ADDENDUM_52.212-2.pdf

52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items -- Addendum

52.212-2 -- Evaluation -- Commercial Items (Jan 1999)

1. EVALUATION PROCEDURES:

1.1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This competitive best value evaluation will be conducted using the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) evaluation process in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation. Award will be made to the offeror who is deemed responsible with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9, is the lowest price, technically acceptable, past performance acceptable and conforms to the solicitation requirements.

1.2. The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and other information required by FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items, FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items and all applicable addendums. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. Therefore, each 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 determined necessary by the Contracting Officer.

1.3. Offers will be evaluated and assessed by responses to the information called for in 52.212-1, 52.212-2 and its associated addendums.

2. NUMBER OF CONTRACT AWARDS:

2.1. The Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the technical acceptability, past performance acceptability and price reasonableness of proposals submitted as well as the availability of funds.

2.2. The Government intends to make one (1) award as a result of this solicitation. Award will be made to the one technically and past performance acceptable offeror with the lowest evaluated prices, which is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements.

3. REJECTION OF UNREALISTIC OFFERS: Any proposal which is unrealistic will be judged as a failure to comprehend the Government’s requirements and may be so evaluated and rated, or rejected for such reasons. A proposal may be determined unrealistic if any significant inconsistency exists between the Technical Capability and Price, if unexplained, and may be grounds for rejection of the proposal. A significant consistency may include but not limited to pricing 35% over the highest priced competitive offer or 35% under the lowest priced competitive offer. The Government will evaluate each proposal strictly in accordance with its content and will not assume that performance will include areas not specified in the offeror’s proposal. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to require the Government to conduct a realism analysis where none would otherwise be required.

4. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY:

4.1. The Government intends to evaluate the three (3) lowest priced proposals. If less than three (3) proposals are received the lowest priced proposals will be evaluated. Offers will be ranked according to total price over the five (5) year period. The lowest priced three (3) proposals will then be evaluated for technical acceptability. If any one of the three lowest priced proposals is deemed technically unacceptable, it will be replaced by the next lowest. Award shall be made to the offeror whose proposal is the lowest priced, technically acceptable, past performance acceptable and meets all the evaluation criteria as outlined in this solicitation.

4.2. Technical Acceptability is MORE significant than Price which is MORE significant than Past Performance.

4.3. It is not the Government’s intent to enter into discussions with offerors. Therefore, offerors are urged to submit their best and final offer in response to this solicitation. However, at any time during the evaluation process the contracting officer may deem discussions to be in the best interest of the Government.

4.4. CLINs 0003, 0004, 1003, 1004, 2003, 2004, 3003, 3004, 4003, 4004, 5003, 5004 will NOT be used for evaluation purposes because these CLINs are reimbursable CLINS. Only CLINs 0001, 0002, 1001, 1002, 2001, 2002, 3001, 3002, 4001, 4002, 5001, 5002 will be used for evaluation purposes.

5. AWARD DECISION - The award decision will be made as follows:

5.1. Technical Acceptability. The technical evaluation provides an assessment of the offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s requirements. The Government will evaluate all technical capability proposals received by the required date/time. Each Technical Capability factor will receive a rating of acceptable or unacceptable. If any factor is rated “unacceptable” the entire proposal is rendered technically unacceptable, and the proposal will be removed from the competition. Only proposals deemed technically acceptable (either initially or as the result of clarifications or discussions) will be considered for the award. The ratings are defined in the following paragraphs.

5.1.1. Acceptable: The proposal meets all the minimum mandatory requirements in the solicitation identified as factors within the technical capability evaluations standards contained within the Performance Work Statement, CLIN descriptions, the solicitation and the stipulations of the Technical Capability Evaluation. Only those proposals determined acceptable, either initially or as a result of clarifications or discussions, will be considered for award. Once deemed acceptable, all technical capability proposals are considered to be equal.

5.1.2. Unacceptable: Fails to meet all the minimum mandatory requirements of this solicitation and does not meet the technical standards described in the Performance Work Statement, CLIN descriptions and Technical Capability Evaluation. Proposals with an unacceptable rating will not be considered for award.

