Atch_10_Addendum_to_52.212-2.pdf

Atch 10 Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation

Attachment 10 Page 1 of 4

The clause at FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Items, applies to this acquisition and is amended as follows.

(e) Basis for Contract Award: The basis of which this contract will be awarded will be price, technical acceptability and past performance in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Parts 12 and 15.101-1 in which competing offerors' past performance information will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications. The government reserves the right to make an award based on whether the lowest priced of the offerors having the highest past performance rating possible represents the best value when compared to any lower priced offerors. The evaluation process will include the following:

(1) Price Evaluation: An offeror's proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the offeror's price per square foot price by the estimated square feet identified in the Price Exhibit, limited to four decimal places for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN). All unit pricing provided must be at the fully burdened rate including overhead, G&A, profit, etc. The sum total of all Firm-Fixed-Price CLINs for the Base Period and each option Period, will form the offeror's Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Initially, government will rank all offers by the TEP lowest to highest according to price, including all option period prices. The price evaluation will document the fairness and reasonableness of the TEP. The government reserves the right to perform price realism analysis.

NOTE: The contract will include FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, with the potential to extend the contract an additional six (6) months beyond the awarded contract performance period. In the event the Government requires continued performance, the Government's evaluation of prices proposed for the base and all option periods will suffice to be the Government's evaluation of prices under the extension of services (ref. 52.217-8). Should an extension of services be required, rates will be adjusted only as a result of revisions to applicable prevailing Department of Labor wage rates. Evaluating the Option Period CLINs or the six month Extension of Services Option does not obligate the government to exercise the Options.

(2) Technical Acceptability Factors. The Government will evaluate technical proposals on a pass/fail basis and assign an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating as described in Table 1.

Table 1. Technical Ratings Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

ELEMENT 1 - Quality Control Plan (QCP). This sub-factor is met when the offeror provides a Quality Control Plan that demonstrates a sound quality control system, which includes identification of responsible personnel, inspection of services provided, deficiency prevention/ correction, and outlines an effective system for control and accountability of keys to prevent unauthorized use.

ELEMENT 2 – Work Schedule. This sub-factor is met when the offeror demonstrates an effective method of scheduling work to be performed.

Attachment 10 Page 2 of 4

ELEMENT 3 Equipment & Supplies. This sub-factor is met when the offeror demonstrates an ability to sufficiently maintain an adequate quantity of equipment and supplies to perform the requirements of this contract.

(3) Past Performance Evaluation: The government will evaluate recent and relevant performance information on the lowest priced evaluated offeror based on: (1) Part IV - Past Performance Information provided by the offeror; (2) Any past performance information obtained from the Performance Questionnaires (Attachment 8); and (3) Any data independently obtained by the government and/or commercial sources.

The past performance evaluation will take into account past performance information from the principle offeror, as well as, the predecessor company's key personnel and subcontractors that will perform major aspects of the requirement. The past performance on the predecessors company's key personnel and subcontractors that will perform major aspects of the requirement will be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. The Government will use the following procedures in evaluating past performance:

The offeror's past performance efforts will be assessed for: Recency, Relevancy and Performance Quality. The Government will only evaluate performance quality on past efforts that are determined to be both recent and relevant.

(i) Recency: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. Recent past performance information includes contracts performed and/or being performed for any customer within the last three (3) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation, to include at least six (6) months of documented performance during the three (3) year period.

(ii) Relevancy: Relevant contracts performance effort involved similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities to that required by this solicitation. The government will assess relevancy for each contract and assign a rating as described in Table 2 below:

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Rating Definition

Very Relevant

Present/Past performance effort involved essentially the scope, magnitude of effort, and complexity that this solicitation requires.

Performance of effort includes Custodial Service for facilities with multiple buildings and greater than 1,500,000 square feet.

Relevant

Present/Past performance involved similar scope, magnitude of effort, or complexity that this solicitation requires.

Performance of effort includes Custodial Service for facilities with multiple buildings between 1,000,000 and 1,500,000 square feet.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/Past performance involved some of the scope, magnitude of effort, and complexity that this solicitation requires.

Performance of effort includes Custodial Service for facilities with multiple buildings between 500,000 and 1,000,000 square feet or only one building over 500,000 square feet.

Not Relevant

Past performance involved little or none of the scope, magnitude of effort, or complexity that this solicitation requires.

Performance of effort includes Custodial Service for facilities less than 500,000 square feet or no Custodial Services.

Attachment 10 Page 3 of 4

(iii) Performance Quality: The quality assessment consists of an evaluation of recent and relevant past performance information available, regardless of its source. The quality assessment may reveal positive or adverse past performance information. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. Multiple ratings of less than "Satisfactory" in Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and/or Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) may result in a performance quality assessment rating of "No Confidence." Offerors may be given an opportunity to respond to adverse past performance information for which they have not previously had an opportunity to address in accordance with FAR 15.306. For each of the recent and relevant past performance information reviewed, the performance quality of work will be assessed based on the: (1) Quality Assessment Criteria evaluated under Section 4 of the PPQ (Attachment 8), (2) the evaluation ratings in the Federal Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), if available and (3) Past Performance information obtained from other sources available to the Government.

The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror's ability to meet the solicitation requirements based on the offeror's demonstrated record of performance. The assessment process will result in an offeror's overall performance confidence assessment rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Neutral Confidence.

Offerors with no recent past or present performance history or the offeror's performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will receive the rating "Neutral Confidence," meaning the offeror is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably (neutral). As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments, offerors will receive an integrated past performance confidence assessment rating as described in Table 3 below:

Table 3. Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings Rating Definition Substantial Confidence

Based on the offeror's quality/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 quality/recent/relevant performance record, the government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

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

Limited Confidence

Based on the offeror's quality/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 quality/recent/relevant performance record, the government has no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Attachment 10 Page 4 of 4

****Note: 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 solicitation.****

A. If the lowest priced evaluated offer is judged to have a "Substantial Confidence" performance rating and is technically acceptable that offer represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

B. If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have a "Substantial Confidence" performance rating, 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 rating or until all offerors are evaluated.

The government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest price offer. The Source Selection Authority will make an integrated assessment best value award decision using the TEP and the Past Performance Confidence Rating.

C. 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. 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. Exchanges conducted with regard to adverse past performance or 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.

D. 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.

E. IAW FAR 52.237-1, Offerors or quoters are urged and expected to inspect the site where services are to be performed and to satisfy themselves regarding all general and local conditions that may affect the cost of contract performance, to the extent that the information is reasonably obtainable. In no event shall failure to inspect the site constitute grounds for a claim after contract award. The Government will hold a site visit for this requirement on Wednesday, 9 January, 2019. Please contact the contract specialists, Mr. Ben Brockriede (ben.brockriede@us.af.mil) or A1C Michael Cooper (Michael.Cooper.50@us.af.mil) for further information.

F. During the site visit NO question will be answered. All questions regarding this solicitation must be in writing and submitted to the Contract Specialists, Mr. Ben Brockriede (ben.brockriede@us.af.mil) or A1C Michael Cooper (Michael.Cooper.50@us.af.mil) no later than Wednesday, 16 January 2019 1:00 pm Central Standard Time (CST).

mailto:ben.brockriede@us.af.mil mailto:Michael.Cooper.50@us.af.mil mailto:ben.brockriede@us.af.mil mailto:Michael.Cooper.50@us.af.mil