Addendum_2_-_52.212-2.pdf

502 CONS/JBKAE FA3016-16-R-0009

JBSA Lackland, TX

Addendum 2 4 Feb 2016 Page 1 of 4

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items

Addendum to 52.212-2(a): Paragraph (a) is tailored as follows:

(a) Basis for Contract Award. The Government intends to award one contract for this competitive Small Business Set-Aside service acquisition. Award will be made to the technically acceptable Offeror with lowest evaluated price who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104 and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements. The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by this solicitation. Unless specifically identified in your proposal, by submission of its offer, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in a proposal being determined ineligible for award.

This contract will be awarded as Firm Fixed Price (FFP), multiple year (not to exceed five years with exception of extension FAR 52.217-8), Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) in which the Government will utilize the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with FAR.15.101-2. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability.

It is the Government’s intent to evaluate proposals and award contracts without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror's initial proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms from a price, and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer (CO) later determines them to be necessary.

1.0 Evaluation Process. Offers will be ranked from lowest to highest based on initial assessment of Total Evaluated Price (TEP), followed by a full evaluation of technical acceptability of at minimum the lowest three TEP proposals. A price analysis will be conducted on the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal to determine price reasonableness. Award will be made to the lowest TEP proposal meeting the technical acceptability standards (contingent contractor’s responsibility determination). If award is to be made without discussion the evaluation factors and process to be used is listed below.

1.1 Evaluation Factors. In evaluating proposals, the Government will select the proposal that is most advantageous to the Government. To arrive at a decision, each offer will be assessed in accordance with the following evaluation factors for the contract:

Volume 1: Price Volume 2: Technical Volume 3: Past Performance

1.1.1 Price Evaluation. Evaluations will be completed by multiplying the Offeror’s unit price by the estimated quantity. An offeror’s proposed TEP will be determined by multiplying the estimated quantities identified in the Schedule of Supplies/Services by the proposed unit price for each CLIN. The extended amounts for each CLIN will then be totaled to obtain the estimated total for each performance period. The TEP consists of all periods of performance. The estimated total for each period of performance will added together to obtain the TEP.

The contract will include FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, with the potential to extend the contract an additional 6 months beyond the awarded contract performance period. The price for that

Addendum 2 4 Feb 2016 Page 2 of 4 period will be determined based on the unit prices proposed for the current period of performance and will be evaluated at time of award. In the event the Government requires continued performance, the Government's evaluation of prices proposed will be considered fair and reasonable as applied to an extension of services. Should an extension of services be required rates will be adjusted only as result of revisions to applicable prevailing Department of Labor wage rates.

1.1.2 Technical Evaluation. If the Government receives three (3) or fewer initial proposals all proposals will be evaluated for Technical Acceptability. If the Government receives three (3) or more initial proposals the Government will only select the three (3) lowest priced proposals and then evaluate them for Technical Acceptability. The Government reserves the right to evaluate additional proposals for technical acceptability if in the Government’s best interest. If additional proposals are evaluated for technical acceptability they will be selected in the order of total evaluated price.

1.1.2.1 Acceptability Ratings. The evaluation factors listed below will be evaluated and receive one of the following ratings:

(i) Acceptable – The proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

(ii) Unacceptable – The proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

1.1.2.2 Evaluation of Factors. Offerors are advised that their initial submission should be their best effort. Only technically acceptable proposals, either initially or as a result of discussions, are eligible for award. If award is made without discussions, proposal revisions will not be permitted. The Government will evaluate the proposals selected above for technical acceptability on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. For the technical proposal to be rated as “Acceptable”, all technical factors and sub factors must be rated acceptable. If any technical factor or sub factor is rated “Unacceptable” the overall proposal will be rated as “Unacceptable”.

