Atch6_Sec_M_Amend01_BirdSlide_20180917.docx

52.212-2 ADDENDUM

52.212-2 Addendum

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive selection subject to FAR 13.106. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforming to the solicitation is determined to represent the best value for the Government on the basis of lowest price technically acceptable. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub factors. The offeror accedes to the terms of this model contract and all such offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and technical acceptability. An “unacceptable” rating in any factor or sub-factor will result in the overall technical proposal being rated “unacceptable” and the proposal will therefore be ineligible for award. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the evaluation process is by its nature subjective. Therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

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

M-1 Part I, Contractor Price Proposal

(a) Completed RFQ template

(b) Solicitation Amendments (if applicable). Did the offeror acknowledge all amendments to the RFP?

(d) System for Award Management (SAM) Registration. Has the offeror completed SAM registration and is the registration active? (Government will validate via SAM website)

M-2 Part II, Contractor Technical Proposal. The offeror’s technical proposal must provide sufficient information for the Government to validate the offeror (or the offeror’s proposed subcontractor) has past experience successfully installing Anti-Bird Nesting Material “BirdSlide” or equal for other customers / entities. Technical proposals shall be evaluated on a pass/fail basis and assigned a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable.” The technical proposal must be rated “acceptable” to be eligible for award. The following rating definitions will be used to assign a rating for the technical proposal:

Technical Criteria Ratings

M-3 Evaluation Methodology. Price Proposals will be ranked from lowest to highest Total Proposed Price, also referred to as Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The Technical Proposal of the lowest TEP offeror will be evaluated for “technical acceptability” in all factors and sub-factors. Should the lowest TEP offeror be determined “technically acceptable”, then evaluation of offers may conclude without further evaluation of higher ranking / higher priced offers. However, the Government reserves the right to evaluate the next lowest TEP offer for technical acceptability if the Government determines it necessary in order to establish fair and reasonable pricing based on adequate price competition.

M-4 Price Evaluation.

(a) Price Reasonableness. All “technically acceptable” proposals 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 techniques as described in FAR 13.106-3. Unreasonable, unrealistic, or unbalanced prices submitted may be grounds for eliminating a proposal 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.

(b) Total Proposed Price / Total Evaluated Price. The total proposed price will be determined by totaling the extended amount for all CLINs 0001 – 0002 as follows:

The extended amount must equal the quantity multiplied by the unit price. To prevent rounding issues, unit prices are limited to two (2) decimal places and no rounding of the extended amount is allowed.

Note: It is the responsibility of each offeror to verify their calculations.

Unit Price x Qty

M-5 Clarifications / Discussions. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in 52.212-1 Addendum. Offeror’s may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal. 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. The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

M-6 Contract Award. The Government intends to award, without discussion, to offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government.

M-7 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 52.212-2 Addendum)