Addendum_to_FAR_52_212-2.pdf

ATTACHMENT 2 FA441719QA021

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

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. Award shall be based on all or none and best value to the government. The Government may award without discussions; however, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in the Government’s best interest.

Pursuant to FAR 12.602 contract award will be made using Simplified Acquisition Procedures in accordance with FAR 13.106. Offerors submissions will be evaluated based upon the Evaluation Criteria below.

Evaluation Process:

1. Evaluate all quotations for responsiveness defined as meeting the submission requirements in Attachment 2, Addendum to 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items.

2. Rank all responsive quotations based upon offeror's Total Evaluated Price (TEP) in ascending order from lowest price to highest price.

3. The first three (3) of the lowest priced responsive offer shall be evaluated for technical acceptability. In the event that the first three (3) evaluated offers do not yield an offer with an acceptable technical rating, the evaluation process will continue to the next lowest priced responsive offer until at least three (3) technically acceptable offers are identified. If three (3) offers are technically acceptable, move to step four. If three (3) offers are not found to be technically acceptable, continue evaluating technical acceptability until all offerors are evaluated.

4. Evaluate lowest, technically acceptable offeror’s past performance. If past performance is acceptable, move to step five. If the lowest priced technically acceptable offeror is not judged to have an acceptable past performance, the next lowest priced technically acceptable offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue in order of price until an offeror is judged to have an acceptable past performance rating or until all offerors are evaluated.

Step Five: Make a best value decision based on the Evaluation Criteria below to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

Evaluation Criteria:

1. PRICE. Price proposals conforming to all requirements of this solicitation will be ranked based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

a. Total Evaluated Price = (Total Evaluated Price for Base Period) + (Total Evaluated Price for Option Period 1) + (Total Evaluated Price for Option Period 2) + (Total Evaluated Price for Option Period 3) + (Total Evaluated Price for Option Period 4) + (Total Evaluated Price for Option to Extend Services IAW FAR 52.217-8):

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

c. Total Evaluated Price for Option to Extend Services IAW FAR 52.217-8: Offerors shall not submit pricing for the Option to Extend Services CLINS. The Government will calculate the Total Evaluated Price for Option to Extend Services IAW FAR 52.217-8 by multiplying a quantity of 6 months by the unit prices proposed for CLIN 4001. The prices are evaluated in the Total Evaluated Price for evaluation purposes only. The Option to Extend Services is not considered part of the contract period of performance and resultantly these totals will not be included in the contract value.

2. TECHNICAL: Evaluation of technical factors will consider the offeror’s ability to perform the duties as outlined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Offers will be evaluated as either Acceptable or Unacceptable for Technical Factors.

In order to be technically acceptable, the offer must meet all the following criteria in accordance with the PWS.

a. Sub factor 1: contractor personnel performing testing specialist services shall have a conferred baccalaureate degree from an accredited college or university recognized by the U.S.

Department of Education.

b. Sub factor 2: The primary and alternate testing specialist must demonstrate a minimum of two years past experience in a customer service position, and one year past experience in tests administration.

The offer shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One technical rating will be assigned to each technical sub factor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every sub factor.

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Offer meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Offer does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

3. PAST PERFORMANCE: The Government will evaluate the recency, relevancy and quality of the offerors’ provided past performance information, and other past performance information data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources to include, but not limited to: Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and other databases.

Past Performance will first be evaluated for recency; all performance prior to three (3) years from the date of the solicitation or not yet performed on the date of this solicitation will not be evaluated;

Past Performance will then be evaluated for relevancy and rated as relevant, or not relevant;

according to the table below.

RELEVANT. Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires;

Scope: Testing proctoring services Magnitude effort: Proctoring services of at least four (4) testing sessions per week Complexities: Proctoring services of at least seven (7) different types of tests.

NOT RELEVANT. Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Table: Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method Adjectival Rating Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude effort and complexities this solicitation requires Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little, less than or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires

Past Performance will finally be evaluated for quality and assigned one of the following performance assessment ratings.

Adjectival Rating

Description

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant 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.

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown (Neutral)

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

(End of Addendum)