Attach 4 Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 - Section M (5-09-2024).pdf

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2

The following additions/changes are made to FAR provision 52.212-2, which is incorporated by reference.

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

This is a competitive Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection in which competing offerors’ technical capability will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to price. By submission of its offer in accordance with the instructions provided in clause FAR 52.212-1, Instructions To offerors, the offeror accedes to the terms of this model contract and all such offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

Any offeror who does not submit a complete package consisting of all of the elements described in FAR 52.212-1 and Addendum thereto will automatically be considered non-responsive and their proposal will not advance in the evaluation process. Therefore, non-responsive proposals will not be considered for award. The application of the LPTA Technique in the award selection and approval process is as follows:

a. First, the Government will arrange all proposals conforming to the solicitation by Total Evaluated Price (TEP) from lowest to highest and evaluate prices in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). For evaluation purposes, the TEP will be the sum of the Offeror's proposed prices for each of the five (5) ordering periods and the Extension of Services (EOS) as proposed in Attachment 2, Bid Schedule.

b. Secondly, the Government will evaluate the Technical Approach of the lowest priced offeror and assign a rating of either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. If the lowest priced offeror receives a Technical Approach rating of “Unacceptable”, the Government evaluation team will evaluate the next eligible offeror (in order by price) until an Acceptable” rating is achieved or until all offerors are evaluated. As part of an offerors Technical Approach, each Sub factor must be individually responded to. Responses must demonstrate a clear understanding of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and provide clear evidence of an ability to comply. A failure to address all subfactors and/or provide clear evidence of an ability to comply will result in that offeror being determined non-responsive and remove them from consideration. The Government shall evaluate an offerors Technical Approach using the ratings identified in Table 1.

c. Third, once a technically acceptable proposal is found the selection process will move to past performance. If the past performance is rated as “Acceptable” the overall proposal will be evaluated as “Acceptable”. If the past performance is rated as “Unacceptable” the process will restart until a technically acceptable proposal with a past performance rating of acceptable is found or all offers have been evaluated. Once two (2) proposals are found acceptable, evaluations will cease, and award will be made the lowest priced technically acceptable offeror; no tradeoffs will be conducted. If all offerors are evaluated and no “Acceptable” rating is achieved, the Government reserves the right to enter into discussions if it is deemed to be in the best interest of the Government.

The Government shall evaluate the proposals on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. Each proposal will be assigned a rating of: Acceptable or Unacceptable. All technically acceptable proposals are considered equal and will not be assigned a technical ranking.

The Government anticipates making one award without conducting discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions, if determined to be necessary by the Source Selection Authority.

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. Price

2. Technical Capability

3. Past Performance

Price is approximately equal to technical capability/past performance when being evaluated.

FACTOR 1: PRICE

The Government will arrange all proposals conforming to the solicitation by Total Evaluated Price (TEP) from lowest to highest and evaluate prices in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

For evaluation purposes, the TEP will be the sum of the Offeror's proposed prices for each of the five (5) ordering periods and Extension of Services proposed in Attachment 2, Bid schedule.

FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY:

A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s Proposal shall be made IAW the following table:

Table 1: Technical Capability Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Each offeror must show evidence of a capability to provide the mandatory requirements set forth in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and elsewhere in this solicitation. A technical review team composed of key Government personnel will use their technical skills, knowledge and experience to thoroughly review the adequacy of the proposals. In evaluating Technical capability, the Government will use the following evaluation criteria:

(1) Compliance with the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and the entire solicitation.

(2) Understanding of the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and the entire solicitation.

(3) Compliance and understanding of the requirements of the PWS as applied specifically to each factor/sub factor listed below.

The following specific factors and sub factors will be evaluated in the proposal (as outlined in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1). Any factor or sub factor determined unacceptable may render the entire proposal as unacceptable. If any subfactor is determined to be unacceptable, the technical capability will receive and overall Technical Capability Rating of Unacceptable.

Upon final determination that a proposal is unacceptable, the Contracting Officer (CO) shall promptly 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.

In evaluating technical capability, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation. The subfactors indicated below will be evaluated.

Subfactor The offeror:

1. The offeror demonstrated their detailed approach and capability to perform improved, semi-improved and unimproved grounds maintenance to include mowing, edging, and trimming requirements. As well as their ability to perform irrigation system maintenance and repairs, reimbursement procedures and reporting requirements.

PWS 1.1, 1.2, 1.4

2. The offeror demonstrated their detailed approach and capability to perform irrigation system maintenance and repairs, reimbursements procedures and reporting requirements. PWS 1.1.6

3. The offeror demonstrated their detailed approach and capability to meet the base security and access requirements. PWS 4.8

4. The offeror demonstrated their detailed approach and capability to perform fertilization, pest control and chemical usage requirements. PWS 1.1.9.1, 1.1.10, 4.4.3

5. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s proposal demonstrates the ability to feasibly and effectively perform the Bird Area Strike Hazard (BASH) requirements. (PWS 1.3)

a. BASH Area Mowing. The offeror demonstrated their detailed approach and capability to maintain the BASH area the to meet the requirements of the PWS.

b. Airfield Light Fixtures. The offeror demonstrated their detailed approach and capability to maintain the area the Airfield Light Fixtures to meet the requirements of the PWS.

c. Airfield Coordination. The offeror demonstrated their detailed approach and capability to coordinate effectively with Airfield Management to meet the requirements of the PWS.

d. Flight-Line Drivers. The offeror demonstrated their detailed approach and capability to meet all flight-line training and pass requirements according to the

PWS.

e. Airfield Tower Communications. The offeror demonstrated their detailed approach and capability to obtain and maintain radio communication and equipment to meet the requirements of the PWS.

