Attachment 5 - ADDENDUM to 52.212-2 - edit 21 Oct 20.pdf

EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

(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, percentage and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

(1) PRICE

(2) TECHNICAL

(3) PAST PERFORMANCE

Technical and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Price when being evaluated.

(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 prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of 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.

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

Basis for Contract Award This is a Competitive Best Value Tradeoff conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Parts 12, 13, and 16, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and Air Force FAR Supplement (AFFARS). Award will be made based on the Best Value, meaning 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 chosen for this acquisition will be Subjective Tradeoff, where technical and past performance, when combined, are significantly more important than price. No contract award shall be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility in accordance with FAR 9.104.

Discussions The Government intends to award without discussions; therefore, offerors should submit offers that represent their best efforts. 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 Offer Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the selection decision. In the event discussion are to be conducted, the competitive range will be established IAW FAR 15.306(c).

Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions as unacceptable.

Evaluation Factors The Government will evaluate offers for price, technical acceptability and past performance, but will not rank the offers by the non-price factors. Offerors are advised that their initial submission should be their best effort. Only Technical and Past Performance acceptable offers, either initially or as a result of discussions, are eligible for award. If an award is made without discussions; offer revisions will not be permitted.

The first step of the evaluation process is to review the cover page and if applicable, any proposed Team Arrangements/Joint Venture Documentation for completeness. If an offeror is claiming this business approach, failure to submit Teaming Arrangement/Joint Venture documentation will render the offerors offer non-responsive and no further evaluation will be conducted.

The second step of the evaluation process is to evaluate prices and rank all responsive offers by Total Evaluated Price (TEP) from lowest to highest. TEP shall be the total of all years from the Bid Schedule line items (Attachment 2), plus an additional 50% of the total of Option Year 4.

The additional 50% represents the total cumulative price of 52.217-8. Should FAR clause 52.217-8 be exercised in the future, the price will be pro-rated to the actual performance required.

The evaluation team will then proceed to the third step. In the third step, the first three (3) of the lowest priced, responsive offers shall be evaluated for technical acceptability and past performance. In the event that the first three (3) evaluated offers do not yield at least two (2) offers with an acceptable technical rating and one (1) offeror with a Substantial Confidence past performance rating, the evaluation process will continue until a minimum of two (2) technically acceptable offers are identified and one (1) Substantial Confidence past performance rating offeror are identified or all offers are evaluated. The Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment to render the best value award decision. The Selection Authority may also make the determination it is in the best interest of the Government to evaluate all offerors for technical acceptability and past performance prior to rendering the best value award decision.

While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the acquisition process, by its nature is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

The following evaluation factors will be used to arrive at an award decision:

Factor 1: Price Factor 2: Technical Factor 3: Past Performance

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY:

Offers will be evaluated using three evaluation factors, which are (1) Price (2) Technical, and (3) Past Performance. All offeror cover pages and (if applicable) teaming arrangements will be reviewed for completeness in accordance with the requirements stated in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items to determine the offeror responsive or non- responsive. Only those offers determined complete and responsive will be considered for further evaluation.

VOLUME 1 –PRICE

Prices will be evaluated on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). TEP shall be the total of all years from the Bid Schedule line items (Attachment 2), plus an additional 50% of the total of Option Year 4. The additional 50% represents the total cumulative price of 52.217-8. Should FAR clause 52.217-8 be exercised in the future, the price will be pro-rated to the actual performance required.

Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze each offer to determine whether item prices are unbalanced with respect to prices proposed for similar items. An offer may be rejected if the Selection Authority determines prices are significantly unbalanced or if the unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

VOLUME II – TECHNICAL

Technical evaluations will start with the first three (3) of the lowest priced, responsive offers. If at least two (2) of the first three lowest priced offers are not determined technically acceptable, the technical evaluation will continue until two (2) offerors are found technically acceptable or until all offers are evaluated or the Selection Authority opens discussions if determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

The rating assigned to this technical evaluation factor will be based on the offeror’s proposed technical volume. The validity and thoroughness of the offeror’s technical volume will be evaluated as specific evidence of the offeror’s understanding and capability to perform this requirement. An overall rating will be assigned; failure to be assigned an acceptable rating in any technical subfactor will render the entire technical volume of an offeror as unacceptable.

