Attch 7. Addedum to FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

Evaluation Factors for Award

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2 EVALUATION—COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES (NOV

2021)

The significant evaluation factors are (i) technical; (ii) past performance and; (iii) price

1.0. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedure in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures

5315.3. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. Among those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable and have acceptable past performance, award will be made to the offeror having the lowest total evaluated price determined to be reasonable and balanced. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable, has acceptable past performance, conforms to all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, technical requirements, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation described below.

2.0. Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306.

The Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical and price standpoint.

3.0. Evaluation Process

Volume I - Contract Information

3.1. Each offeror’s completed SF 1449 will be evaluated to ensure required fill-ins are properly completed and to verify the offer is valid for 180 days from the closing date of the solicitation. Evaluators will also ensure no exceptions were taken to the terms and conditions of the solicitation. Offeror must indicate whether they are proposing as a distributor or manufacturer.

Volume II - Technical Factor

3.2. Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror demonstrates a compliant approach that meets the requirements of the F&ES PPE Ensemble Statement of Work, Attachment 1 and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail.

Subfactor 1: F&ES PPE Ensemble Specifications Subfactor 2: F&ES PPE Ensemble Management Plan

3.3. The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below.

One technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every subfactor.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Table M1

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Subfactor 1– F&ES PPE Ensemble Specifications

3.4. The proposal and any accompanying substantiating documentation and/or product samples will be evaluated based on Attachment 2 – F&ES PPE Ensemble Specifications. The Offeror must submit a completed RFP Attachment 2 – F&ES PPE Ensemble Specifications, with all yellow highlighted cells completed. If a fill-in is not completed, the proposal will be rated as technically “Unacceptable” in accordance with Table M1 above. If a fill-in is marked as “Does Not Meet”, the proposal will be rated as technically “Unacceptable” in accordance with Table M1 above. If during evaluation any substantiating documentation and/or product sample fails to meet one or more technical specifications listed in Attachment 2 – F&ES PPE Ensemble Specifications, the proposal will be rated as technically “Unacceptable” in accordance with Technical/Acceptable/ Unacceptable ratings above

3.5. The Offeror must certify that all proposed F&ES PPE are Berry Amendment Compliant, and in addition, must certify that all F&ES PPE Structural Ensemble items to be delivered over the period of performance of the contract will be Berry Amendment Compliant IAW DFARS 252.225-7012.

3.6. The Offeror must certify that they can deliver to all Continental United States (CONUS) and Outside the Continental United States (OCONUS) Air Force installations (Attachment 3 – F&ES PPE List of USAF Fire Stations). Expedited Shipping must be available for mission essential/contingency emergency situations.

Subfactor 2 – F&ES PPE Ensemble Management Plan

3.8. The Offeror’s F&ES PPE Ensemble Management Plan will be rated “Acceptable” when the Offeror demonstrates that it has an understanding of the requirements necessary to support the proposed product category. Understanding is demonstrated when the Offeror meets the following:

a) Adequately demonstrates how it will ensure timely delivery of products to CONUS and

OCONUS installations within the required timelines.

b) Demonstrates how it will ensure there is adequate capacity to provide the projected annual product quantities under this contract.

c) Demonstrates how it will ensure there is adequate capacity to perform (i.e., produce and deliver) under the end of fiscal year surge.

Volume III, Past Performance Factor

4.0. General: The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability:to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture members’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule.

to

The Government will take into account Past Performance Information (PPI) regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. PPI for customers where the Offeror performed as the prime contractor and/or subcontractor will be considered.

PPI as the prime contractor may be considered more relevant than performance as a subcontractor.

4.1. Past Performance Assessment: In assessing PPI, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

a) Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume. Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

b) Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record.

Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

4.2. Recency Definitions:

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation and at least 50% complete or completed. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

4.2.1. The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent PPI efforts submitted. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified as recent.

4.3. Relevancy Definitions:

4.3.1. RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

4.3.2. NOT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

4.4. Quality Assessment All recent past performance that is determined to be relevant will be reviewed to determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance. The Government will contact the people identified in the offeror’s Submitted PPI attachments to obtain assessments of the quality of the offeror’s performance of the effort, including the number and severity of any identified problems and the effectiveness of any corrective actions taken

4.5. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings Table M2: As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the following ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor.

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

4.5.1. Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

4.5.2. Small Business Compliance in Past Performance Efforts: Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated the offeror’s/joint venture members’ (and critical subcontractor’s, if applicable) compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns.

Volume IV, Price Proposal

4.6. The Structural Ensemble CLIN Price Sheet (Attachment #5) will be used to establish the TEP. TEP will be calculated by multiplying the contractor's proposed unit price for each item by the estimated quantity to be purchased for each item and for each option period. Extended totals will be automatically calculated by the spreadsheet.

4.6.1. Pricing will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance as follows:

4.6.2. Reasonableness. The Offeror’s price proposal will further be evaluated to determine whether the prices the Government expects to pay are fair and reasonable pursuant to FAR 15.404-1(b). Pricing may be considered unreasonable if any specific unit price or the TEP is significantly above the median price of all Offerors for that specific element. Failure to provide reasonable prices may result in a proposal being deemed ineligible for award. If, after receipt of proposals, the CO determines that there is insufficient data to determine price reasonableness, Offerors may be required to submit additional data IAW FAR 15.403- 3(c).

4.6.3. Balance. The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for balanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g).

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Government will review prices submitted in the Offeror’s price worksheet submission (Attachment 5 – F&ES Ensemble Price Sheet) for balance. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Failure to provide balanced pricing may result in a proposal being rated ineligible for award if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.