Addendum_to_FAR_52.212-2.pdf

FA4610-15-T-0006 Portable Toilets

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2 EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive selection subject to FAR 15.101-2, Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Source Selection Process. Award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of quotes meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors (i.e. Technical Acceptability). By submission of its quote in accordance with the instructions provided in clause FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors, and the addendum thereto, the offeror accedes to the terms of this model contract and all such offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and experience records. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an quote being determined technically unacceptable.

While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process is by its nature subjective.

Therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

A. Contractor Quote. The following documents will be evaluated for completeness and compliance with the requirements of the RFQ. Please refer to the instructions in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. Incomplete items may be a basis for rejection:

1. Part I, Price.

(a) A signed copy of the solicitation / contract award document, SF 1449

(b) Completed Price Schedule spreadsheet (Attachment 3 to the RFQ)

(c) Completed Schedule of Supplies / Services (price schedule), SF 1449

(d) Completed Representations & Certifications (see Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Paragraph C. Part I(c)

(e) Acknowledgement of all RFQ amendments, if applicable

(f) Teaming arrangement information / documentation, if applicable

2. Part II, Technical. The contractor’s technical quote will be utilized to determine Technical Acceptability as described in paragraph B below.

B. Technical Acceptability.

1. The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical quotes on a pass/fail basis, assigning rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable. An offer must be rated “Acceptable” in all factors in order to eligible for award. An “Unacceptable” rating in any factor will result in the overall technical quote being rated “Unacceptable” and the quote will therefore be ineligible for award.

2. The following adjectival ratings and rating definitions will be used to assign a rating for each technical factor and an overall rating to each technical quote.

“Lowest Price Technically Acceptable” Evaluation Standards Rating Definition

A (Acceptable) All of the minimum acceptable criteria are clearly met by the quote. The offeror’s quote meets the performance and technical capability requirements defined in the PWS.

U (Unacceptable) Not all of the minimum acceptable criteria are met by the quote. An unacceptable quote contains one or more deficiencies. Quote fails to meet specified minimum performance and technical capability requirements defined in the PWS.

3. Overall Technical Acceptability will be evaluated against the following factors:

Factor 1. Experience / Past History of providing the same or substantially similar services in the immediate 3 year period preceding this quote: The contractor’s responses to the Experience Questionnaires, Factor 1, indicate the contractor is providing or has provided the same or substantially similar services during the immediate 3 year period preceding this quote.

Factor 2. Ability to meet timelines for acknowledging and responding to Government notifications and/or work requests. The contractor’s responses to the Experience Questionnaires, Factor 2, indicate the contractor is successfully meeting, or has successfully met, required response time(s) to customer notifications / orders on other contracts. Alternatively, the contractor’s responses to the Experience Questionnaires, Factor 2, indicate the contractor has the ability to respond to customer inquiries/orders within the timelines stated in the VAFB PWS.

Factor 3. Ability to meet schedule for unit delivery and placement. The contractor’s responses to the Experience Questionnaires, Factor 3, indicate the contractor is successfully meeting, or has successfully met, required response times for unit delivery and placement on other contracts.

Alternatively, the contractor’s responses indicate the contractor has the ability to deliver and place units within the timelines required in the PWS for routine requests (within 3 hours) and emergency requests (within 2 hours).

Factor 4. Anchoring/securing of units. The contractor’s responses to the Experience Questionnaires, Factor 4, indicate the contractor’s proposed methodology for anchoring/securing units is appropriate for the different types of surfaces listed below on which the units will be placed and is sufficient to prevent units from blowing over during periods of high winds (i.e. 35 knots/40 mph):

a. Soft areas (i.e. dirt/gravel/rocky/grass).

b. Asphalt.

c. Concrete.

Factor 5. Ability to supply units in quantities substantially similar to those reflected in the PWS, Appendix A, Historical Data. The contractor’s responses to the Experience Questionnaires, Factor 5, indicate that on other contracts, the contractor is successfully supplying, or has successfully supplied, units in quantities substantially similar to those reflected in the VAFB PWS, Appendix A, Historical Data and has the ability to supply the number of permanent units and fluctuating numbers of temporary units as reflected in the PWS, Appendix A.

Factor 6. Ability to meet schedule for servicing of units. The contractor’s responses to the Experience Questionnaires, Factor 6, indicate the contractor is successfully meeting, or has met, requirements for servicing of units on other contracts and has, or can obtain, sufficient resources necessary to meet the schedule for servicing of units at least once every 7 calendar days as required by the PWS.

C. Price Evaluation.

1. All “Technically Acceptable” quotes will be evaluated for price reasonableness. It is expected that the competitive nature of this acquisition will drive price reasonableness; however, the Government reserves the right, if it deems appropriate, to make this determination by means of one or more price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.4. Unreasonable or unbalanced prices submitted may be grounds for eliminating a quote from further consideration if prices are determined to be incompatible with the scope of the effort to be accomplished and/or create performance risk on the basis the offeror does not understand the requirement.

2. Offers shall then be ranked by total evaluated price, highest to lowest. An offeror’s total evaluated price will be determined by:

(a) For each tab on the Price Schedule spreadsheet (Attachment 3 to the RFQ), multiplying the quantities by the unit price for each item to confirm the extended amount for each item,

(b) On each tab, adding the extended unit totals to determine the overall total for each year. These totals are also reflected on the SF 1449 price schedule for all the CLINS (0001, etc.).

(c) Adding the overall totals for each year together to arrive at the total proposed price (also reflected on the “Summary of CLINs” tab on the spreadsheet).

D. The Government intends to evaluate quotes and award a contract without discussions with offerors. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interests. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their quote, however, exchanges with offerors to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions. The Government reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for quote revision.

E. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY. Prior to an award, an offeror may be requested to provide business information for the purpose of a responsibility determination in accordance with FAR Part 9. Failure to provide requested information may result in a determination of non-responsibility, and the offeror would then be considered ineligible for award.

(End of Addendum to FAR 52.212-2)