Attachment 4 - ADDENDUM 52.212-2.pdf

502 CONS / JBKAE MRSA Sanitation Services JBSA Lackland, TX FA3016-22-Q-0002

Attachment 4 – Addendum 52.212-2 Page 1 of 5

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION - COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

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

(a) Basis for Contract Award. The Government intends to award one Firm Fixed Price Base plus Options Indefinite Delivery and Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract as a 100% Woman Owned Small Business set-aside service acquisition. Award resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offer whose quote is responsive to the RFQ, technically acceptable and considered to be Best Value based upon a technical factors, past performance, and price trade-off. A responsive quote is one that meets all of the terms, conditions and specifications in the RFQ. The offeror must provide all documents listed and comply with all RFQ instructions in order for their quote to be considered "responsive" to this RFQ. The offeror’s must acknowledge all amendments to be considered for evaluation or award. Non-responsive offerors will be considered ineligible for award.

The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, and all other information required by this solicitation. Unless specifically identified in your quote, by submission of its offer, the Offerer accedes that all terms have been met in the solicitation to include those identified as evaluation factors. Failure to meet a requirement will result in a quote being determined ineligible for award.

It is the Government's intent to evaluate quotes and award a contract IAW FAR 13.106. FAR Part 15 based evaluations will NOT be used for this acquisition. The initial quote should contain your best terms; however; the Government reserves the right to conduct interchanges if determined necessary by the Contracting Officer to resolve issues such as technical or price, or address documentation of offer. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity to revise quotes.

1.0 Evaluation Process. The Government may consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any quote. The judgment of such "correctional potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If any aspect of an offeror's quote does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the offer will be ineligible for award. The following factors shall be used to evaluate quotes: Technical, past performance and price. Offers will be ranked based on initial assessment of total overall evaluated prices, followed by a full evaluation of Technical and Past Performance. Tradeoff considerations may result in the determination that it is in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced quote or other than the highest rated offeror in past performance. Only technically acceptable quotes are eligible for award.

1.1 Quotes. The Government will rank quotes based on an initial assessment of offeror's total evaluated prices, followed by a full evaluation of Technical, Past Performance and Price as follows:

1.2 Price Evaluation. Offers shall be ranked according to price, from lowest to highest based on total evaluated price (TEP). TEP will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in the Bid Schedule by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN). The

Attachment 4 – Addendum 52.212-2 Page 2 of 5 extended amount for each CLIN will be totaled to obtain the estimated total amount for each performance period. The estimated total amount for the basic performance period will then be added to the estimated total for each ordering period to obtain the Total Evaluated Price. Price will be evaluated for price reasonableness per FAR 13.106-3(a).

The contract will include the potential to extend the contracts an additional 6 months beyond the awarded contract performance IAW FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services which is also included in the evaluation of prices. The price for that 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.

1.3 Technical Evaluation. The Government will evaluate all quotes for Technical Acceptability.

An offeror will be selected based on technically acceptable and considered to be Best Value based upon a technical acceptability and past performance/price trade-off.

1.3.1 Acceptability Ratings. The technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical factors identified below. All technical factors are considered equal in importance. For a quote to be technically acceptable, all technical factors must be rated as acceptable. The failure of an offer to meet all the technical criteria will result in a technically unacceptable rating and be ineligible for award. The technical factors will receive one of the ratings listed below.

Rating Description

(A) Acceptable The quote clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

(U) Unacceptable The quote does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

1.3.2 Evaluation of Factors. Offerors are advised that their submission should be their best effort. Only technically acceptable quotes, either initially or as a result of interchanges, are eligible for award. If award is made without interchanges, quote revisions will not be permitted.

The Government will evaluate the quotes selected above for technical acceptability on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. For the technical quote 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 quote will be rated as "Unacceptable". The technical quote will be evaluated for the following technical factors and sub factors:

(A) Technical Factor# 1 - Quality Control Plan

Standard: The Offeror shall submit 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. The plan should specifically address contract requirements and location(s) listed and provide the following:

Attachment 4 – Addendum 52.212-2 Page 3 of 5

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

iii. Include samples of inspection forms, records, reports, and any other internal quality control methods tailored to the specific building(s) being cleaned and serviced under the PWS.

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 deficiencies/complaints and designed to efficiently and effectively correct and prevent reoccurrence.

1.4 Past Performance Evaluation. All quotes determined technically acceptable will be evaluated on past performance. Using the past performance data provided by the offeror and data independently obtained from other Government sources, the CO will evaluate recent and relevant past performance information, and using this information will develop a performance confidence assessment. The quote must identify at least two but no more than four contracts/task orders for past performance evaluation that demonstrate recent and relevant past performance as the prime contractor.

The Government will seek recent and relevant performance information from: (i) past and present efforts provided by the offeror and (ii) data independently obtained from other government sources. These may include the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), and the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), as well as other sources.

Rating Description

(A) Recent

To be recent, some portion of the Past performance effort must have occurred within the last three years prior to the issue date of the solicitation. For current contracts/task orders work must have been performed for a minimum of six months prior to the issue date of solicitation. Performance not qualifying as recent will not receive further evaluation or consideration. Non-recent performance will not be evaluated for relevancy.

(B) Relevant

The Government will next evaluate the relevancy of performance that qualified as recent. To be relevant, performance includes performance of efforts that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude and complexity than the effort described in this RFQ and the SOW. Performance qualifying as recent will be categorized based on the Past Performance Relevancy Rating Chart.

Performance that does not meet the definition of relevant will not be evaluated for quality of performance.

Attachment 4 – Addendum 52.212-2 Page 4 of 5

Past Performance Relevancy Rating

Rating Description 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, magnitude and complexity of effort as this Requirement.

Somewhat Relevant

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

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope, magnitude and complexity of effort as this RFQ.

Based on the evaluation of individual performance efforts, the Government will then assign one of the following ratings:

Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

Rating Description

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

Neutral

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the fact of past performance

Limited

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

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

** Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history or whose performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned may receive the rating of "Neutral Confidence", meaning the rating is treated neither favorably no unfavorably. Offeror's may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their quote (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 or present performance effort that is rated less than satisfactory overall or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

Attachment 4 – Addendum 52.212-2 Page 5 of 5

If the lowest priced evaluated offer is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance rating and the offeror is determined to be responsible, that offer represents the best value for the government and the evaluation process may stop. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment or until all offerors are evaluated if necessary. After all evaluations have been completed and the Government determines none of the technically acceptable offerors has a past performance confidence assessment rating of “Substantial” Government will then conduct an integrated best value trade-off among those offerors with a “Satisfactory” past performance confidence assessment rating and price. The best value to the Government will be the lowest priced, technically acceptable offeror with a “Satisfactory” past performance confidence assessment rating. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

(End of Addendum 52.212-2)