FA570225QC007 - A5-FAR 52.212-2.pdf

SOLICITATION FA570225QC007 - ATTACHMENT 5

FAR 52.212-2, EVALUATION—COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES (NOV

2021)

(a) The Government intends to award two single award Indefinite Delivery / Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contracts resulting from this solicitation, to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation, will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

The Government intends to evaluate quotes and award 2 single award ID/IQs without interchanges. Therefore, the vendor’s initial quote should contain the vendor’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. If the Contracting Officer determines that it is in the best interest of the Government, the Government may conduct interchanges with one, some, none, or all vendors at its discretion. The Government may reject any or all offers if such action is in the public interest; accept other than the lowest offer; and waive informalities and minor irregularities in offers received.

(1) For each Task Order, the Government will evaluate all quotes in a six-step process.

1. Step 1: Starting with quotes received for Task Order A, evaluate all quotations for responsiveness.

2. Step 2: Order all responsive quotations based upon vendor’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP) from lowest to highest.

3. Step 3: Evaluate the two lowest quotes for technical acceptability.

i. If the Government has at least one technically acceptable quote, move to Step 4.

ii. If the Government does not have at least one technically acceptable quote, repeat Step

3 with ONE more quote, only until one quote is found to be technically acceptable.

4. Step 4: Evaluate the lowest, technically acceptable vendor(s)’ price(s).

5. Step 5: Evaluate the lowest, technically acceptable vendor(s)’ past performance(s).

6. Step 6: Make a decision based on technical, past performance and price evaluations for

TO A. Award will be made to the lowest priced technically acceptable vendor with acceptable pricing and acceptable past performance.

7. Step 7: Continue Steps 1-6 for quotes received for Task Order B.

(2) The offeror selected for Task Order A in Step 6 above, cannot be considered again, for Task Order B.

(3) The lowest price vendor(s) will be evaluated based upon the following:

(a) Technical: Technical Evaluation Criteria 1-3 will be rated on a “Pass/Fail” basis.

Criteria 4 will be rated on a “Capable/Deficient” basis. If the Technical Evaluation documentation cannot be provided or, it does not meet the requirements, the offeror will be evaluated with a “Fail” for that criterion.

1. Technical Evaluation Criteria 1 – Leasing Company Certification.

2. Technical Evaluation Criteria 2 – Proof of Inventory.

3. Technical Evaluation Criteria 3 – Proof of a Fleet Management System.

Table 1. Criteria 1-3, Pass/Fail Table

RATING DESCRIPTION

PASS The Technical Evaluation documentation can be provided, and it does meet the requirements.

FAIL The Technical Evaluation documentation cannot be provided, and/or it does not meet the requirements.

4. Technical Evaluation Criteria 4 – Technical documentation to show how the PWS will be met.

Table 2. Criteria 4, Capable/Deficient Table

RATING DESCRIPTION

CAPABLE The Technical Evaluation documentation displays the capability to meet the requirements.

DEFICIENT The Technical Evaluation documentation does not display the capability to meet the requirements.

(b) Based on the Technical Evaluation Criteria evaluation, the vendor will be evaluated on technical capability and will be rated “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. The vendor’s technical package must be rated as technically acceptable to be eligible for award. The Government will review all four elements of the technical package, and assign an overall technical rating.

Table 3. Overall Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Table

RATING DESCRIPTION

ACCEPTABLE The Technical Evaluation documentation receives 0 “Fail” ratings and is rated “Capable.”

UNACCEPTABLE The Technical Evaluation documentation receives at least 1 “Fail” rating or is rated “Deficient.”

(b) Price: The vendor’s price will be evaluated and will be rated “acceptable” or “unacceptable”. Award will be made to the lowest priced technically acceptable vendor with acceptable pricing and acceptable past performance.

(i) Reasonableness. Prices will be evaluated for price reasonableness utilizing one or more of the methods in FAR 13.106-2. For a vendor to receive the award prices must be determined to be fair and reasonable.

(ii) Realism. Prices will be evaluated for price realism. The Government will assess whether a vendor’s low price reflects a lack of understanding of the contract requirements or risk inherent in a vendor’s proposed approach.

(iii) Unbalanced Pricing. Prices will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. A quote may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Table 4. Pricing Table

RATING DESCRIPTION

ACCEPTABLE Vendor’s price is fair and reasonable, realistic and balanced.

UNACCEPTABLE Vendor’s price is not fair and reasonable, realistic or balanced.

(c) Past Performance: The vendor will be evaluated on Past Performance, and will be rated “acceptable” or “unacceptable”.

(i) Recency. Recent past performance information includes contracts performed and/or being performed for any customer within the last five (5) years from the issuance date of the solicitation.

(ii) Relevancy. Relevant past performance includes vehicle lease agreements with commercial or federal customers, as found in CPARS.

(iii) Unknown Past Performance. In the case of a supplier without a record of recent or relevant past performance history in CPARS for the FSC/PSC of the supplies being purchased, and CAGE code, the supplier will receive an “acceptable” rating for past performance

(iv) Table 3. Past Performance Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

Acceptable

Based on the vendor’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the vendor will successfully perform the required effort, or the vendor’s performance record is unknown.

Unacceptable Based on the vendor’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

(b) 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).

(c) 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.

(End of provision)

ADDENDUM TO FAR PROVISION 52.212-2, EVALUATION—COMMERCIAL

PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES (NOV 2021)

(I) Evaluation Factors for Contract Award.

(a) IAW FAR 52.212-2(a), award will be made based on the evaluation of Price and Technical Capability. Simplified Procedures for certain commercial products in accordance with FAR 13.5, and the procedures outlined in this addendum will be used to make a decision.

(b) The contractor shall adhere to all requirements of 52.212-1 (and accompanying Addendum). The contractor shall also be determined fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR 13.106-3.

i. Reasonableness: The Government may use the following various price analysis techniques established in FAR 13.106-3 to ensure a fair and reasonable price to include: comparison of proposed prices received (adequate price competition), comparison of previously proposed prices and previous Government contract prices, use of parametric estimating, comparison with competitive published price lists or market prices, comparison with Independent Government estimates, comparison with market research, and/or analysis of pricing information provided by the “Quoter”.

ii. Realism: Prices will be evaluated for price realism. The Government will assess whether a vendor’s low price reflects a lack of understanding of the contract requirements or risk inherent in a vendor’s proposed approach.

iii. Unbalanced Pricing: Prices will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. A quote may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(c) Technical Evaluation – The focus of the technical evaluation is to verify the “Quoters” proposed ability to meet the requirements of the PWS. The government will evaluate the Technical Capability Package when it is submitted, verifying the qualifications for each position of the Key Personnel assigning an overall rating of Acceptable, or Unacceptable.

i. Acceptable: Offer meets the requirements & qualifications needed for key personnel stated within the PWS/Salient Characteristics/SOW.

ii. Unacceptable: Offer does not meet the requirements & qualifications needed for key personnel stated within the PWS/Salient Characteristics/SOW.

(End of Addendum to FAR 52.212-2)