Section M .pdf

ATTACHMENT 2.

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION-COMMERCIAL ITEMS, JAN 1999

(IAW FAR 12.301 (c))

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This acquisition will be a competitive 8(a) acquisition utilizing Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection process in accordance with FAR 15.101-2(b), as supplemented. Evaluation of all proposals will be on a Technically Acceptable/Technically Unacceptable basis. Failure to meet the requirements of any factor shall result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable for the technical portion of the evaluation. Technically unacceptable offers are ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

The Government intends to select ONE contractor for award of this effort.

For purposes of award, the Government shall evaluate offers based on the evaluation factors described below:

1. PART I: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

a. FACTOR 1: Contract Management Experience:

1. The contractor shall have at least five years of experience managing contracts involving the government with at least two of those five years managing Department of Defense (DOD) military medical services contracts.

2. Proposal must show that the contractor understands the government’s requirement and the contractor shall have at least five years of experience managing issues that arise throughout the life of a typical services contract.

b. FACTOR 2: Personnel Management Experience:

1. The contractor has at least five years of experience managing personnel.

2. Proposal must show that the contractor is capable of recruiting, hiring, and replacing qualified personnel – as delineated in the labor categories for each position in accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS) paragraphs listed below:

a. Administrative Assistant Level I (PWS paragraph 2.1.1)

b. Administrative Assistant Level II (PWS Paragraph 2.1.2)

c. Administrative Assistant Level III (PWS Paragraph 2.1.3)

d. Program Manager Level III(Paragraph 2.1.4)

e. Analyst Level III (PWS Paragraph 2.1.5)

3. Proposal must show that the contractor is capable of effectively managing their employees and addressing issues involving their personnel and their work as they come up during the life of the contract.

c. All proposal received will be evaluated by the governments technical review team. Proposal will be redacted to allow a complete and concise evaluation of each offeror. All offerors proposals will be measured against the listed technical factors. Each offerors technical proposal must pass all sections of Part I Technical Capability. If the offerors proposal is determined unacceptable in any section of the technical capability, PWS, or RFP they will be considered eligible for award and will not continue for further evaluation. Any offeror who is considered technical unacceptable will NOT have a price evaluation. If an offeror receives a technically acceptable in Part I Technical Capability will move on to Part II Price Evaluation.

2. PART II: PRICE EVALUATION

a. Next, the government shall compile all technically acceptable offers and evaluate price.

Offeror shall submit the full burdened rates for CLINs 0001 through 0005 on the attached Pricing Sheet. CLIN 0006 Travel is a cost reimbursable CLIN and will set by the government not to exceed $62,500.00 for each year and $250,000 for all four years. Insert the proposed prices for all full time equivalents (FTE) on the attached Pricing Sheet (attachment 4). The pricing sheet will be used to evaluate all offeror’s pricing. An offeror’s proposed unit price will be evaluated against historical pricing for administrative assistants, program managers, analysts, other offers submitted, the independent government estimate, and market research.

The price evaluation will document the reasonableness, realism, and balance of the proposed total evaluated price. Color or adjectival ratings will not be assigned to the price factor. Price proposals will not be ranked. The offeror with a technically acceptable proposal with the lowest total evaluated price will receive the award.

b. Reasonableness of offeror's proposal is evaluated through price analysis techniques as described in FAR Subpart 15.305 (a) (1) and (4). Price analysis techniques may include a comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation, comparison with other contract prices for similar services, and/or a comparison of proposed prices with the independent Government cost estimate.

c. Realism is evaluated by assessing the compatibility of proposed costs with proposal scope and effort. For the price to be realistic, it must reflect what it would cost the offeror to perform the effort if the offeror operates with reasonable economy and efficiency. Proposals unrealistically high or low in price, when compared to the Government’s independent cost estimate and the market price, may be indicative of an inherent lack of understanding of the solicitation requirements and may result in proposal rejection without discussion.

d. Balance – A proposal is determined to be unbalance when despite the total evaluated price, the price of one or more CLINs is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze each offer to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items. Prices proposed will be compared and evaluated to assure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes.

e. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in addendum FAR 52.212-1. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal.

Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the Contracting Officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

f. The government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.