FA524026Q0009 Attachment 5 - Evaluation Criteria.pdf

FA524026Q0009 Hoods, Ducts and Fire Protection Maintenance and Services Attachment 5 – Evaluation Criteria

Addendum to RFO 52.212-2 Evaluation — Commercial Items

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

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: The Government intends to award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose quotation represents the best value to the Government, considering price and non-price evaluation factors. In accordance with the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) 12.203(c)(2), the Government will evaluate quotations using a comparative evaluation, directly assessing the relative merits of each quotation against the others to determine which provides the best value. The Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest-priced offeror where a higher-priced quotation is determined to provide superior value based on the evaluation criteria.

By submission of its quotation, 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 solicitation requirement may result in a quotation being determined non-responsive. The evaluation process will include the following factors:

Price Evaluation Factor. The Government will identify and document the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for each quotation, which includes all line and sub-line items in the RFQ. The price evaluation will assess fairness and reasonableness of the TEP and analyze each offeror’s separately priced line items or subline items to determine whether prices are unbalanced. The Government reserves the right to perform price realism analysis and retains discretion over the method employed. If a quotation is found to be unrealistic, the Government may withhold award to that offeror. Price will be compared in context with technical approach and past performance to determine best value.

The resultant contract will include RFO 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. For evaluation purposes only, the TEP will incorporate a six-month extension cost calculated as the average of the base period and four option year prices, divided by two. This figure is a mathematical factor used solely for comparative evaluation and does not constitute the contract award amount. If exercised, the actual cost of any extension under RFO 52.217-8 will be at the applicable contract rate in effect at the time of exercise.

Technical Approach Factor. The Government will comparatively assess each offeror’s proposed approach and capability to meet the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Quotations will be compared against one another, considering the clarity of the offeror’s understanding of the requirements and the soundness and efficiency of the proposed methodology, to identify which quotation offers the more advantageous technical approach. The Government will assess the degree to which each quotation specifically addresses the PWS requirements and demonstrates a realistic, executable plan of performance. The Government will evaluate the technical approach based on the materials submitted in accordance with Volume I of the solicitation instructions.

Past Performance Factor. The Government will comparatively assess recent and relevant past performance for all offerors, drawing from (i) Past Performance Fact Sheets and Questionnaires (Attachments 7 and 8, respectively) and (ii) data independently obtained by the Government, including CPARS and PPIRS records.

FA524026Q0009 Hoods, Ducts and Fire Protection Maintenance and Services Attachment 5 – Evaluation Criteria

Past performance of predecessor companies, key personnel, and subcontractors performing a portion of the work will be considered but will carry less weight than past performance of the principal offeror.

Past performance references submitted on behalf of proposed subcontractors anticipated to perform work under this contract will be assessed using the same recency and relevancy criteria applicable to the principal offeror, but will carry less weight in the overall comparative assessment.

Recency. Recent past performance includes contracts performed or currently being performed for any customer within the last three (3) years prior to the solicitation issuance date.

Information exceeding this three-year period will not be considered.

Relevancy. Each past performance reference will be assessed as either relevant or not relevant.

A relevant effort involves work similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to that required under the PWS. References that do not meet this threshold will not be considered in the comparative assessment. The Government reserves the right to give greater weight to contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation.

Performance Quality. For each relevant past performance reference, the Government will assess quality of work based on submitted PPQs and available CPARS/PPIRS records. Offerors will be compared against one another based on the relative strength of their demonstrated performance record.

Note: Offerors with no recent or relevant past performance will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on this factor and will be treated neutrally in the comparative assessment.

Paragraph (b): No change.

Paragraph (c) is addended to include the following:

Award. The Government intends to evaluate quotations and award a contract without discussions. The offeror’s initial quotation should therefore reflect its best terms from both a price and technical standpoint. However, IAW RFO 12.203(c), the Government need not establish a competitive range before communicating with offerors or soliciting revised quotations. The Government reserves the right to communicate with some, all, or none of the offerors and to solicit revised quotations as it deems appropriate. Any such communications will be conducted consistent with the Government’s obligation of impartial treatment of all offerors.