ATTCH_2_DASH_2_WASHER_DRYER_-Dated_11_Jan_18.pdf

FA4417-18-T-0003

Washer Dryer Lease & Maintenance Services

Hurlburt Field, FL

ATTACHMENT 2

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 - EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

1. Methodology. This acquisition will utilize the Best Value Continuum, in which the

Government seeks to award to an offeror who provides the greatest confidence that they will meet the Government’s requirements affordably in a way that will be advantageous to the

Government. The Best Value technique for this acquisition will be Performance Price

Tradeoff (PPT), where past performance is significantly more important than price.

The best value technique permits the Government to award to a higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the highest past performance rating possible where the past performance ratings outweigh the price. To arrive at a best value decision, the evaluator will review the lowest priced offeror for past performance ratings and organize the past performance offeror ratings from highest ratings to lowest ratings. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process is by its nature, subjective; therefore professional judgement is implicit throughout the process.

2. Relative Importance: The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors and sub factors:

Factor 1 – Price

Factor 2 – Past Performance; Past Performance is significantly more important than price.

3. Below is a synopsis of the evaluation steps; the evaluation process is defined in more detail immediately following the synopsis.

3.1. The first (1st) step of the evaluation process is to review the cover page and if applicable, any proposed Teaming Arrangement/Joint Venture Documentation for completeness. Teaming arrangements shall conform to all requirements identified in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 of this solicitation and include all elements stated in the addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to

Offerors – Commercial Items. If an offeror is claiming this business approach, failure to submit

Teaming Arrangement/Joint Venture documentation will render the offeror’s proposal non-responsive and no further evaluation will be conducted.

3.2. The second (2nd) step of the evaluation process is to evaluate prices and order all responsive offers by price from lowest to highest, including all option prices.

3.3 The evaluation team will then proceed to the third (3rd) step. The lowest priced responsive offer shall be evaluated for past performance. If the lowest priced evaluated offer is judged to have a Substantial Confidence rating that offer represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops. 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 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 rating or until all offerors are evaluated.

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. Non-responsive offers will not be evaluated.

Proposals that are unrealistic in terms of technical acceptability or price may be rejected at any time during the evaluation process. The Government reserves the right to establish a competitive range; discussions or negotiation may be conducted with all offerors in the competitive range.

Offerors may be required to participate in telephone discussions or in face-to-face oral discussions at the 1st Special Operations Contracting Squadron, 350 Tully Street, Hurlburt Field, FL.

Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their written offers (e.g., defining the relevance of the offeror’s technical information and adverse past performance information to which an offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor clerical errors. Any such exchange between the offeror and the Government will be for clarification only and will not constitute discussions within the meaning of FAR 15.306(a).

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications. The

Government intends to award one contract to the offeror deemed responsible in accordance with

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the

Request for Quote (RFQ) requirements including all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the RFQ and is judged, based on the evaluation criteria, to represent the best value to the Government. The Government intends to award to the offeror who in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall value in response to the requirements.

The Government intends to evaluate quotes and make award without discussions (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)), however, prior to establishing the competitive range of proposals for this acquisition, the contracting officer may conduct discussions, request clarifications, and/or have communications with offerors to determine technical acceptability of their proposal IAW the solicitation requirements. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical, performance and price standpoint.

4. EVALUATION - The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

4.1. All offerors’ cover pages and (if applicable) teaming arrangements will be reviewed for completeness in accordance with the elements stated in the addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items, incorporated into this solicitation to determine the offeror as responsive or non-responsive. Only those proposals determined complete and responsive will be considered for further evaluation.

4.2. FACTOR 1: PRICE:

4.2.1. Price quotes conforming to the requirements of this solicitation will be ordered based on

Total Evaluated Price:

4.2.2. Total Evaluated Price = (Evaluated Price for Base Period CLINs 0001-0007) + (Evaluated

Price for Option Period 1 CLINs 1001-1007) + (Evaluated Price for Option Period 2 CLINs

2001-2007) + (Evaluated Price for Option Period 3 CLINs 3001-3007) + (Evaluated Price for

Option Period 4 CLINs 4001-4007) + (Evaluated Price for Option to Extend Services IAW FAR

52.217-8):

4.2.3. Evaluated Price for Base Period Option Periods 1 through 4 CLINS 0001-4007: Quantities identified will be multiplied by the unit price to confirm the extended price and then the extended price for all CLINS will be added together for a total for that specific period.

4.2.4. Unit prices shall be used in the event that extended prices are calculated incorrectly.

4.2.5. Evaluated Price for Option to Extend Services IAW FAR 52.217-8: The Government reserves the right to extend services for an additional 6 month extension period, in accordance with FAR 52.217-8. Offerors shall not submit pricing for the six (6) month extension option. The

Government will calculate the Total Evaluated Price for the six month extension period by multiplying half the quantities by the unit prices for CLINs 4001-4007 (Option Period 4).