5.2. Price. The offeror’s overall price, a summation of all CLIN prices for both the base and option years.

Price will be evaluated using techniques established in FAR 15.404-1 to ensure the Government receives a fair, reasonable, and balanced price. Offerors pricing will be evaluated against the proposed pricing from other offerors. The evaluation will include pricing proposed on all options periods specified in solicitation document FA5706-14-R-0001. The FFP CLINs encompass all costs associated with providing cleaning services for that specified area. Failure to address any of the above mentioned pricing requirements is unacceptable and will render the offeror ineligible for award.

5.3. Past Performance Evaluation. Past Performance shall be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305.

The offeror shall submit recent and relevant past performance information on projects of similar amount and scope. The contractor shall provide this information in a format that is easy to analyze.

The government reserves the right to verify past performance information. Recent performance includes contract performance within three (3) years of the date of this solicitation. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving maintenance and inspection services for overhead roll-up doors for at least one year or more that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation.

5.4. Award Decision. An award will be made to the lowest priced, technically acceptable offeror with acceptable past performance, subject to a positive responsibility determination in accordance with FAR Part 9 and conformance of the offerors’ proposal to the terms and conditions of the solicitation.

6. RESPONSIBILITY:

6.1. The Government will determine responsibility by analyzing whether the apparent successful offeror(s) comply with the requirements of FAR 9.1 to include:

6.1.1. Adequate financial resources or the ability to obtain them;

6.1.2. Ability to comply with the required performance period, taking into consideration all existing commercial and governmental business commitments;

6.1.3. Satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics;

6.1.4. Necessary organization, experience, and skills or the ability to obtain them;

6.1.5. Necessary equipment and facilities or the ability to obtain them; and

6.1.6. Otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations.

6.1.7. No derogatory or substantiated negative past performance recorded by other Government sources.

7. EVALUATION FACTORS - The following evaluation factors will be considered in the evaluation of proposals received under this solicitation:

A. Factor 1: Technical Capability

B. Factor 2: Price

C. Factor 3: Past Performance

7.1. FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

7.1.1. Subfactor 1: Quality Control Plan. The following evaluation factors will determine if the offeror’s proposal is deemed Acceptable or Unacceptable:

7.1.1.1. Acceptable: To be deemed Acceptable by the Government, the offeror’s proposal meets all the minimum mandatory requirements stated in this solicitation regarding a quality control plan. The plan identifies the contractor’s proposed inspection system and quality control management process. The plan describes methods for identifying and preventing defects in the quality of services performed before the level of performance becomes unacceptable. In addition, the offeror’s plan addresses controls designed to ensure PWS requirements are met. An offeror’s Quality Control Plan should demonstrate and address how an offeror intends to meet or exceed the requirements detailed in the Service Delivery Summary, Part II of the PWS. Offerors are required to address all of these factors to be determined Acceptable.

7.1.1.2. Unacceptable: The offeror’s proposal will be found unacceptable by the Government if the offeror’s proposal fails to address one or more of the identified evaluation factors listed above or their proposal did not satisfy the requirements of the PWS. Specifically, a proposal will be found unacceptable if (1) it fails to identify the contractor’s proposed inspection system and quality control management process, (2) it fails to describe methods for identifying and preventing defects in the quality of services performed before the level of performance becomes unacceptable, and (3) the offeror does not address controls designed to ensure PWS requirements are met. An offeror’s Quality Control Plan should demonstrate and address how an offeror intends to meet or exceed the requirements detailed in the Services Summary, Part II of the PWS.

7.1.2. An offeror will be assigned an overall technical capability rating of acceptable based on their performance in adequately demonstrating their capability to meet the subfactor. An offeror will receive an overall technical acceptability rating of acceptable if they receive an acceptable rating for the subfactor: Quality Control Plan. If an offeror receives an Unacceptable rating on the subfactor: Quality Control Plan, they will be deemed overall technically Unacceptability.

7.2. FACTOR 2: PRICE

7.2.1. Price will be evaluated using techniques established in FAR 15.404-1 to ensure the Government receives a fair, reasonable and balanced price.

7.2.2. Evaluation of options does not obligate the Government to exercise the options.

7.3. FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

7.3.1. The contractor will provide past-performance information as required by paragraph 5.3.

7.3.2. Note that the past performance evaluation performed in support of this requirement will not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information on how well the offer performed those past contracts, and the contractor’s overall experience with contracts of this nature and magnitude.

7.3.3. The evaluation of past performance information will result in an overall assessment of Acceptable or Unacceptable as follows:

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 requirement.

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.