Attachment_4_-_52.212-2_Addendum_-_Basis_for_Award.pdf

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

1.1 This is a competitive best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items, and FAR Part 15.3, Source Selection. The Government will utilize a Technically Acceptable – Past Performance/Price tradeoff methodology, where the Government will evaluate the past performance history of technically acceptable Offerors on a basis significantly more important than costs or price considerations. The FAR is available electronically at https://www.acquisition.gov/browsefar.

1.2 Number of Awards. The Government intends to award one (1) contract as a result of this solicitation.

1.3 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers. The Government may reject any proposal that is determined to be unrealistic in terms of contract commitments, contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in price when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of the requirement.

1.4 Conformance to Solicitation Requirements. By submission of its offer, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirement, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. Offerors must clearly identify any exception(s) to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide a complete accompanying rationale.

2.0 Evaluation Factors

2.1 Evaluation Factors Used to Evaluate Each Proposal

Award will be made to the technically acceptable Offeror whose past performance history represents the most advantageous benefit to the Government. All technically acceptable offers shall be treated equally except for their past performance records and proposed pricing. Failure to meet a requirement will result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. The evaluation factors utilized for this solicitation are described below.

Factor 1: Technical Acceptability

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

2.2 Evaluation Methodology

Initially, the Government will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of either Acceptable or Unacceptable. The Technical Proposals will be evaluated as follows:

2.3.1 Factor 1 – Technical Acceptability

https://www.acquisition.gov/browsefar

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s technical proposal to determine if the proposed X-ray machines meet the minimum product specifications outlined in Part II: Section A.2 Task 02, Product Specification, of the Statement of Work. The completed and certified Product Specification Compliance Worksheet, Attachment 5, will be compared against the Offeror’s demonstrated product information contained in the technical proposal.

For non-product specification SOW requirements, the Government will evaluate the proposal to determine if the Offeror possesses the administrative and logistical structure required to respond to the Government’s requirements as stated in the SOW. The evaluation will seek to determine acceptability of the proposed approach to meeting each of the non-product specification SOW requirements in terms of realism and understanding.

Lastly, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s submitted attachments to ensure that they fulfill the requirements outlined in the SOW. Each draft attachment will be evaluated to ensure they address the emerging risks inherent in a requirement of this nature and compared against the Offeror’s administrative and logistics narrative to determine if the Offeror has the ability to execute accordingly. Each sample attachment will be evaluated to assess quality of the sample and to ensure the Offeror captures all elements specified in the SOW.

Upon conclusion of the technical evaluation, Offerors’ proposal will receive an overall rating of either Acceptable or Unacceptable. Those proposals deemed Unacceptable will not be evaluated further and considered ineligible for award.

Factor 2 – Past Performance

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to assess how likely the Offeror is to perform successfully on the required effort. To accomplish this, the Government will evaluate the quality of recent and relevant performance information in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2) and FAR 15.304(c)(2). Recent past performance is defined as occurring within the three (3) years prior to the solicitation closing date. If work began prior to the three (3) year past performance timeframe/window, only the portion of the work that actually continued/occurred within the three (3) year timeframe/window will be considered. Relevant past performance is defined as effort in managing a contract of similar scope, complexity and dollar value. Offerors with no relevant past performance history, or the Offeror’s past performance record is so limited that no assessment rating can be reasonable assigned, will receive a rating of “Neutral”, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably

Factor 3 – Price

The Government will evaluate Offeror’s price for accuracy and reasonableness.

Accuracy

Pricing tables. The Government will review the pricing tables for completeness and accuracy. A determination will be made as to whether the Offeror properly completed the pricing tables. The Offeror’s proposal will be checked for mathematical correctness to include the following:

1. Checking arithmetic in all pricing table computations; and

2. Ensuring all prices are summarized correctly.

Options. The Government will evaluate options for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price of 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 options.

Reasonableness

The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Reasonableness takes into account the context of a given source selection, including current market conditions, general economic conditions, and other factors that affect the ability of an Offeror to perform the contract requirements.

(End of Addendum)