52_212-2 _9_June_14.pdf

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 9 June 2014 Solicitation No. F2KTAB4042A001, Kirtland AFB, DMOC Access Control System Page

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

THIS SECTION IS FOR SOLICITATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS SECTION WILL BE

PHYSICALLY REMOVED FROM ANY RESULTANT AWARD, BUT WILL BE DEEMED

INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE.

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Lowest Price Technically Acceptable offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered, in accordance with FAR. Award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

(1) PAST PERFORMANCE

(2) TECHNICAL

(3) 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.

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: By submission of its offer in accordance with the instructions provided in provision addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions To Offerors, the offeror accedes to the terms of this model contract and all such offers shall be treated equally except for their prices, technical, and past performance. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

A. Offers shall be ranked according to price, including option prices. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in the Pricing Schedule by the unit price for each item to confirm the extended amount for each.

Copies of the Pricing Schedule will be necessary in order to submit a proposal for each option year.

B. Past Performance will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 13.106. The comparative assessment in FAR 15.305 does not apply, therefore, past performance will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis using the ratings in Table 1. The contracting officer

Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 9 June 2014 Solicitation No. F2KTAB4042A001, Kirtland AFB, DMOC Access Control System Page shall seek recent (efforts performed within the past three years) and relevant (efforts similar in scope, magnitude and complexity) performance information from offerors based on (1) the references provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources. The government reserves the right to seek information on higher priced offerors if none of the lower priced offerors receive an acceptable rating.

Table 1. 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. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

C. Technical Responses will be evaluated. The minimum requirements are established in the Statement of Work (SOW) attached to this solicitation. The technical response is considered the proposed approach to meeting ALL aspects of the project and shall be evaluated for conformance with the requirements as outlined in the SOW. Technical proposals will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis using the ratings in Table 2.

Table 2. Technical Response Evaluation Ratings Rating Description Acceptable The offeror’s technical response clearly demonstrates the proposed approach to meeting all aspects of the project and conformance with the requirements as outlined in the SOW.

(See note below).

Unacceptable The offeror’s technical response does not demonstrate the proposed approach to meeting all aspects of the project and conformance with the requirements outlined in the SOW.

Note: Offerors that merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation will not be considered acceptable.

Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 9 June 2014 Solicitation No. F2KTAB4042A001, Kirtland AFB, DMOC Access Control System Page

D. Offers will be evaluated in groups of three (3) beginning with the lowest priced offers.

The lowest price offeror evaluated to have an “Acceptable” past performance rating and “Acceptable” Technical Response Rating whose price is also considered reasonable will be considered to be the most advantageous proposal to the government. If none of the offers in the lowest priced offerors group are evaluated to have an “Acceptable” past performance rating and “Acceptable” Technical Response Rating, then the next lowest priced offer group of three (3) will be assessed in the same manor until an offeror is evaluated to have an “Acceptable” past performance rating and “Acceptable” Technical Response Rating or until all offerors are evaluated. If no offeror receives an “Acceptable” past performance rating and “Acceptable” Technical Response Rating the Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision by performing a past performance/technical/price trade-off analysis.

E. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in the proposal preparation instructions to permit a meaningful assessment of past performance and technical response. 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.

F. 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.