Attachment 12 Section M Rev 1.pdf

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2- Evaluation Factors for Award

The following additions/changes are made to FAR provision 52.212-2:

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. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

(1) PAST PERFORMANCE

(2) TECHNICAL CAPABILITY (pass/fail)

(3) PRICE

Past Performance is significantly more important than price.

Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options, including the six-month EOS (Extension of Services) clause, to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

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: This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing offerors' past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price. By submitting an offer, the offeror agrees to all requirements within this solicitation and provided in clause FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors. This acceptance is comprehensive and includes all terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, not just those specifically identified as evaluation factors. Offerors shall explicitly identify any exceptions taken to the solicitation's terms and conditions, and a complete rationale must be submitted for each identified exception. The Government reserves the right to deem a proposal containing exceptions to be unacceptable.

The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

Price Evaluation. Initially, offerors will be ranked according to price. Price evaluations will determine the reasonableness and realism of an offeror’s price, and balance of an offeror’s coefficient structure. Offerors whose total evaluated price is unreasonable or unrealistic, in accordance with FAR 15.404, or coefficient is unbalanced per FAR 15.404-6, may not be considered for award. The price evaluation will document reasonableness, realism, and balance of the proposed total evaluated price. The Government will calculate a Total Evaluated Price for each offeror using the following method:

1. For each schedule number in Section B, the following calculation will be performed:

(Government's Estimated Dollars) x (Offeror's Proposed Coefficient) = Price per Item

2. All individual "Price per Item" results will be added together to determine the offerors’ final Total Evaluated Price.

The formula is as follows:

5 Years (base plus options) 6 Months Extension of Services Option

$18,514,375 X (1-AA coefficient) $1,851,437 X (1-AA coefficient) + $1,515,243 X (1-AB coefficient) + $151,524 X (1-AB coefficient) + $24,862,160 X (1-AC coefficient) + $2,486,216 X (1-AC coefficient) + $2,034,755 X (1-AD coefficient) + $203,475 X (1-AD coefficient) + $2,885,357 X (1-AE coefficient) + $288,536 X (1-AE coefficient) + $236,142 X (1-AF coefficient) + $23,614 X (1-AF coefficient) + $5,289,821 X (1-AG coefficient) + $528,982 X (1-AG coefficient) + $432,927 X (1-AH coefficient) + $43,293 X (1-AH coefficient) = Total Evaluated Price = Total Evaluated Price

The Government shall review the prices submitted for unrealistically low prices using price analysis techniques listed in FAR 15.404. Failure to provide realistic prices may result in a proposal being rated “unawardable” on the basis that unrealistically low prices are an indication that the offeror does not understand the requirements.

Technical Evaluation. Next, the Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals submitted by up to seven of the lowest priced offerors on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. The Technical Rating positions are as follows:

Table 1: Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or resulting from discussions, will be considered for award. Once deemed “Acceptable”, all technical proposals are considered equal. Any offeror receiving an “Unacceptable” rating on the technical evaluation will not advance to the tradeoff process and will not be considered for award.

Any sub-factor or element determined “Unacceptable” will render the entire Technical Proposal “Unacceptable”. Upon final determination that a proposal is “Unacceptable”, the Contracting Officer (CO) shall notify the firm submitting the proposal that it will not be considered for award and shall indicate in general terms the basis for the determination.

SUB-FACTOR 1: PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

Element 1-1: Management Organization

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror’s proposed management approach clearly demonstrates a thorough understanding and an efficient and executable plan to meet contract requirements by clearly providing key staff personnel with the qualifications and experience required by this contract, identifying key staff personnel by name, position and responsibility and by proposing specific project surveillance and project management activities in accordance with the requirements of Section L of the solicitation.

Element 1-2: Subcontract Management

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror’s proposed subcontract management approach demonstrates a clear understanding and an efficient and executable plan to meet contract requirements, by clearly presenting an effective plan to acquire and manage a stable pool of qualified subcontractors in accordance with the requirements of Section L of the solicitation.

Element 1-3: Contractor Coefficient Development

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror’s proposed approach to developing the Contractor coefficients demonstrates a clear understanding and an efficient and executable plan to meet contract requirements, by clearly explaining the basis, methodology, assumptions and adjustments used to develop each proposed coefficient in accordance with the requirements of Section L of the solicitation.

SUB-FACTOR 2: PROJECT PLANNING AND EXECUTION

Element 2-1: Project Development and Minimal Design

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror’s proposed approach demonstrates a clear understanding and an efficient and executable plan to meet contract requirements associated with developing project requirements and providing minimal design, by clearly responding to each sub-element set forth in Section L of the solicitation. The response to this element shall set the minimum standard expected under all subsequent projects purchased under the terms of this contract.

Element 2-2: Performance Period Management

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror’s proposed approach demonstrates a clear understanding and an efficient and executable plan to meet contract requirements, by clearly describing procedures, processes and methods to effectively track projects and interface with Government personnel in accordance with the requirements of Section L of the solicitation.

SUB-FACTOR 3: SAMPLE PROJECT

Element 3-1: 35% level of design of the project scope

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the contract requirements by clearly illustrating and describing an appropriate design solution for the sample project in accordance with the requirements of Section L of the solicitation.

Element 3-2: Detailed written scope of the project proposal.

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the contract requirements by clearly providing a complete and appropriate scope of work for the sample project, including supporting information, in accordance with the requirements of Section L of the solicitation.

Element 3-3: Detailed price proposal (NOTE: Price submitted for the Sample Project will NOT be factored into the overall price evaluation. See Section M, paragraph A for price evaluation formula.)

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror, for the sample project, demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the contract requirements by clearly providing an accurate detailed price breakout, for the project, in accordance with the requirements of Section L of the solicitation.

Performance Confidence Assessment. The contracting officer shall seek both recent and relevant past performance information on up to seven of the lowest priced technically acceptable offerors based on (1) the references provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources.

The Government may complete Past Performance Questionnaires (after receipt of proposals) with references provided by the offeror or found through other sources. The Government reserves the right to seek information on higher-priced offerors if none of the lower-priced offerors receive a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment.

Recent and relevant performance includes performance of multi-discipline efforts that are similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to the effort described in this solicitation, have a minimum value performed by the offeror equaling or exceeding the magnitude of construction identified for task orders to be issued on this contract, and have been completed within the last five (5) years of the solicitation date. As the resulting contract from this solicitation will involve the completion of several concurrently awarded task order projects based on RS Means pricing, a previous task order contract based on RS Means pricing adjusted for a City Cost Index (CCI) and the contractor’s coefficient shall be considered more relevant than other task order contracts or a contract for a single construction project.

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 2. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Adjectival 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.

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.

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 RFP. The following table describes past performance relevancy ratings:

Table 3. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

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.

In determining performance confidence assessment ratings, consideration will be given to the entity that performed the work. Past performance of the offeror will have a greater weight than past performance of other business entities (including predecessor companies and major subcontractors) or personnel. Demonstration of previous working relationships with the proposed entity will have a greater weight than a new relationship. Teaming partners supported by written agreements will have a greater weight than partners with no written agreement. 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 "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.”

If the lowest priced evaluated offer, having passed the technical evaluation, is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance rating, then that offer represents the best value for the government and the evaluation process stops at this point. 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” performance assessment, 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” performance assessment or until all offerors are evaluated. The Government shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

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 quote 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 that supports 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.

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 that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.