6. The offeror demonstrated their detailed approach and capability to meet all ANSI Standards as well as their ability to complete emergency spot pruning/trimming and special cuts. PWS 1.8.1.2, 1.8.1.3, 1.8.1.5, 1.8.2, 1.8.4

7. The Government will evaluate the extent to which offeror’s proposal demonstrates the ability to feasibly and effectively provide a general work plan for:

a. Scheduling for completing work.

b. Methods for ensuring each work task is completed in accordance with PWS specifications to include labor, materials, and equipment.

c. Methods to document/quality control each work task in accordance with

PWS specifications.

d. Methods and equipment to be used for the storage, mixing, and application of pesticides in accordance with PWS specifications.

PWS 4.19

8. The offeror demonstrated their detailed approach and capability to obtain all permits, licenses, and certifications to meet the requirements of the PWS. PWS 4.5

9. The Government will evaluate the extent to which offeror’s proposal demonstrates the ability to transition responsibilities feasibly and effectively from the incumbent contractor. PWS 3.1.1

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and, in the format, specified in the proposal preparation instructions to permit a meaningful assessment of technical capability.

The Offeror should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements.

FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to determine if the offeror’s present/past performance is recent. Second is to evaluate whether the offeror’s present/past performance is relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired. The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

Technically acceptable offerors will receive a Past Performance Evaluation Rating based on the offeror’s past and present performance as it relates to the probability of successfully accomplishing the required effort. The Past Performance Evaluation Rating will be determined by combining three individual components: Recency, Relevancy and Quality of Past Performance and assigned IAW the table below. In order to be considered acceptable under the past performance rating method, the past performance must be considered recent, relevant and have a minimum quality rating of Satisfactory.

Past Performance Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

a. Recency Assessment: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Any single reference that fails this condition will be deemed to be “Not Recent” and will NOT be included in the Past Performance evaluation.

b. Relevancy Assessment: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is relevant. Relevancy will be determined by comparing the offeror’s current and recent past performance to the scope and complexity of the effort required by the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and will be given a rating IAW the following table:

Past Performance Relevancy Rating

Description Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. (i.e., Reference describes experience in fulfilling same market segment and describes in detail how closely the provided services performed under identified contracts relate to the Task Order Performance Work Statement).

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. (i.e., Reference does not describe experience in fulfilling same market segment and/or provides no detail resembling how closely the provided services performed under those contracts relate to the Task Order Performance Work Statement).

The Government is not bound by the offeror's opinion of relevancy.

Relevancy information will be obtained from:

1. A review of contract performance information from electronic posting systems such as Contractor Performance Reporting System (CPARS) and information independently obtained by the Government through other sources.

2. A review of the information in the offeror’s past performance proposal volume.

c. Quality of Relevant Past Performance: Determined by examining documentation to identify how well the offeror actually performed on current and recent relevant past contracts.

Quality of Relevant Past Performance information will be obtained from:

1. A review of contract performance information from electronic posting systems such as Contractor Performance Reporting System (CPARS) and information independently otherwise obtained by the Government through other sources.

2. A review of the information in the offeror’s proposal.

Each contract evaluated for Quality will receive one of the following ratings:

Past Performance Quality Rating

PERFORMANCE LEVEL

Exceptional The Contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many (requirements) to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were highly effective.

Very Good The Contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some (requirements) to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective.

Satisfactory The contractor’s performance met contractual requirements. The contractual performance contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or was resolved

Marginal Performance did not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance reflected a serious problem for which the Contractor did not yet identify corrective actions or the Contractor’s proposed actions appeared marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance contained serious problem(s) for which the Contractor’s corrective actions appeared, or were, ineffective.

N/A Unable to provide a performance level.

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. 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.

Note: 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 (see FAR 15.305 (a) (2) (iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered ―acceptable.

In assessing past performance, the evaluators will employ several approaches including:

(1) using data independently obtained from other governmental and commercial sources; and

(2) reviewing past performance information provided in the offeror’s proposal. This process will result in an acceptable/unacceptable rating.

For those offeror’s who do not have any relevant past performance information to submit, a statement to that effect will satisfy the requirement for a past performance volume. In such a case, that offeror may be considered to have an unknown integrated past performance confidence assessment rating for evaluation purposes. However, if the Government has knowledge or gains knowledge through other sources regarding what the Government believes to be relevant past performance for an offeror who states they have none, such information may be used by the Government for evaluation purposes and a past performance confidence assessment rating will be assigned to that offeror’s proposal. In addition, if a statement is not received, and no past performance information is submitted as a part of the offeror’s proposal, the entire proposal will be considered non-responsive and will not be considered for award.

(End of Provision Addendum)