Attachment 3 - Addendum to 52.212-2_Updated.pdf

FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS

ADDENDA TO 52.212-2 Evaluation –Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Nov 2021)

THIS SECTION IS FOR SOLICITATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS SECTION WILL BE PHYSICALLY

REMOVED FROM ANY RESULTANT AWARD BUT WILL BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY

REFERENCE. THIS ADDENDA SUPPLEMENTS FAR 52.212-2.

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

A. Basis for Contract Award.

1. This is a Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items, competitive best value acquisition conducted in accordance with FAR 13.5, Simplified Procedures for Certain Commercial Products and Commercial Services, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS). The Government will award a firm-fixed price contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation represents the best value to the Government, price and other factors considered. To be considered for award, the proposal must conform to the evaluation criteria described herein, conform to all Request for Proposal (RFP) requirements, and other information required in accordance (IAW) with Instructions to Offerors, and the offeror must be deemed responsible IAW FAR Part 9.104-1.

2. 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.

3. The Government will conduct a price evaluation of all proposals submitted. Total evaluated price (TEP) will include the Base and all Option CLINs and be determined by multiplying the quantities identified by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line-Item Number (CLIN) and then totaling all CLINs.

4. The Contracting Officer (CO) has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the CO will review this determination and if, in the CO's opinion, adequate price competition exists, no additional cost information will be requested, and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required. However, if at any time during this solicitation process, the CO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists; Offerors may be required to submit data other than certified cost or pricing data to the extent necessary for the CO to determine the reasonableness of the price.

5. Assumptions, conditions, or exceptions within the Offeror’s proposal shall be reviewed for potential impact on the Offeror’s ability to successfully meet the Government’s requirements. Any assumptions, conditions, or exceptions, which may negatively impact performance of this requirement, could render the proposal ineligible for award.

B. Interchanges.

1. The Government may hold interchanges with offerors. The formal restrictions for Communications, Clarifications, or Discussions do not apply to this FAR Part 13 acquisition. Interchanges allow for informal interaction between the CO and the offerors that may address any aspect of the proposal. It is the Government's intent to award without interchanges with offerors. Interchanges may be necessary pertaining to technical or price, or deal with contract documentation including any other matter in the evaluation process. Offerors are encouraged to present their best technical solution and prices in their initial proposal submission. However, should interchanges be necessary, the Government reserves the right to conduct them with one, some, or all the offerors at its discretion. If the Government awards without interchanges, the Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of proposals or to resolve minor clerical errors. The Government may reject any or all offers if such action is in the public interest. FAR Part 15 procedures will not be used.

C. Evaluation Criteria.

1. The Government will select the offer representing the best value to the Government, based upon an assessment of Technical, Past Performance, and Price. For this requirement, a single firm fixed price award shall be made to the responsible contractor, who is registered and has current reps and certs in SAM.gov, is not listed on the SAM excluded parties list, and whose proposal complies with the terms and conditions of the RFP, is deemed technically acceptable, and is considered to be the best value based upon a past performance/price trade-off.

2. The government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest priced proposal or the highest rated past performance.

3. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offeror(s): Technical, Past Performance, and Price .

Technical. The Government will evaluate the Technical Factor first. Only those Offerors with an "Acceptable" technical rating will be evaluated on Past Performance and Price and will be considered for award. Offers must be technically acceptable to be considered for award. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable.

Past Performance. The Government reserves the right to use relevant performance assessment ratings from sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, Contractors Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), interviews with Program Managers, and/or non-Government sources, such as any commercial business or customers referenced by the offeror.

Price. The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP) if the difference in the Past Performance Confidence Rating of another offeror justifies the higher price premium. In that event, the award decision authority will make an integrated assessment best value award decision using the TEP and the Past Performance Confidence Rating.

Relative Importance of Factors and Sub-factors.

The Government will utilize competitive Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) selection methodology where Past Performance is approximately equal to Price. Only those Offerors with an "Acceptable" technical rating will then be evaluated on Past Performance and Price and will be considered for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

The proposals will be evaluated based on the following three (3) evaluation factors.

a. Factor 1: Technical

• Sub-Factor 1: Management Plan

b. Factor 2: Past Performance

c. Factor 3: Price

Failure to meet a factor or sub-factor will result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable.

Factor 1 - Technical This factor evaluates the technical approach to meet capabilities required by the PWS. These requirements are met when the Offeror’s proposal:

Sub-Factor 1: Management Plan. The offeror meets the requirements when its proposed management plan clearly describes the strategies and processes to successfully accomplish the tasks delineated in the PWS. The plan provides evidence of knowledge and capability of delivering the services as defined in the solicitation. At a minimum, the plan:

a. Demonstrates a sound and logical business approach for directing and integrating resources in an efficient manner to fulfill the requirements identified in the PWS.

b. Demonstrates a staffing approach (to include a proposed manning mix of personnel), that clearly describes the strategies and processes for retention and utilization of key personnel to meet the requirements of the PWS.

c. Demonstrates a proposed approach to mitigating strategies and processes to proactively prevent potential risks that could have an adverse impact to schedule or performance for each task outlined in the PWS.

