Attachment 6 Resilience Center Evaluations_Final.pdf

Resilience Center & HAWC Admin Services 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 (3) 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 of past performance begins. The Government will proceed to award to the vendor that adheres to the instruction to offerors, has an acceptable rating for the Technical Factor and has a past performance rating that is most beneficial to the government .Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

Should none of the three lowest priced quoters have acceptable past performance, the government will continue to assess the next lowest priced quoter until a vendor with an acceptable rating for the Technical Factor and a past performance rating that is most beneficial to the government is obtained. The Contracting Officer will 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 proposal.

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 Evaluated Price for Option to Extend Services IAW FAR 52.217-8: Quoters 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 3001. The prices are evaluated in the Total Evaluated Price for evaluation purposes only. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the government to exercise option(s). The Option to Extend Services is only not considered part of the contract period of performance until the clause is exercised and resultantly these totals will not be included in the contract value until the clause is exercised. 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).

Price proposals conforming to all requirements of this solicitation will be ranked based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). 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 to Extend Services IAW FAR 52.217-8): 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.

4. TECHNICAL EVALUATION

To receive an acceptable rating for the Technical Factor, the quoter’s submission must receive an ‘Acceptable’ rating for Subfactor 1. This Technical Factor will be evaluated on an acceptable/ unacceptable basis defined as follows:

Acceptable: Quoter’s technical submission adheres to the requirements in this technical factor, adheres to the requirements of the solicitation, and demonstrates understanding of the requirement.

Unacceptable: Quoter’s technical submission does not adhere to the requirements in this technical factor, or does not adhere to the requirements of the solicitation, or does not demonstrate an understanding of the requirement.

Subfactor 1 - Program Management and Staffing Plan

Quoters shall demonstrates a detailed Program Management and Staffing Plan that adequately describes the approach the offeror will use to successfully perform to the standards detailed in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

a) A Management and Staffing Plan that explains in detail how the offeror intends to recruit, retain, and replace sufficient personnel who have the knowledge, experience, and skills to perform administration as required in the PWS para 1.2.1, 1.2.1.1, 1.2.1.2, 1.2.1.3, 1.2.1.4, 1.2.2, 1.2.2.1, 1.2.2.2, 1.2.2.3, and 1.2.2.4.

b) A Management and Staffing plan that explains the specific number of personnel (skill mix of labor effort).

c) A Management and Staffing plan that explains in detail the process of recruiting, training and replacing personnel to ensure they meet or exceed the skills and knowledge for each identified position as described in the PWS paragraph 4.3 through paragraph 4.3.4.

d) A Management and Staffing plan that explains in detail the process of recruiting, training and replacing personnel to ensure they meet or exceed the qualifications of each employee as described in the PWS in paragraphs 4.4 and 4.4.1.

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 4, 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:

• Provided full-time administrative support for at least 2,000 hours annually with work that consisted of scheduling, utilizing customer support systems, preparing reports, data entry and presentations.

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 quoter’s performance and general trends of the performance.

This information will be used by the evaluation team in addition to Attachment 4, PPQ Information, in determining the overall performance confidence assessment rating.

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

a) Substantial Confidence: Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. This is the highest past performance rating an offeror can obtain.

b) 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.

c) 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.

d) 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.

e) 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)