(A) Factor # 1 – Management Plan The offeror shall submit a plan that illustrates the best approach to perform tasks stated in the PWS. At a minimum, the plan should:

i. Demonstrate an on-site capability of the capability to perform on site maintenance, repairs, painting, etc. as cited in the attached PWS. This includes a proposed manpower mix sufficient to meet all the requirements of the PWS; to include, numbers, types and skills of the personnel proposed in the manning matrix against the requirements of the PWS. This on-site capability includes the capability to handle large volumes of work in accordance with the PWS.

ii. Provide mitigating strategies and processes designed to prevent and proactively identify and forecast potential risks that could have an adverse impact to schedule or performance.

iii. Identify phase-in activities (to include a timeline with rationale addressing the start and completion of staffing, training, and equipment/supplies acquisition) designed to provide seamless continuity of services without interruption or degradation of services by contract start date.

The standard has been met when: The offeror adequately demonstrates a sound, comprehensive, realistic, effective, and efficient management approach to provide and manage the appropriate workforce to achieve consistent, efficient, and uniterrupted operations in accordance with the requirements of the

PWS.

(B) Factor # 2 - Quality Control Plan:

Addendum 2 4 Feb 2016 Page 3 of 4

The offeror shall provide a “quality control plan” (QCP) with a complete written system for identifying and correcting deficiencies and degradation in the quality of services before the level of performance becomes unacceptable. At a minimum, the plan should specifically address contract requirements and location(s) listed and provide the following:

i. The plan shall address responsibilities for oversight of the QCP, functions associated with such oversight, and specify authority to coordinate with the COR and CO.

ii. Describe the methodology to monitor service deficiencies/complaints in relation to the performance standards, approach to inform employees of identified deficiencies/complaints, and a process to ensure that the deficiencies/complaints are corrected and eradicated.

iii. Provide sample inspection forms, records, reports, and any other internal quality control methods.

The standard has been met when: The offeror adequately demonstrates a sound, comprehensive, realistic, effective, and efficient quality control approach to correct deficiencies and degradation of services to achieve consistent, efficient, and acceptable performance service levels in accordance with the requirements of the PWS. The strategies outlined in the plan are realistic to minimize the effects of defeciencies/complaints and designed to efficiently and effectively correct and prevent reocurrence.

1.1.2.3 Past Performance Evaluation. The Government will evaluate past performance as an evaluation factor within the LPTA process and assign an overall rating defined below. The Government reserves the right to use the information provided in the offeror’s past performance Volume III and the information obtained from other sources, such as, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), interviews with program managers and COs, and other known commercial sources. Consideration will be given to the business relationships between the offeror and teaming partners/subcontractors.

1.1.2.4 Acceptability Ratings. The evaluation factors listed below will be evaluated and receive one of the following ratings:

(i) Acceptable – Based on 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.

(ii) 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. Any report that established a rating of less than satisfactory.

2.0 Price Analysis. The Government will conduct a complete Price Analysis on the lowest priced technically acceptable offer using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1, to determine if it is reasonable and balanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items or sub line items appears to be significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. An offeror’s proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.1 Discussions. If discussions are to be conducted, the Government will establish a competitive range based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria in the solicitation. The competitive range will consist of the most highly rated offerors based on evaluation of all offers against all factors.

The Government reserves the right to further limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the

Addendum 2 4 Feb 2016 Page 4 of 4 greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. Prior to the establishment of the competitive range, and after the decision to conduct discussions has been made, the Government may enter into limited communications with offerors whose inclusion or exclusion from the competitive range is uncertain. These communications are limited in accordance with FAR 15.306(b)(1). The Government will only enter discussions with those offerors determined to be in the competitive range.

At the conclusion of discussions, each offeror still within the competitive range shall be given an opportunity to submit a Final Proposal Revision (FPR) by a common cutoff date and time as established by the contracting officer. If, after discussions have begun the Government determines that an offeror’s proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award. This may occur at any time even if all material issues have not been discussed or if the offeror has not yet been afforded the opportunity to submit a proposal revision. Written notice of exclusion from the competitive range will be provided to unsuccessful offerors.

(End of Addendum)