Technical Acceptability Rating: The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable, using the rating descriptions shown below:

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.

Factor 2 - Past Performance.

The Government will evaluate past performance to assess how well the Offeror has performed work relevant to the requirement described in the solicitation as an indicator of an Offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully.

Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance and Performance Quality. The Government will evaluate recent and relevant performance information and Performance Quality for all offerors based on i) information provided by the offeror within the Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) and ii) any data independently obtained by the Government. However, the Government will not assign a specific relevancy rating or performance quality rating for each past performance information reviewed. Instead, the Government will assign each offeror an integrated overall Performance Confidence Assessment rating from the Past Performance Rating Table below by considering in the aggregate of each offeror’s submitted past performance information for recency, relevancy, and performance quality.

The Government reserves the right to use the information provided in the Offeror’s past performance proposal volume and may also use information obtained from other sources available to the Government. The Government may also consider the past performance of affiliated companies or operating divisions within the parent company or joint ventures of the parent company, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when it is reasonable to attribute the experience of the past efforts to the proposed effort and when the proposal clearly demonstrates the resources (e.g. financial resources, overall oversight and management, or other resources) of the parent or affiliated division will meaningfully affect performance of the instant acquisition.

Recency is defined as ongoing contracts or those completed within five (5) years of the date of issuance of this solicitation.

Relevancy is defined as characteristics or aspects with comparable requirements to the solicited task with at least one year of continuous performance.

Performance Quality Assessment. The Performance Quality Assessment establishes the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. Performance quality will be assessed on the information in the Past Performance Questionnaire and CPARS evaluation ratings, if available.

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. Based on an integrated overall assessment of recency, relevancy, and performance quality, the Government will assign an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment Rating for each Offeror based on the table below. The Performance Confidence Assessment Rating represents the overall evaluation of contractor past performance.

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 the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral”. A “Substantial” or “Satisfactory” confidence rating may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

Factor 3 - Price.

The Government will evaluate the price information submitted in each Offeror’s price proposal as described below. Any other data provided by the Offeror with their price proposal that is not required IAW 52.212-1 will not be considered or evaluated. The price information submitted in each Offeror’s price proposal as required by 52.212-1, will be evaluated to determine if proposed prices are fair and reasonable, complete, and balanced IAW FAR 15.404-1(b). A contract will not be awarded to an Offeror whose price is not determined to be fair and reasonable.

Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified by the proposed unit price for each CLIN and then totaling all CLINs.

In the event the Government requires continued performance, the Government’s evaluation of prices proposed for the base and all option periods will suffice to be the Government’s evaluation of prices under the extension of services. If conditions warrant the exercise of this FAR 52.217-8, the price(s) for continued performance under this clause shall be at the same price(s) as awarded for the base period or the option period, whichever is being extended. Should an extension of services be required; rates will be adjusted only as a result of revisions to applicable prevailing Department of Labor wage rates. The option provision may be exercised more than once, but the total extension of performance hereunder shall not exceed six (6) months, and the total duration of the contract cannot exceed five (5) years and six

(6) months after the contract award date.

Price Reasonableness. The Offeror submitted a price that was determined fair and reasonable IAW the methods in FAR 15.404-1(b) in its nature and amount, and it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

If at any time during this competition the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) has determined that adequate price competition no longer exists, or that price reasonableness cannot be determined, Offerors may be required to submit certified cost or pricing data or additional data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, and may use other proposal analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404;

to the extent necessary, in order to make a determination of price reasonableness.

Balanced Pricing. Proposed unit prices may be evaluated for unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g).

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items or sub-line item(s) appear to be significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. An Offeror’s proposal may be rejected if the PCO determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. If an Offeror’s pricing is determined to be unbalanced IAW FAR 15.404-1(g), the Offeror may be ineligible for award.

Completeness. Offerors must propose on all FFP CLIN(s) for the base and all option years. Failure to provide a completed Price Proposal in the Schedule B – Supplies or Services and Prices/Cost section of the SF 1449 will render the proposal unacceptable and ineligible for award in the absence of interchanges.

Responsibility Determination. The Government will perform a responsibility determination for the apparent awardee IAW FAR Part 9. If found not responsible, the Government may request a Certificate of Competency IAW FAR 19.6. If a Certificate of Competency cannot be obtained from the Small Business Administration, the apparent awardee will be deemed not responsible and be ineligible for award.