Attachment 6 Evaluations.pdf

Welcome Center Evaluations

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 – EVALUATION—COMMERCIAL ITEMS (Sep 2022)

1. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

This acquisition will utilize the best value approach, in which the Government seeks to award to an offeror who provides the greatest confidence that they will meet the Government’s requirements affordably. The Best Value technique for this acquisition will be Performance Price Tradeoff, where technical and past performance, when combined, are significantly more important than price. The evaluation factors are described below:

Factor 1: Price

Factor 2: Technical

Factor 3: Past Performance

2. SYNOPSIS OF EVALUATION

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 the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 of this solicitation and include all elements stated in 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 offerors quote non-responsive and no further evaluation will be conducted.

The second (2nd) step of the evaluation process is to evaluate prices and order all responsive quotes (total by price from lowest to highest). Base year plus three (3) options and 52-217-8. (6 Months at 50% of option year 3)

The evaluation team will then proceed to the third (3rd) step. The three lowest priced responsive quote shall be evaluated for technical acceptability. In the event that the three lowest priced quote does not yield an acceptable technical rating, the evaluation process will continue until three technically acceptable quotes are identified or all offers are evaluated.

After technical evaluations conclude, the fourth (4th) evaluation step begins. Past performance will be evaluated for the three lowest priced technically acceptable quotes. If the lowest priced evaluated offer has been determined technically acceptable, and is judged to have a satisfactory then the 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 technically acceptable offeror is not judged to be satisfactory, the next lowest priced technically acceptable offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue in order by price until an offeror is judged to be satisfactory or until all offerors are evaluated. The Contracting Officer shall then make an integrated assessment to render the best value award decision.

During all stages of the evaluations, the Government reserves the right to engage with one or multiple offerors, but is not required to do so. Therefore, offerors should provide their best available pricing in their initial quote.

3. PRICE EVALUATION

To receive an acceptable rating for the Price Factor, the offeror’s price must 1) adhere to all the requirements of 52.212-1 and accompanying addendum and 2) be determined fair and reasonable. Total price will be calculated by totaling all CLINs inclusive of all option years and the option to extend services IAW FAR 52.217-8. FAR 52.217-8 will be included in the price evaluation by multiplying 50% of option year three (3). This amount is for evaluation purposes only and will not be included in the awarded contract value. Prices will be rounded off to two decimal points. Total price will be evaluated for price reasonableness IAW at least one of the methods indicated in FAR 13.106-3(a).

4. TECHNICAL EVALUATION

The three lowest priced offers will be evaluated for technical acceptability. If the three lowest priced offers are not determined technically acceptable, the technical evaluation will continue until at least three offers are determined technically acceptable. The technical evaluation will continue until all offers are evaluated. Only those offerors determined to be technically acceptable will be considered for further evaluation.

Staffing plan – The offeror shall demonstrate how they will successfully manage the contract. To receive an acceptable rating the offeror must demonstrate their ability to successfully furnish the manpower and personnel with valid security clearance in accordance with the performance work statement.

Quality control plan - The quality control plan will be rated as acceptable if [JCBGUA1S1] it demonstrates a reasonable approach to successfully comply with the PWS and as a minimum addresses:

Quality Control Procedures used to ensure compliance with the PWS, Service Summary and procedures used to identify, prevent, and ensure non-performance and continual repeat of defective service does not occur; and

Inspection procedures, including a detailed schedule per month, quarter, and year.

5. PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Past performance will be evaluated on recency, relevancy and quality of performance. Past performance will be evaluated as a measure of the government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform based on previous and current contract efforts.

Performance confidence ratings assess the probability of the offeror successfully accomplishing the proposed effort based on the offerors past performance. The Government will use past performance information submitted by the offeror’s references, other sources such as other Federal Government offices, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)/Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS), and private and commercial sources. In addition, information obtain from Attachment 5, Past Performance Information, point of contacts will be used in determining the overall performance confidence assessment rating.

Past performance will be considered relevant if the scope of work meets the following minimum criteria:

Staffed two or more personnel in the same or similar positions with current and continuous security clearance at least Secret level without lapse for at least 1 year at one location.

Managed turnover and replacement without a break in service of more than twenty workdays.

Past performance will be considered recent if the work was within the last three (3) years from the issue date of this solicitation.

Quality of Performance. All recent past performance that is determined to be relevant will be reviewed to determine the quality of the offerors performance and general trends of the performance.

One of the following confidence rating will be assigned to the evaluated offer:

a) 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. This is the highest past performance rating an offeror can obtain.

b) Neutral Confidence: 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.

c) 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.

d) 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.

Confidence that the offeror can or cannot successfully perform all required services within the PWS will be based upon the past performance information submitted by the offeror as well as the Government’s independent investigation of the offeror’s past performance. It is recommended that the offeror submit any and all documentation addressing adverse past performance ratings for recent and relevant contracts. Failure to do so may result in the Government assigning an unfavorable rating for this factor. Offerors that do not have a record of recent and relevant past performance will receive a neutral rating for this factor and will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably.

Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirements may 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.

Adverse Past Performance: Offerors will be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member and/or critical subcontractors has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information.

(End of Addendum to FAR 52.212-2)