Evaluated Price for Option to Extend Services six month extension is included in the Total

Evaluated Price for evaluation purposes only. The Option to Extend Services price totals will not be included in the contract value. If the Government exercises FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend

Services, the extension will not exceed 6 months total and CLINS will be added to the contract at the time FAR 52.217-8 is exercised at a monthly price equal to the preceding period of performance’s monthly price in accordance with FAR 52.217-8.

4.2.6. The Government will review pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with the solicitation. Price will be evaluated using techniques established in FAR 15.404-1 to ensure the Government receives fair, reasonable, and balanced prices:

4.2.7. The Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price;

4.2.8. Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze each proposal to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices proposed on different CLINs for the same or similar pricing. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the prices are significantly unbalanced or if the unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the

Government.

4.2.9. CLINs 0006, 1006, 2006, 3006, and 4006 will be $5,000.00 NTE. CLINs 0006, 1006, 2006, 3006, and 4006 will be evaluated to establish fair and reasonable rates only using the fully burdened rates provided by the offeror. The CLINS shall be evaluated at the contractor’s labor rate multiplied by 58 hours (based on annual hours).This will be considered the total evaluated price for the repair CLINs 0006, 1006, 2006, 3006, 4006.

4.2.9.1. Parts required for repair will be evaluated as required during the period of performance.

Parts will not be evaluated at the time of contract award. Parts will be invoiced to CLINs 0006, 1006, 2006, 3006, and 4006.

4.4. If the Government cannot determine the proposed pricing to be fair and reasonable, other than certified cost and pricing data will be obtained from the offerors.

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE: All responsible offerors will be ranked by price and the past performance evaluation will begin with the lowest priced offer. The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance record. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint members,’ and if applicable, any proposed teaming subcontractors’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying services that meet users’ needs. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered.

4.3.1. The Government will evaluate the recency, relevancy and quality of the offerors’ provided past performance information, past performance questionnaires received and other past performance information data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources to include, but not limited to: the Past Performance Information Retrieval System

(PPIRS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic

Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases.

4.3.1.1. Past Performance will first be evaluated for recency. The definition of recent as related to this solicitation includes performance within the last three years from the issue date of this solicitation. All performance prior to three years from the date of the issuance of this solicitation or not yet performed on the date of this solicitation will not be evaluated.

4.3.1.2. Past Performance will then be evaluated for relevancy and shall be assigned one of the relevancy definition ratings as described below when the offeror has identified and demonstrated what elements of each contract are deemed relevant to this solicitation and indicate what percentage of service was performed by the offeror (prime), subcontractor (if applicable) and teaming contractor (if applicable). The final determination of the identified and demonstrated relevancy elements of each contract will be the decision of the Government.

The primary aspect of relevancy, as it pertains to this solicitation, is based on the similarity of services performed in the past. Multiple contracts performed simultaneously within a given year will be added together to define relevancy. Relevance for Past Performance will be assessed against the following:

(1) Lease and maintain washer/dryer units per year

Definitions of relevancy are as follows:

VERY RELEVANT. Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. In order to be defined as Very

Relevant, the effort shall have included the below services:

(1) Lease and maintain 184+ washer/dryer units per year

RELEVANT. Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. In order to be defined as Relevant, the effort shall have included:

(1) Lease and maintain 123 – 183 washer/dryer units per year

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT. Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. In order to be defined as

Somewhat Relevant, the effort shall have included:

(1) Lease and maintain 100 – 122 washer/dryer units per year

NOT RELEVANT. Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. In order to be defined as Not

Relevant, the effort shall have included:

(1) Lease and maintain less than 100 washer/dryer units per year

5.7.2. Past Performance will finally be evaluated for quality and assigned one of the following performance confidence assessment ratings based on the information provided in the Past

Performance Volume, other past performance information data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources, to include, but not limited to: the Past Performance

Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information

System (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases, and questionnaires received.

5.7.2.1. 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;

5.7.2.2. 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;

5.7.2.3. Neutral Confidence: 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.

5.7.2.4. 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;

5.7.2.5. No Confidence: 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; and

5.7.3. In the case of an offeror without a record of recent and 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. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating

5.7.4. Performance confidence assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood for the

Government’s confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements based upon the offeror’s past performance information.

5.7.5. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will not be considered as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. Past performance regarding minor members of Joint Ventures will be considered in accordance with the member’s share of the prospective contract;

5.7.6. Adverse Past Performance: Offerors will be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

(End of Addendum)