Atch 5 Addendum 52212-2 11Mar2010.pdf

Solicitation No. FA4855-10-R-0002 11 March 2010

Attachment 5

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2, EVALUATION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JAN 1999)

I. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

A. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Past

Performance and Price. This is a competitive best value Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) source selection solicitation. Past performance and price/cost will be evaluated utilizing a PPT process. The government will make an integrated PPT assessment and award to the offeror who is considered to provide the best value to the government. For the purpose of the PPT, past performance is significantly more important than price. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors. CAUTION: Offerors should assure that proposal are submitted in accordance with the instructions provided in clause FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors, and Attachment 4 and submission of its offer accedes the terms of this contract.

B. The Government intends to award a contract without discussion with respective offerors. The

Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

Therefore, the offeror’s initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price standpoint. The

Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later the Contracting Officer determines to be necessary. The Government may reject any or all offers if such is in the public interest; accept other than the lowest offer; and waive informalities and minor irregularities in received offers.

II. EVALUATION FACTORS:

A. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors and their Relative Order of Importance: The evaluation factors are listed below in descending order of importance.

i. Factor 1: Past Performance

a. Subfactor 1 – Schedule

b. Subfactor 2 – Quality of Service

c. Subfactor 3 – Management

d. Subfactor 4 – Business Relations

ii. Factor 2: Price

III. PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

A. Factor 1: Past Performance: The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the offerors ability to perform the effort described in this RFP, based on the offerors demonstrated present and past performance. Using the responses to the performance questionnaires (completed

Attachment 7), the references provided by the offeror (completed Attachment 6), and data independently obtained from other sources, the government will evaluate performance information. The assessment process will result in an overall risk rating as specified below (i.e., Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory

Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, and Unknown Confidence). Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history shall receive a rating of “unknown,” meaning that the rating is treated neither favorable nor unfavorable.

i. Past performance information will be evaluated on the four (4) subfactors listed below.

a. Subfactor 1 - Schedule. The evaluation team will evaluate the contractor's timeliness of completing the contract, task orders, milestones, delivery schedules, and administrative requirements.

b. Subfactor 2 – Quality of Service. The evaluation team will evaluate each offeror's present and past performance information to determine the contractor's level of conformance to contract requirements, specifications, and standards of good workmanship. The evaluation team will focus on whether the contractor met contract requirements, specifications, and all other terms and conditions. The evaluation team shall also consider the contractor's compliance with its quality control plan and the effectiveness of the contractor's quality control plan and procedures.

c. Subfactor 3 - Management. The evaluation team will evaluate the contractor's integration and coordination of all activity to execute the contract, especially focusing on management of staffing, equipment, supplies, and records. The evaluation team will look at whether the contractor sufficiently manned the contract in order to meet contract schedule requirements.

d. Subfactor 4 – Business Relations. The evaluation team will evaluate how well the contractor met the customer's needs in terms of contract requirements, specifications, and standards of good workmanship. The evaluation team will especially focus on the contractor's communication with the customer, professional working relationship, responsiveness, resolution of customer complaints, initiative to solve problems, and realignment of schedules to meet the customer's needs.

ii. When the relevant performance record indicates problems, the Government will evaluate the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised actions). The Government may review more recent contracts to evaluate the effectiveness of corrective actions.

Note: In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation. It is therefore extremely important for an offeror to fully describe how its prior efforts relate to this requirement.

iii. Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

RATING DEFINITION

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence No performance record is identifiable or the offeror’s performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned

iv. Recent Definition

Recent

Basewide Laundry & Dry Cleaning Services performed within the last three (3) years (June 2007 thru current date)

Not Recent

Basewide Laundry & Dry Cleaning Services performed more than three (3) years ago (prior to June 2007)

v. Relevancy Definitions

Relevant

A relevant contract is a government or commercial contract in which the offeror performs services similar in type, size, and complexity to those identified in the Contract Line Item Numbers

(CLINs) 0001 thru 4004. Specifically, the offeror shall have experience with at least five of the following types of services as described in the PWS:

- Laundry & Dry Cleaning Processing Services

- Pickup Services

- Delivery Services

- Packaging

- Repairs/Replacement

- Proper Handling of Contaminated Laundry

Semi-Relevant

A semi-relevant contract is a government or commercial contract in which the offeror performs services similar in type, size, and complexity to those identified in the Contract Line Item Numbers

(CLINs) 0001 thru 4004. Specifically, the offeror shall have experience with three or more of the following types of services as described in the PWS:

- Laundry & Dry Cleaning Processing Services

- Pickup Services

- Delivery Services

- Packaging

- Repairs/Replacement

- Proper Handling of Contaminated Laundry

Not Relevant

A contract in which less than three of the services listed above were performed

vi. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Communications conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors would not constitute discussions and the government reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

I. PRICE EVALUATION

A. Factor 2: Price: The price evaluation will document the completeness and reasonableness of the proposed total evaluated price.

i. Upon completion of the past performance evaluation, price will be evaluated to determine the offerors understanding of the contract requirement as expressed by the solicitation. Any inconsistencies, (whether real or apparent) in price must be clearly justified. For example, if unique and innovative approaches are the basis for an abnormally low proposed price, the nature of these approaches and their impact to the proposed price must be completely documented. The burden of proof for cost credibility rests solely with the offeror. The following evaluation criteria shall apply:

a. Completeness: Price will be considered complete when the offeror has proposed firm fixed price for CLIN 0001, and associated option CLINs 1001 through CLINs 4001 as outlined in the solicitation. Offers for partial quantities will not be considered for award. Price will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror provided sufficient data as required by the solicitation.

b. Reasonableness: Price reasonableness will be determined by comparing offers received in response to this solicitation.

c. Realism: Realism will be based on an evaluation of the offered price to determine if the cost reflects a clear understanding of the requirements, and is consistent with the various elements of the offerors’ technical information, and is not materially unbalanced or insufficient for the effort to be accomplished. This will be accomplished primarily by comparing all offers received in response to this solicitation.

ii. An offeror’s proposal price will be determined by multiplying the annual estimated quantity times the offeror’s proposesd unit price for the CLIN (Contract Line Item Number) or Sub-CLIN (Sub-Contract

Line Item Number) and totaling the product of that calculation for all price CLINs/Sub-CLINs and all option periods to arrive at a total estimated contract value. The basis of the proposed prices must be compatible with all other elements of the proposal. No advantage will accrue to an offeror who submits an unrealistically low price proposal. Such a proposal may be viewed as indicative of a lack of understanding of the Government’s desired objective. Since discussions are not contemplated, the offeror should submit his/her best price upon initial submission of the proposal.

iii. Award will be made to the lowest priced offer judged to have a “Satisfactory Confidence” rating. If the lowest priced offer is not judged to have a “Satisfactory Confidence” rating, the next lowest priced offer will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by reasonable price) until an offer is judged to have a “Satisfactory Confidence” rating. If no eligible offers receives a past performance rating of “Satisfactory Confidence”, and the Contracting Officer determines that it is in the best interest of the Government to do so, the above process will be repeated for offers with the next lower rating.

Note: An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. A determination of unreasonableness of the offeror’s proposal may result in an offeror being removed from the competitive range. Communications conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors would not constitute discussions and the government reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

(End of Addendum)