AMENDMENT_002.pdf

AMENDMENT 002

This amendment is for 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Items clause in the solicitation.

Addendum to 52.212-2, Evaluation was unintentionally missing from the solicitation. This addendum is to supplement the evaluation criteria. It explains the detail of the ratings and the evaluation process.

Please see the 52.212-2, Evaluation –Commercial Items clause with the addendum included below;

52.212-2 Evaluation -- Commercial Items (Oct 2014) (Tailored)

(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

Award will be made using the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection process per FAR 15.101-2. Only those proposals that are evaluated as Technically Acceptable will be evaluated for Past Performance. Moreover, only those proposals with an Acceptable Past

Performance rating will be evaluated for Price and will be eligible for award (Note: Paragraph

(a) has been tailored IAW FAR 16.202(a) (see Addendum)).

(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 Evaluation – Commercial Items (Oct 2014) (Tailored)

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This FAR Part 12 acquisition is a full and open competition, under North American

Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 621910. The Government intends to award a single firm-fixed-price contract using the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection process (FAR 15.101-2) to the Offeror that is determined to be responsible in accordance with FAR 9.103. Only proposals that are evaluated as

Technically Acceptable will be evaluated for Past Performance. Moreover, only proposals with Acceptable Past Performance will be evaluated for Price and will be eligible for award. The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to enter into discussions if determined to be in the best interest of the

Government. Therefore, it is particularly important that each Offeror provide its best offer. Proposals shall be reviewed to determine whether they conform to the formal requirements of the solicitation. Failure to respond or follow the instructions regarding the organization and content of the proposal volumes and the provisions listed herein may result in the Offeror’ s proposal being eliminated from further consideration for award. The Offeror must complete and provide representations and certifications with the proposal in accordance with FAR 52.212-3 Offeror Representations and

Certifications – Commercial Items (Mar 2015). Prior to any award being made, the awardee must be registered in System for Award Management (SAM) website accessed through http://www.acquisition.gov. The Government reserves the right to make one, more than one, or no award whatsoever under this solicitation.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

TECHNICAL FACTOR EVALUATION

Initially, Technical Proposals will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis assigning ratings of

Acceptable or Unacceptable using the ratings and descriptions below:

Technical Proposals will be evaluated against the following Technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Operating Permits. Offeror’s proposed operating permits demonstrate an ability to meet minimum certification and licensing requirements of the solicitation.

Rating Definition

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

Subfactor 2: Mission Essential Services Plan. Offeror’s proposed Mission Essential

Services Plan demonstrates an ability to meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

The two Technical subfactors are of equal importance. Technical Proposals must be evaluated as

Acceptable for both Technical subfactors to be considered Technically Acceptable. Only proposals evaluated as Technically Acceptable will be evaluated for Past Performance.

PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR EVALUATION

Next, the Government will conduct a Past Performance evaluation of all Technically Acceptable offers. Technically Acceptable offers must receive a Past Performance rating of Acceptable to be evaluated for Price and be eligible for award.

(1) Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the ratings described below.

(2) Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the solicitation requirements. In conducting the Past

Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to: the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS);

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.”

Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS);

Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee

Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

(i) Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past 3years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated further.

(ii) Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the products provided/services performed under those contracts are relevant. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities 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.

Past performance information that is determined to be “Not Relevant” will not be evaluated further.

(iii) Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Quality

Assessment/Color

Description

Satisfactory During the contract period, contractor performance is substantially meeting (or substantially met) contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

Unsatisfactory During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

Not Available Quality and/or performance information is not available.

(3) Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated

Past Performance rating at the factor level (see Performance Evaluation Ratings).

More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Past Performance rating than less recent effort.

PRICE FACTOR EVALUATION

The Government will then rank all Technically Acceptable offers with an Acceptable Past

Performance rating by Price. Each Technically Acceptable offer with an Acceptable Past

Performance rating will be evaluated on the total price of all Contract Line Item Numbers

(CLINs) contained in the schedule. The Government will evaluate each Technically Acceptable offer with an Acceptable Past Performance rating by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Failure to include all prices will exclude the Offeror from further consideration for award if the Government decides to award without discussions.

Offerors are cautioned against submitting a materially unbalanced offer. The Government shall analyze Offers to determine if they are unbalanced with respect to prices for separate items.

Offers that are determined to be materially unbalanced may be rejected.

An offer is mathematically unbalanced if it is based on prices which are significantly less than the price for some line items and significantly overstated in relation to the price for others. An offer is materially unbalanced if it is mathematically unbalanced and if there is a reasonable doubt that the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the Government, even though it is the lowest evaluated offer; or, the offer is so grossly unbalanced that its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advance payment.

3. CONTRACT AWARD

Award will be made to the lowest priced, Technically Acceptable offer with an Acceptable Past

Performance rating in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 to the contractor who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9.