Atch 4 Addend 52.212-2.doc

FA4855-10-R-0003

17 November 2009

Attachment 4

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 Technical/Management, Past Performance and Price. This is a competitive best value Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) source selection solicitation. First, each proposal will be evaluated for technical acceptability on a pass/fail basis. After a proposal is determined technically acceptable, price/cost and past performance will be evaluated utilizing a PPT process. The Government will make an integrated PPT assessment and award to the technically acceptable offer considered to be the offeror who will 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 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 and technical 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: Technical/Management

a. Subfactor 1: Corporate Profile/Statement of Qualifications

b. Subfactor 2: Draft Quality Control Plan

c. Subfactor 3: Scheduling Methodologies

d. Subfactor 4: Mobilization/Transition Plan

ii. Factor 2: Past Performance

a. Subfactor 1 – Schedule

b. Subfactor 2 – Quality of Service

c. Subfactor 3 – Management

d. Subfactor 4 – Business Relations

iii. Factor 3: Price

III. TECHNICAL EVALUATION

A. The Technical evaluation process will evaluate the offerors qualification for the requirement at Cannon AFB NM, as detailed in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The offerors technical information submission will be evaluated as pass/fail. Only those offers determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of clarifications/discussions, will proceed to the evaluation process or be considered for award.

B. Technical information will be evaluated on the three (3) subfactors listed below. Each sub factor will be rated on a pass/fail basis. If any subfactor results in a fail rating it will render the entire technical final rating as fail.

i. Factor 1: Technical/Management. Describes an approach that shows a clear understanding of the requirements in the Performance Work Statement (PWS), and how they are to be accomplished in an effective, efficient, and customer-focused manner.

a. Subfactor 1: Corporate Profile/Statement of Qualifications 1.The Government will evaluate an organization structure and chain of responsibility and certifications of all personnel, including on site contract manager to determine personnel qualifications and the capability to manage day to day operations. The corporate profile will be evaluated to determine Contractor’s capability to perform complete management of required wastewater treatment services.

2. The Government will evaluate the Licensing/Certifications of all personnel to determine if personnel are properly trained, qualified, and/or certified technicians who possess the State of New Mexico wastewater treatment certification.

b. Subfactor 2: Draft Quality Control Plan.

1.The Government will evaluate the draft QC Plan to ensure that all PWS tasks and Service Summary (SS)objectives and thresholds are met.

2. The Government will evaluate the method for identifying, correcting, and preventing defective services.

c. Safety and Health Plan (Submit as a separate document): The plan should include as a minimum:

1. Demonstrates a management commitment to employee safety and health;

2. Include a worksite hazard analysis to include base-line hazard identification and required control measures;

3. Include a job site analysis to include hazards of tasks required to control measures;

4. Identify employee safety and health training requirements and the documentation process;

5. Include a workplace inspection frequency, to include identifying the individual conducting the inspections;

6. Identify the process for tracking controlled hazards in contractor work areas.

7. Include the last three (3) years Total Case Incidence Rate (TCIR) and Day Away, Restricted, and or Transfer Case Incident Rate (DART) and OSHA Form 300A, Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses. The TCIR and DART rates are compared to the most recently published Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) national average for the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code or North American Industrial Classification Systems (NAICS) code for the applicable industry, as identified in the solicitation.

d. Subfactor 3: Scheduling Methodologies:

The Government will evaluate each offer to determine Contractor’s understanding of staffing, work scheduling, and emergency notification procedures for this requirement.

e. Subfactor 4: Mobilization/Transition Plan: Describes a mobilization/transition plan that will ensure the workforce is mobilized and will provide for an inconspicuous transition while meeting all PWS requirements. A satisfactory response would include at a minimum:

1. A plan with evidence of ability to assume all activities and provide a smooth transition with no interruption of services for all PWS requirements.

2. A plan that includes a recruitment and training approach for hiring a qualified workforce capable of meeting all PWS requirements by contract start.

While acceptable plans will include all of the above, plans must also be both sufficiently detailed and meritorious to warrant an acceptable rating.

IV. PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

A. Factor 2: 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 response to the performance questionnaires, the references provided by the offeror, 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

iv. Recent Definition

v. Relevancy Definitions

· Wastewater Treatment Plant Operations

· Preventive Maintenance Inspection Program

· Corrective Maintenance

· Sampling & Laboratory Analysis

· Sludge & Grit Disposal

· Documentation

· Wastewater Treatment Plant Operations

· Preventive Maintenance Inspection Program

· Corrective Maintenance

· Sampling & Laboratory Analysis

· Sludge & Grit Disposal

· Documentation

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 3: 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 quantity times the 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 realistically priced technically acceptable offer judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” rating. If the lowest realistically priced offer is not judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” rating, the next lowest realistically priced offer will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by reasonable price) until an offer is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” rating. If no eligible offers receive a past performance rating of “Substantial 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)