Appendix_C_-_Evaluation_52.212-2.pdf

Appendix C – Evaluation Procedures for Award Request For Proposal : FA2823-16-R-6001

CENTRALIZED APPOINTMENT CALL CENTER (CACC)

REFERRAL MANAGEMENT CENTER (RMC)

REGISTRATION AND TRICARE PLUS ENROLLMENT CENTER (RTPEC)

INTERNAL MEDICINE CLINIC APPOINTMENT DESK (IMCAD), Eglin AFB, FL 32542

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

(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:

i. Technical Acceptability

ii. Price

iii. Past Performance

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options (including a 6 month extension) to the total price for the basic requirement to determine the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The 6 month extension will be calculated using the offerors final option year monthly rate times(x) 6 months. Additionally the Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are materially unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the options.

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer that is 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 – EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JAN 1999)

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

1. This is a competitive Best Value acquisition utilizing Performance/Price Tradeoff (PPT) procedures with technical proposals. The Government will award a contract resulting from the solicitation to the acceptable, responsible offeror whose proposal, conforming to this solicitation offers the Best Value to the Government, with Past Performance being more important than Price. Evaluation criteria are the same for all competing offerors.

2. Offerors shall propose on all items. Any offer that fails to cite a price for each item or fails to make an entry that indicates service will be provided at no charge may be rejected as nonconforming to this solicitation.

3. Only Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) offers will be evaluated. An offer using a sliding price scale or subject to escalation based on any contingency will not be accepted.

4. The evaluation process will proceed as follows:

i.) Price: The proposed prices for all CLINs via Appendix A (bid schedule) will be added together to determine the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) and ranked from lowest TEP to highest TEP.

Price will be evaluated for reasonableness subject to the processes described in this provision.

Reasonableness will be determined based on prices submitted by the competition, current market conditions, and comparison to the Government estimate, if applicable. Prices will also be evaluated to determine if they are materially unbalanced. Materially unbalanced prices risk rejection.

ii.) Technical Acceptability: Government will use Appendix E to evaluate the lowest priced offeror’s technical proposal on a Technically Acceptable / Unacceptable basis based on the following technical qualifications:

a. Quality Control

b. Staffing and Scheduling

c. Business Organization and Management Overview

d. Transition and Phase Out Plan iii.) Past Performance: Using the information provided in Volume III Past Performance Proposal and Volume IV, Past Performance References/Questionnaire (Appendix D) and other available information, the contracting officer shall seek relevant performance information on all offerors based on (1) the past and present efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources.

The lowest Total Evaluated Price/technically acceptable offer will then be assigned a confidence level from the Performance Confidence Assessment list. If the lowest Total Evaluated Price offer is determined to be technically acceptable and is judged to have an overall Substantial Confidence performance rating, it will be considered to represent the Best Value for the Government. The evaluation process stops at this point.

Award will be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

IF THE LOWEST TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE OFFER THAT IS TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE IS

NOT JUDGED TO HAVE AN OVERALL SUBSTAINIAL CONFIDENCE PEFORMANCE RATING,

THE EVALUATION WILL CONTINUE AS FOLLOWS:

If the lowest Total Evaluated Price acceptable offer is reasonable, but does not have a confidence rating of Substantial Confidence, the next lowest Total Evaluated Price/Technically acceptable offer will be evaluated and the process will continue until an offeror whose price is reasonable receives a confidence rating of Substantial Confidence overall for past performance.

The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment Best Value award decision by determining if the Best Value to the Government is to pay a higher cost for a higher past performance assessment rating. The Government reserves the following rights:

a. To award a contract to the lowest Total Evaluated Price offeror who meets technical acceptability and who has Substantial Confidence Rating if in the final competitive range

b. To award to higher Total Evaluated Price offeror who meets technical acceptability and who has Substantial Confidence Rating if in the final competitive range

c. To award a contract to the lowest Total Evaluated Price offeror who meets technical acceptability and who has at least a Satisfactory Confidence Rating if in final competitive range.

A. The Government reserves the right to seek information on higher priced offerors if none of the lower priced offerors receive a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in this RFP, based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance. The

Government will conduct a performance confidence assessment based upon past performance of the offerors as it relates to the probability of successfully performing the solicitation requirements. This evaluation will include the contractor’s record of (i) conforming to the Performance Work Statement and contract requirements, (ii) management of the Centralized Appointment Call Center, (iii) reasonable and cooperative behavior and performance and commitment to customer satisfaction, and (iv) quality control.

This assessment represents the government evaluation team’s judgment of the probability of an offeror successfully accomplishing the proposed effort, based upon the offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance. The rating may be determined initially, or as a result of interchanges with the offeror. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence. The offeror’s performance confidence assessment will be based upon consideration of both the quality of the offeror’s performance on prior efforts and the relevancy of such efforts.

B. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history or the offeror’s performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating "Unknown Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. Definitions for Performance Confidence Assessments and Relevancy are as defined below:

Performance Confidence Assessments Substantial Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, The Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, The Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, The Government has no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

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

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Definitions

Very Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant

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

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities than this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

C. In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFP. Additionally, favorable performance on efforts that are of greater relevance may be viewed more favorably than comparable performance on efforts that are of lesser relevance. Efforts deemed “Not Relevant” will not be considered in the performance confidence assessment.

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

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

F. Rejection of Unrealistic Offers: The Government may reject any proposal that is assessed to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in price, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program. Proposals that are unrealistic in terms of price may be rejected at any time during the evaluation process. Proposals are intended to be evaluated, and award made, without discussions with the offerors (other than minor clarification[s]), unless discussions are determined to be necessary. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. Offerors may be required to participate in telephone discussions or in face-to-face oral discussions at the Operational Contracting Division, 308 West “D” Avenue, Suite 130, Bldg 260, Eglin AFB FL. Offerors are cautioned to follow the detailed instructions fully and carefully, as the Government reserves the right to make an award based on initial offers received, without discussion of such offers. The offeror's initial proposal should reflect their best effort.