Evaluators will assign a rating as outlined below in Table C-1.

Table C-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Rating Description Acceptable Offer clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

Technical Subfactor: Quality Control Plan (QCP) Offerors shall submit a Quality Control Plan (QCP) that clearly demonstrates offerors understanding of the Quality Control Plan (QCP) located in the Custodial Services PWS. The

Quality Control Plan (QCP) will be rated acceptable if it meets the following minimum requirements:

Information about the Contractor’s Program manager and alternate and any quality control inspectors – to include phone number and years of experience

Intent (if any) to use subcontractors Employee onboarding process Employee Training Plan for each required task – to ensure personnel know the expectations of performance per the PWS and perform with minimal deficiencies. This portion of the plan shall also cover re-training of tasks that required improvement.

Inspection Plan (Quality Control), Methods of Self-Surveillance and Documentation by the site manager or other individual(s) –such as an app used to document the inspections accomplished or other method of documentation.

Monthly schedule of Quality Control inspections to ensure that non-conforming contract services are identified and corrected by the Contractor (NOT identified by the COR or customer).

Key Inventory and Control procedures, to include reporting lost or stolen keys Employee Contractor Badge and CAC card control procedures, to include how a badge will be turned to the COR if employment is terminated Steps taken to identify opportunities for improvement of performance in an effort to maintain satisfactory performance according to the PWS Service Summary – Table 2.

Process and documentation for correcting unsatisfactory performance by Contractor personnel.

VOLUME III – PAST PERFORMANCE

Offers evaluated for technical acceptability will also be evaluated for past performance. The Government will evaluate the recency, relevancy, and quality of the offeror’s past performance by analyzing offeror provided past performance information, and any other past performance information data independently obtained from Government and/or commercial sources which may include, but not limited to: the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and other databases.

Contractors must submit no more than five (5) recent and relevant past performance records.

Past performance information submitted in excess of the first five contracts will not be evaluated.

1. Past Performance will first be evaluated for recency. Recent past performance information includes contracts performed and/or being performed for any customer within the last three (3) years prior to the issuance date of the solicitation. Recency will be evaluated as “acceptable” or “unacceptable” as outlined below in Table C-2.

Table C-2 Recency Acceptable / Unacceptable Ratings Rating Description Acceptable Past performance submission is for contract work completed prior to the solicitation, but not before the previous three years

Unacceptable Past performance submission is for contract work completed more than 3 years before this solicitation was released

2. Past Performance will then be evaluated for relevancy. The offeror shall identify what elements of each contract are deemed relevant to this solicitation and indicate what percentage of service was performed by the offeror (prime), subcontractor (if applicable) and teaming contractor (if applicable). The final determination of the identified and demonstrated relevancy elements of each contract will be the decision of the Government. Relevant past performance requires performance of other contracts similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to the requirements defined in this solicitation.

Relevancy will be evaluated as outlined below in Table C-3.

Table C-3 Relevancy Ratings 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

3. Finally, Past Performance will be evaluated for quality and assigned a performance confidence assessment rating. Performance confidence assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood that the offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements based upon the offeror’s past performance information. Performance confidence will be assessed as outlined below in Table C-4.

Table C-4 Quality Ratings 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 reasonable 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 Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government

Confidence has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort

**NOTE: in the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance.

Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will not be considered as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror.

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information 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 that supports a less than satisfactory confidence 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 reserve the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

At a minimum, the first three (3) lowest priced offers will be evaluated for technical acceptability and past performance. Evaluations will continue as necessary until at least two (2) offers are determined technically acceptable and one (1) offeror is determined to have a Substantial Confidence Past Performance rating or until all offers are evaluated.

The Selection Authority will then make an integrated assessment to render the best value award decision, or may open discussions if determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

(End of addendum)