Attch_07_Addenda_FAR_52.212-2_Evaluation_Factors_for_Award.pdf

FA441819RA001 Attachment 7 Page 1 of 3

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 - Evaluation Factors for Award

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS

(a) 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, past performance, and technical factors considered. Each offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated against the following gate and evaluation factors:

GATE 1: TECHNICAL

FACTOR 1: PRICE

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

Past Performance factors and Technical factors are significantly more important than Price.

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option or unit price(s) are significantly unreasonable, unaffordable, or unbalanced. Evaluation of unit price(s) and options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will strictly adhere to FAR 15.3, as supplemented, and the evaluation process and criteria stated in this addendum, FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items, during evaluation proposals. This is a competitive subjective tradeoff source selection in which competing offerors past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price. The Government will evaluate the Technical Gate, Price evaluation factor 1, and Past Performance evaluation factor 2. The Government will determine which offer represents the best overall value. By submission of its offer in accordance with the instructions provided in clause FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors, the offeror accedes to the terms of this model contract and all such offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

Gate 1: Technical. The technical rating (“pass or fail”) is predicated on the offerors ability to have a current and active Security Clearance Certification for the company, joint venture, or prime contractor of a teaming arrangement. If an offeror “passes” Security Clearance Certification, that offeror “passes” the requirements of Gate 1 and will advance to Factor 1: Price in the proposal evaluation process. If an offeror fails to pass Security Clearance Certification, that offeror will not be evaluated further. To determine a security clearance certificaiton status, offerors must complete block 17A of this solicitation. Only primary contractors are authorized to submit a CAGE code. Joint Ventures must submit the cage code associated with the joint venture. Teaming partners and subcontractors submissions are allowed. The primary contractor must possess an active Security Clearance Certification.

FA441819RA001 Attachment 7 Page 2 of 3

Factor 1: Total Evaluated Price. All offerors passing the technical gate will further be ranked according to price, inclusive of option prices. The Government shall assess each proposal for price reasonableness, affordability, and balance. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in the Pricing Schedule by the unit price for each item to confirm the extended amount for each line item. All sub-totals will then be added to confirm the total for the base and all option periods. Similarly, the price for 52.217-8 the Option to Extend Services shall be evaluated by evaluating the proposed price for the fourth option period, in order to establish any possible extension of services fair and reasonable at time of award. If the lowest priced proposal is determined to have reasonable, affordable, or balanced pricing, the Government will evaluate that proposal for past performance. If the lowest priced proposal is determined not to have reasonable, affordable, or balanced pricing, the Government will evaluate the next lowest priced proposal in the same manner.

Factor 2: Performance Confidence Assessment. Past performance will be evaluated. The contracting officer will seek recent and relevant performance information on all offers based on (1) the references provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources.

A. Recent is defined as performance during the preceding three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

B. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts requiring management, tools, equipment, and labor, to perform Facilities Preventative Maintenance and Repairs of an effort similar in scope and magnitude of effort and complexity as this solicitation requires. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, or No Confidence as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will not be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. Offerors with no recent/relevant performance history or if the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating of “Neutral Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. The Government shall give greater consideration to offerors whose past performance information rates “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” than to those offerors whose past performance information rates “Neutral Confidence.”

Table 1. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Description

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.

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.

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. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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.

FA441819RA001 Attachment 7 Page 3 of 3

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.

C. 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. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will not be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. The following table, also from the DoD Source Selection Guide, describes past performance relevancy ratings.

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

D. If an offeror passes the technical gate, is the lowest reasonable, affordable, balanced priced, and receives a “Substantial Confidence” past performance confidence rating, that proposal represents the best value to the Government and award will be made with no further evaluations. If the lowest priced offeror passes the gate and is found to have unreasonable, unaffordable, or unbalanced pricing, evaluations will continue until an offeror is found to pass the gate, has reasonable, affordable, balanced pricing, and receives a “Substantial Confidence” past performance confidence assessment or until all proposals have been evaluated. At that point an integrated assessment best value award decision will be made considering a trade-off between Past Performance and Price to determine the best value for the government. In the event no proposal receives a substantial confidence rating, the Contracting Officer will evaluate the lowest reasonable, affordable, balanced priced satisfactory confidence rated offer or determine if discussions are in order.

E. 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. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information supporting a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted 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.

F. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk the offeror’s proposal could be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

(End of Addendum)