FA524023R0020 Attachment 5 - Evalutation Criteria.pdf

FA524023R0020 – HVAC Direct Digital Controls (DDC) Upgraded Equipment Attachment 5 – Evaluation Criteria

Addendum to 52.212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Items.

Paragraph (a), in its entirety, is hereby replaced with the following:

(a) BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive Lowest Price Acceptable Past Performance (LPAPP) evaluation conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 13.106, in which competing offerors' past performance information will be evaluated in accordance with the terms below. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, and representations and certifications, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. Failure to meet any or all solicitation requirement(s) may result in an offer being determined Unacceptable. The evaluation process will include the following factors:

1. Price Evaluation Factor. The Government will rank all offers by Total Evaluated Price (TEP), which includes all line and sub-line items in the RFP. The price evaluation will document the fairness and reasonableness of the TEP. In addition, each offeror’s separately priced line items or subline items shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced. The Government reserves the right to perform price realism analysis. If the Government elects to perform a price realism analysis, the Government reserves discretion over the method within which it performs its analysis. If the Government elects to perform a price realism analysis and finds a proposal unrealistic, the Government may withhold award to that offeror.

2. Past Performance Factor. The Government will evaluate recent and relevant past performance information of all proposals/offers. The evaluation will be based on (i) any past performance information obtained from the Past Performance Fact Sheets and Questionnaires (attachments 7 & 8 respectively), and (ii) any data independently obtained by the Government (i.e.

CPARS, PPIRS, etc.).

Past performance regarding predecessor companies of the offeror and/or subcontractors, key personnel, and subcontractors that will perform will not be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror.

(i) Recent past performance information includes contracts performed and/or being performed for any customer within the last three (3) years prior to the issuance date of the solicitation. Any information submitted which exceeds this three–year period will not be considered for evaluation purposes.

(ii) Relevant past performance efforts shall involve work that is similar in scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities, to that required by the PWS. The Government will assess relevancy for each contract and assign a rating as described in Table 2.1 below:

Table 2.1 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Rating Definition

RELEVANT

(Acceptable)

Present/past performance effort involved the same or similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NEUTRAL Present/past performance information not provided or not available.

FA524023R0020 – HVAC Direct Digital Controls (DDC) Upgraded Equipment Attachment 5 – Evaluation Criteria

NOT RELEVANT

(Unacceptable)

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(1) Performance Quality Assessment: For each of the recent past performance information reviewed, the performance quality of work will be assessed based on the (i) Quality Assessment Criteria on delivered Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs), and (ii) the evaluation ratings in the Federal Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)/Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), if available.

(2) Confidence Assessment Rating: The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance. The assessment process will result in an offeror’s overall performance confidence assessment rating of Acceptable - Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, or Unacceptable - Limited Confidence. As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments, evaluated offerors will receive a past performance confidence assessment rating as described in Table 2.2 below.

TABLE 2.2 Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings Confidence Rating Description

ACCEPTABLE

(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.

UNACCEPTABLE

(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.

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.

(b) No change.

(c) Paragraph (c) addended to include the following:

Award. The Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions with offerors. Therefore, the offeror’s 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 later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. The offeror with the lowest TEP and the highest overall Past Performance Confidence rating will be selected for award.