considered acceptable the Quoter’s responses shall at a minimum demonstrate:

o Multiple direct contact options (email, phone, teleconference); a requirement to use a helpdesk-style “ticketing” system will not be not be considered acceptable o A single point of contact/account manager (plus backup) be assigned to our account to ensure continuity of service o Expected response time for getting in touch with a customer service agent/account manager o Expected response time for acknowledging a potential problem with the system o Reported errors tracking and resolution o Potential problems communicated to the customer o Escalation options, in the event that first-level support is unable to resolve the problem o Program updates and changes communicated to the customer, prior to their scheduled release o Support representatives available to deal with questions about these changes, and to provide training o Training materials provided

The Government will evaluate the Technical submission using the following adjectival rating:

Rating Definition

Exceptional Greatly exceeds all minimum requirements of the criteria; has a high probability of success;

contains no weaknesses or deficiencies. The technical submission possesses numerous (5 or more) significant strengths (that are not offset by flaws)

Good

Exceeds all the minimum requirements of the criteria; has an above average probability of success; contains no significant weaknesses and only minor, correctable weaknesses exist.

The technical submission possesses one or more significant strengths (that are not offset by flaws)

Acceptable Meets all the minimum requirements of the criteria; has an average probability of success;

no significant weaknesses and any deficiencies can be readily corrected.

Marginal Fails to meet one or more of the minimum requirements of the criteria; low probability of success; significant weaknesses and/or significant number of deficiencies exist.

Unacceptable Fails to meet any of the minimum requirements of the criteria; submission needs major revisions; very low probability of success.

NOTE: A Quoter must receive an adjectival rating of acceptable or above for each sub factor. Failure to meet the criteria will render the response not eligible for award. The Government will not make an award to any Quoter with an unacceptable rating or a deficiency in ANY factor or sub factor.

II. PREVIOUS DEMONSTRATED EXPERIENCE & PAST PERFORMANCE: The Government will assess the Quoter’s recent and relevant past experience and performance as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the likelihood of the Quoter to successfully perform based on previous and current contract efforts.

Recent past performance is defined as not more than three years from the RFQ release date; relevant in terms of size, scope, and complexity. The submission will be evaluated on the following:

• Factor 3 – Experience with scholarly publishing: In order to be considered acceptable the Quoter’s responses shall at a minimum demonstrate:

o Number of STEM (scientific, technical, engineering, medical) journal customers currently using the system o Percentage of customers with one journal versus the percentage with multiple journals o Number of years has the company been developing and supporting this software o The platform integrates with other important resources in the journal publishing community (ORCID, FundRef, Ringgold, iThenticate/CrossCheck, bioRxiv, medRxiv, etc.). List all that apply.

o Information on how the company solicits feedback from the larger journals publishing ecosystem

• Relevancy of information provided and obtained from references provided by the Quoter, other relevant past performance information obtained from other sources known to the Government such as CPARS, and any information supplied by the offeror concerning problems encountered on the identified contracts, as well as corrective action taken;

• Relevancy of past performance to the SOW in quality of services; timeliness of performance and record of meeting schedules; ability to understand and resolve deficiencies in a timely manner with no adverse impact on the mission, general responsiveness to contract requirements and to technical direction; and, customer satisfaction.

The Government will evaluate the Past Performance Factor using the following adjectival ratings:

Rating Definition

Neutral No past performance available for evaluation. Quoter has asserted that it has no directly related or similar relevant past performance experience. Submission receives no merit or demerit for this factor.

Outstanding

Based on the Quoter’s record of past performance, no issues, concerns, or risks are associated with receiving timely services and contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Quoter’s experiences indicate that the Quoter is capable of exceeding the requirements of the delivery order. The Quoter has demonstrated significant experience with and knowledge of the issues and problems of large organizations.

Good The Quoter’s record of past performance indicates there is very little risk associated with receiving quality products, timely services and full contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Quoter’s experience indicate the Quoter will meet or exceed

Acceptable

The Quoter’s record of past performance indicates that there is some potential risk associated with receiving quality products, timely services, and contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Quoter’s experience indicate the Quoter may have some problems during performance of the delivery order. The Quoter has demonstrated limited experience with and knowledge of the issues and problems of large organizations.

Unsatisfactory The Quoter’s record of past performance indicates it will be unable to perform successfully on the task order

III. PRICE: Price will not be assigned an adjectival rating. The Government will evaluate the total price of the sample task order (STO) to determine if the Quoters price is fair and reasonable utilizing price analysis techniques in accordance with the guidelines in FAR Part 13. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 13.106.

As part of the price fair and reasonable determination, the Government will evaluate its option to extend services (see FAR Clause 52.217-8) by using six (6) months of the last years ceiling and the unit prices for the last year quoted in the Contract Pricing List for the option period. The Quoter shall not submit a price for the potential six (6) month extension of services period. The Government may choose to exercise the Extension of Services at the end of the performance period, utilizing the rates of that performance period.

ARTICLE M.1. FAR CLAUSE 52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)