Add52.212-2AMB_19Jun13Final.docx

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2

EVALUATION –COMMERCIAL ITEMS

1.0. Source Selection (SS)

1.1. Basis for Contract Award

1.1.1. This acquisition will utilize Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable (LPTA) Source Selection procedures, with technical proposals. Technical or past performance tradeoffs will not be made, and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. Award will be made to the offeror who is rated “acceptable” in Factor 1 Technical and Factor 3 Past Performance, has the lowest evaluated cost or price, and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by FAR 52.212-1 and its Addendum of this solicitation). 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.

1.1.2. While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the Source Selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded:

The Government intends to select one contractor for this acquisition. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

1.3. Correction Potential of Proposals:

The Government will consider throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any proposal aspect evaluated as “unacceptable”. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror's proposal not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable or if the amount and/or complexity of the corrections needed to meet the Government requirement is impractical, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1.4. Rejection of Offers

The Government may reject any evaluated proposal that fails to adequately address a significant portion of the requirement or all contract terms and conditions. This may include rejection of a proposal that does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of the contract requirements and/or displays a fundamental lack of competence. All aspects/volumes of the proposals may be reviewed to ensure adequate resources to perform the proposed technical approach.

1.5. Competitive Range Determination

During the evaluation process multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition IAW FAR 15.505. A competitive range determination may eliminate Offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), prior to issuance of the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request, or for efficiency. If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505.

1.6. Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. Therefore, it is imperative that Offerors submit their best terms initially. However, 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 FPR will be considered in making the Source Selection decision. If a Request for FPR is issued, Offeror responses to ENs for Volume I (Technical), Volume II (Price), and Volume II (Contract Documentation) must be incorporated in the FPR in order to be considered in the final evaluation. Failure to include EN responses in the FPR may result in a final “unacceptable” technical rating, or otherwise make your company ineligible for award. Offeror responses to ENs for Past Performance shall not be included in the FPR. Offeror responses to Past Performance ENs during discussions will automatically be considered in the final evaluation.

1.7 Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements, in addition to those identified as factors and 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. In the case that a discrepancy exists between Section 52.212-1 - Instructions to Offerors (ITO) and Section 52.212-2 -Evaluation Factors for Award, the evaluation criteria in Section 52.212-2 -Evaluation Factors for Award will take precedence.

2.0 Evaluation Factors

2.1.1. Evaluation factors used to evaluate each proposal:

Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

2.1.2. Evaluation Methodology:

The Government will evaluate all factors concurrently for all proposals. Initial ratings and evaluated price will be established for each offeror. Only those offerors determined to be technically acceptable, either initially, or as a result of discussions will be considered for award. Award will be made to the lowest evaluated priced proposal meeting the acceptability standards for Factor 1 Technical, and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by FAR 52.212-1 and its Addendum of this solicitation).

2.2. Volume I - Factor 1 – Technical

2.2.1 Each proposal will be evaluated for technical acceptability, based on the criteria listed below. To be determined technically acceptable at the factor level, the Offeror must meet all the criteria listed below. Failure to meet any criteria will result in an unacceptable technical rating. The technical ratings are defined as follows:

2.2.2 The Government will assess the offeror’s proposed approach for each of the criteria listed below. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instructions to Offerors, FAR 52.212-1. The minimum requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal thoroughly substantiates all the following essential criteria:

Subfactor 1: Approach for 911 Calls

a) An Acceptable approach for contractor start up during the orientation period as required by the Medical Treatment Facility (MTF) and IAW the PWS paragraph 1.18.

b) An acceptable approach to demonstrate how emergency response procedures will be performed In Accordance With (IAW) state of Oklahoma Emergency Medical Service (EMS) pre-hospital care protocol as required in PWS paragraphs 1.8 and Ambulance Response PWS paragraph 1.10.

c) An acceptable plan for preparing and providing patient information and documentation IAW the MTF established standards and procedures and PWS paragraphs 1.11, 1.12, 1.13, 1.15 and 1.16.

d) An acceptable plan for maintaining Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) training, certifications, licensing, experience, education and health requirements for all EMT personnel IAW PWS.

Subfactor 2: Quality Control

Each proposal will be evaluated for their proposed approach to providing quality control and the submittal of a feasible Quality Control Plan suitable as a compliance document upon award. The Quality Control Plan will be evaluated based upon the proposed approach of accountability for all work. The plan should include, but not be limited to, the areas identified in PWS.

a) An acceptable quality control procedures to be used to satisfy the requirements identified in Basic Service listed within the Performance Work Statement. PWS 1.27

b) An adequate plan to identify the functional areas to which all Quality Control and/or inspection personnel (at all levels) will be assigned. In addition, adequate identification of all management/supervisory quality positions.

2.3. Volume II - Factor 2 – Cost or Price

The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes by adding the total price for basic requirements (basic award) and all options. The government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

0. Total Evaluated Price. Price analysis will be performed to determine the reasonableness of the offeror’s price proposal. Reasonableness will be based on the total evaluated price. The total evaluated price will be calculated as the sum of the Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) as defined in Attachment 1, Pricing Matrix and Instructions.

0. Reasonableness. The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. Analysis of cost/price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 in order to determine price reasonableness. Reasonableness must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.

0. Unreasonable Costs or Prices. Unreasonable proposed costs or prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition, either on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement, or the offeror has made an unreasonable proposal.

0. Unbalanced Pricing. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.4 Volume I – Factor 3 – Past Performance

2.4.1 The Past Performance evaluation assesses the level of expectation the Government has in an offeror’s ability to meet the requirements of the solicitation, based on a demonstrated record of performance. Past performance will be rated as “acceptable” or “unacceptable” in accordance with the following definitions:

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.”

2.4.2. The Past Performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet users’ needs. Performance expectation is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Factor 1 Technical criteria and Factor 2 Cost/Price assessment. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the government reserves the right to use both the information provided by the offeror, and information obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and commercial sources.

2.4.3. Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. NOTE: If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance.

2.4.4. Relevancy Assessment

The government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the Factor 1 Technical criteria and Factor 2 Cost/Price assessment. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned factors. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The government will consider the portion of the effort accomplished on previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort. The government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

2.4.5. Performance Quality Assessment

The government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance , PPIRS information, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS), interviews with government customers and, if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the government. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

SATISFACTORY (S)

(GREEN)

Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear, or were, satisfactory.

UNSATISFACTORY (U)

(RED)

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear, or were, ineffective.

2.4.6. Assigning Ratings.

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive a past performance rating of “acceptable” or “unacceptable”, as defined in para 2.4.1. As stated, offerors without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom past performance information is not available, or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "unknown” rating. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

2.5. Determination of Contractor Responsibility

To be eligible for award, an offeror must be determined responsible. A Determination of Contractor Responsibility will be conducted in accordance with FAR 9.1. Past performance information may be gathered from both Government (such as RYG, MOCAS, CPARS) and commercial sources. Offerors will not be penalized if no past performance information is available. Past performance will either be satisfactory, unknown or unsatisfactory. Offerors rated as satisfactory or unknown equals a determination of responsibility. Offerors rated as unsatisfactory equals a determination of non-responsibility. Any unsatisfactory rating given to a small business will be referred to the Small Business Administration pursuant to FAR 15.101-2(b) and 19.6 for resolution. An offeror who receives a determination of non-responsibility will not be eligible to receive the contract award.

(End of provision)