ATTCH 3 FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation Criteria_20251124.pdf

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 – EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. Basis for Award

This acquisition is a 100% total small business set aside. The Government intends to award a single contract resulting from this solicitation to an Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government in accordance with FAR 13.106-1 using Best Value Trade Off between Technical and Price where the technical rating is significantly more important than Price.

The Government intends to award this acquisition without exchanges but withholds the rights to enter into exchanges if it is advantageous to the Government.

Evaluation of an Offeror’s proposal will be based on the information presented in the written proposal. The Government will evaluate all proposals for compliance with the terms, conditions, and requirements set forth in the solicitation. Failure to include all information requested may result in a determination where the proposal is unawardable. The Government intend to award to the offeror who in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall value in response to the solicitation.

2. Evaluation Factors

The factors below will be used in evaluation and selection of Offerors for award in accordance with FAR 13:

Factor 1 – Technical Approach (Adjectival) Factor 2 – Pricing – See Attachment 4 Pricing Worksheet for completion

2.1. Factor 1 – Technical Approach

The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s proposed solution is in the best value of the Government. An “unacceptable” rating will render the entire proposal unacceptable and not considered further for award. It is imperative that the Offeror fully describes how it will meet EACH individual task within the Performance Work Statement Section (2.1 – 2.3). Do not simply copy and paste, rephrase or restate the Performance Work Statement language for the technical approach. This is the Offeror’s opportunity to address, in detail, how it will provide the value to the Government through accomplishing the Performance Work Statement tasks.

2.1.1. Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

Outstanding The proposed solution indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the objectives. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low to nonexistent.

Good The proposed solution indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the objectives; providing a good outcome for the Government. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable The proposed solution indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the objectives; providing an acceptable outcome for the Government. Risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate.

Unacceptable The proposed solution did not meet the minimum requirements

Proposal must receive a rating of “Acceptable”, “Good”, or “Outstanding” in order to have Factor 2 – Pricing evaluated. Each offeror could receive a strength, weakness or deficiency based on their proposal. Proposals that receive an “Unacceptable” will not be considered further for award.

Definitions:

Strength – is an aspect of an offeror's proposal that exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a manner that will be advantageous/provide a benefit to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness – a flaw in the proposal or proposed approach that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency - a failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. (Any deficiencies will render entire proposal Unacceptable)

2.2 Factor 2 – Pricing

The Government will evaluate price proposals for price reasonableness, fairness, and balance.

Pricing will be determined reasonable in accordance with FAR 13.106-3. The Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedure to ensure a fair and reasonable price.

The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for this effort will be the summation of all base year Contract Line Item Numbers (CLIN) plus the summation of all option year Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINS). Attachment 4 –Pricing Worksheet.

Unbalanced pricing: Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line items or CLINs is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost of price analysis techniques. The Government will analyze each proposal to determine whether there is unbalanced pricing proposed by each offeror. A proposal may be rejected and deemed unawardable if the Contracting Officer determines that the prices are unbalanced.

Evaluation of FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. The Government reserves the right to extend services for an additional 6-month extension period, in accordance with FAR 52.217-8. The 6-month extension will be calculated by taking the last option year unit price and multiplying the unit price by 6 months to get the total of the -8 extension price. As part of evaluation of price for this requirement, the Government will include the -8 pricing into the TEP total. The -8 option to extend services and price will not be included at contract award. If the Government exercises FAR 52.217-8, option to extend services, the extension will not exceed 6 months, a new CLIN will be added to the contract through a modification and the -8 price will be included by taking the previous active period of performance unit price and multiplying the unit price by 6 months in order to get the -8 price. Evaluation of options does not obligate the Government to exercise those options.

(End of Addendum)