2._Adden._52_212-2.pdf

ADDENDUM FAR 52.212-2

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD - This is a competitive Lowest Price Technically

Acceptable (LPTA) best value source selection in which all non-priced evaluation factors, when combined, are equal in importance to cost or price. The proposals shall be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.101-2. By submission of its offer, the offeror accepts all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. 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 evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

A. Price Evaluation. Offers shall be ranked according to price, including any option prices, if applicable. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by the Total Price identified on the price proposal form. When applicable, the price evaluation adjustment for HUBZone small business concerns will be applied in accordance with FAR 52.219-4, Notice of Price Evaluation

Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns, to arrive at an evaluated price. The price evaluation will document for the offers evaluated under the following subparagraph B, the reasonableness and affordability of the proposed total evaluated price. Offers determined to be unreasonable will be unawardable.

Price reasonableness is the amount a prudent person would pay in competitive business.

Reasonableness is achieved by a comparison of offerors proposed prices received in an adequate price competition.

B. Technical Acceptability.

The government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposal submitted by the lowest priced offeror on a pass/fail basis to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in Table A-1, IAW Department of

Defense (DOD) Source Selection Procedures (SSP) for LPTA.

Table A-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactors:

file:///C:/Users/JeffreyW.Voudren/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/far/FAR52.215.doc%23b522194

i. Sub-Factor 1: Technical Approach Narrative shall consist of a summary of the technical approach the offeror intends to employ during diagnosis and repairs of this project. This must include:

a. Contractor’s methodology in diagnosis, mobilizing, scheduling, managing work, and execution of the work outlined in the SOW. This will be reviewed to ensure the Offeror has a clear understanding of the project requirements.

b. Quality Control structure and objectives as they apply internally and to anticipated sub-contractors. This shall include the offeror’s Quality Control

Plan, a statement indicating what personnel will be used for this function on subject project and any deficiency tracking mechanisms employed by the offeror. This will be reviewed to validate the Offeror has appropriate Quality

Control procedures and personnel in place to identify sub-standard performance for both internal and external construction activities.

c. Contractor is required to have a New Mexico License as a certified Well

Driller.

d. Proposed method of cleaning and disinfection of equipment. Proposed method of well disinfection.

ii. Sub-Factor 2: Proposed Progress Schedule for diagnosis/repair and/or design if applicable, submitted on one (1) document in MS Project or similar a pdf of the schedule. This will be reviewed for logical sequencing of tasks and validation of a realistic schedule to accomplish the tasks defined in the SOW.

***Failure to fully address and provide all of the above criteria shall result in the Contractor’s proposal being considered Technically “Unacceptable” for this project.

C. Past Performance Evaluation. The government shall seek recent and relevant performance information on the lowest priced offeror based on (1) the past efforts provided by the offeror

(Attachment 6 to the solicitation) and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources.

Relevant Past Performance is defined as performance on projects that are similar in size, scope, complexity and dollar magnitude as the project described in this solicitation. For dollar magnitude, similar will be defined as a range from 50% to 100% of subject project’s estimated contract value. Additionally, past performance must demonstrate the contractor has performed a substantial number of projects of similar size, scope, complexity to demonstrate level of experience. The contractor should provide sufficient information for the government to ascertain experience in diagnosis and repair of wells, including any special methods or diagnostic equipment, and examples of past projects where diagnosis was essential in completing the project. To be considered acceptable the contractor shall provide a minimum of five (5) projects involving diagnosis and repair of unknown failures in water wells.

Recent past performance is defined as performance on projects that are 100% complete and were completed no more than three (3) years from the date of this solicitation. Past Performance will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis using the ratings in Table A-2.

Table A-2. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

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 has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

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 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 past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable” IAW DOD SSP for LPTA.

If the lowest priced offer is not judged to have an “Acceptable” performance evaluation, the next lowest priced offer will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offer is judged to have an “Acceptable” performance evaluation or until all offers are evaluated.

The Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (to include ACASS, CCASS, CPARS and PPIRS) will be utilized to validate past performance ratings on Department of

Defense contracts, as well as any other past performance information sources the Government deems necessary to evaluate a contractor’s past performance. Any and all of this information may be used when evaluating past performance of Offerors if it is determined to be recent and relevant by the Contracting Officer.

Letters of recommendation, commendations, and/or awards on projects, which demonstrate construction/repair experience and outstanding performance will be reviewed and considered if provided by the Offeror.

D. If the lowest priced evaluated offer is judged to have an “Acceptable” performance evaluation and is judged to be technically acceptable, that offer represents the best value to the government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that Offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

E. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in

Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. Offeror’s may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal

(for example, the relevance of past performance information) 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.

F. The Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions with offerors. Therefore, the offeror’s initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. The Government may reject any or all offers if such action is in the public interest; accept other than the lowest offer; and waive informalities and minor irregularities in offers received IAW FAR 52.212-1(g).

(End of Section)