Attachment V FAR 52.212-2, “Evaluation – Commercial Items”.pdf

FAR 52.212-2, “Evaluation – Commercial Items”

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 Factor I, Technical Capability, Factor II, Past Performance, and Factor III, 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. Factor 1 - Technical Capability

II. Factor 2 - Past Performance III. Factor 3 - Price

Although the technical 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 intends to make one award to that offeror whose combination of technical and price proposals represents the best value to the Government and is most advantageous in price and other factors considered, as well as within the available resources of NIEHS.

I. FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL CAPABILITY: The Government will evaluate the technical submission for each Task Order 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.

• The ability to batch screen sets of at least 20 compounds to produce a concentration response curve suitable for defining the potency and efficacy of a response and have been demonstrated to be both reliable and relevant

• Includes the robustness of the assay, dose-response and time course toxicity profiles as well as where it is in process of usage (e.g. currently being used in screening large (>100) sets of environmental compounds

• Proficiency with reporting out large sets of data on environmental compounds (>100 compounds)

• Record using a procedures to eliminate operator dependence on stimulation of NCC migration

(e.g. use of a stopper to create cell free migration area).

• Record employing high content imaging, automated imaging algorithms and software tools to generate concentration response curves from NCC migration experiments.

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. FACTOR 2 - 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:

• 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, 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

1. III. FACTOR 3 - PRICE: Price will not be assigned an adjectival rating. The Government will evaluate the total price of Task Orders 1 and 2 to determine if the Quoters price is fair and reasonable utilizing price analysis techniques in accordance with the guidelines in FAR Part 13 (a task order award WILL BE issued for Task Order 1). 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.

FAR CLAUSE 52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)