ATTACHMENT_9_-_Evaluation_Factors.pdf

DJM-14-A32-Q-0004

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2

ATTACHMENT 9

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JAN 1999)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

1. TECHNICAL

2. PAST PERFORMANCE

3. PRICE

Technical and Past Performance, when combined, are approximately equal when compared to price.

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of provision)

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing offerors past performance history, price, and technical will be evaluated. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The Government intends to award to the responsible Contractor whose offer is the most advantageous to the Government. Offers will be evaluated on these factors:

A. Technical. Initially, the Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals.

Factor 1: Nationwide Footprint

The Government requires the Contractor to have a nationwide footprint for this contract. The Contractor shall provide services at all sites listed in the pricing schedule.

Factor 2: Quality Control Plan (QCP)

The Government requires the Contractor to have a Quality Control Plan. At a minimum, the Contractor shall discuss to include:

Scheduling Training of employees and subcontractors Current hazmat policy and procedures Bench stock items

Factor 3: Web-based Portal System.

The Government requires a secure, automated, reliable and accurate electronic web-based portal system for record keeping of all PM and BR. The Contractor shall propose the “go-live date” of the system and address the system’s functions, feasibility, usability and the benefit it provides to the Government.

TABLE 1 – TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

RATING DESCRIPTION

SUBSTANTIAL The technical proposal offers above the requirements of the PWS. The

Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

ACCEPTABLE The technical proposal offers the minimal requirements of the PWS. The Government has a moderate expectation that the offeror will successfully perform with required effort.

UNACCEPTABLE The technical proposal does not offer minimal requirements of the PWS.

The Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

B. Past Performance. The contracting officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information on all offerors based on (1) the references provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources. Relevant present/past performance is defined as effort involving a similar scope and similar magnitude of effort and complexity as this solicitation requires. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history or the offeror’s performance record is so limited that no assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating “Neutral”, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. Past Performance will be evaluated in accordance with the following Table:

TABLE 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE FACTORS

RATING DESCRIPTION

SUBSTANTIAL The Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

ACCEPTABLE The Government has a moderate expectation that the offeror will successfully perform with required effort.

UNACCEPTABLE The Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NEUTRAL No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

C. Price. The Government shall rank all technically Substantial and Acceptable offers by price, including all option prices. An offeror’s proposed price will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in Section B by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number to confirm the extended amount for each. The price evaluation will document the reasonableness and affordability of the proposed total evaluated price.

D. Other Notifications. An offeror receiving an “unacceptable” rating in any factor will not be considered for award regardless of ratings in other factors. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

(end addendum)