Addendum_to_FAR_52_212_2_Evaluation.pdf

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 – EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

(OCT 2014)

1. SOURCE SELECTION

a. Basis for Contract Award This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection (FAR 15.101-2) conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12 Acquisition of Commercial Items, FAR Part 15 Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures, 01 April 2016, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3, 25 May 2018. The Government intends to award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the addendum to FAR 52.212-1 “Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items” of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal with acceptable past performance. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

Step 1 – The Government will first evaluate all proposals for responsiveness. A proposal determined to be non-responsive shall not be considered for competition or award.

Step 2 – The Government will then evaluate all proposals for Total Evaluated Price (TEP) then rank the offerors from lowest to highest TEP. A price fair and reasonable determination will be made on the apparent lowest price proposal prior to award. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement, including the six-month extension available under FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. For evaluation purposes of the six month Option to Extend Services clause, the extended total will be calculated by multiplying the proposed unit price for CLIN 7001 by 50%.

The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

Step 3 – The Government will then evaluate the apparent lowest price proposals for Technical Acceptability. Proposals must be rated “Acceptable” for all technical subfactors in order to be determined technically “Acceptable”. If the lowest priced offeror’s technical proposal is “Unacceptable”, the Government will evaluate the next low offeror’s technical proposal, and continue this process until identifying an “Acceptable” technical rating with acceptable performance.

Step 4 – The Government will then evaluate the lowest priced, technically “Acceptable” offeror’s past performance. If the lowest priced, technically “Acceptable” offeror’s past performance is determined to be “Unacceptable,” the Government will evaluate the past performance of the next lowest priced, technically acceptable offer, continuing this process until identifying an offer with “Acceptable” past performance.

Step 5 – Once the Government identifies the lowest priced technically acceptable offer with acceptable past performance, the Government will evaluate the next lowest priced offer in order to determine technical acceptability. The Government will perform this evaluation in order to determine that the lowest priced offer’s price is fair and reasonable based upon competition. The Government reserves the right to end the evaluation process if the lowest priced, technically “Acceptable” offeror’s past performance is determined to be “Acceptable.” The Government will then make award to that offeror, pending the aforementioned price fair and reasonable determination.

b. Discussions The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Government will determine the offeror’s proposal to be unacceptable and ineligible for award.

c. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS

a. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability, but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors or subfactors.

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Management Approach Subfactor 2: Past Experience Subfactor 3: Quality Control Plan

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

b. Technical Factor The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor.

An offer that simply restates the technical criteria within a proposal may result in an unacceptable rating and preclude the vendor from award. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” by the Government will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals the Government determines to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award.

The Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

TABLE 1 – TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Management Approach – The standard is met when the offeror’s approach adresses all areas identified in Attachment 3 and successfully demonstrates a sound approach to manage the contact throughout its lifetime while continuously meeting the Government’s requirements as outlined in the PWS.

Subfactor 2: Past Experience – The standard is met when the offeror documents proof of Packing, Containerization and Local Drayage of Direct Procurement Method (DPM) Personal Property Shipments services relevant to the PWS with a minimum annual volume of 1,200 NCWT for schedules I through IV performed for at least one (1) year within the last five (5) years as described in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 “Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items, paragraphs

3.1.2. (a) through (h).

Subfactor 3: Quality Control Plan – The standard is met when the offeror provides a thorough Quality Control Plan that clearly addresses how the offeror intends to perform the requirements of PWS, paragraph III.5.

c. Past Performance Factor The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Offerors must receive a past performance rating of “Acceptable” to be eligible for award.

(1) Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the ratings described below.

TABLE 2- PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS

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. (See note below.)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

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.”

(2) Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance to include quality in supplying products and services on recent and relevant contracts/subcontracts that meet the solicitation requirements.

In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to: Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

(i) Recency Assessment An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the contract/subcontract citation must have been completed or ongoing within the past five

(5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation for a minimum of a one (1) year period. Past Performance for contracts/subcontracts exceeding the timeframe for this definition of recency will be excluded from evaluation.

(ii) Relevancy Assessment An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is relevant.

Relevant contract/subcontract citations include performance of DPM services IAW the PWS for government or commercial customers that are equal to or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity of the requirement described in the attached PWS. Relevancy in regard to scope and complexity includes performance of requirements similar to the PWS and appendicies, and includes performance of DPM services IAW the PWS in OCONUS locations. Magnitude is defined as contracts/subcontracts for DPM services IAW the PWS with a minimum annual volume of 1,200 NCWT for schedules I through IV. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts/subcontracts:

TABLE 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(3) Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy assessments of the recent contracts/subcontracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated past performance rating at the factor level (see Table 2).

d. Price Factor

Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable or unbalanced may not be considered for award.

(1) Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The offeror’s TEP will be evaluated by adding the total amounts of CLINs 0001 through 7001. The Government will then place in order all responsive proposals by price, beginning with the lowest TEP. Offers should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate price fairness, reasonableness and balance. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed prices rests with the offeror.

(2) Reasonableness: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s price proposal to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404.

(3) Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices, and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g). An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. Failure to propose for any category in the Price Schedule may cause the offeror’s proposal to be rejected as non-responsive.

(4) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

NOTE: Pricing for the option periods will be evaluated for use under Federal Acquisition Regulation clauses 52.217-8 and 52.217-9.

(5) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.