Attachment_2_-_Addendum_to_FAR_52.212-2_Water_Jet_.docx

Attachment 2 – Evaluation Factors for Award

ATTACHMENT 2 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0. Source Selection (SS)

1.1. Basis for Contract Award

This acquisition will utilize Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable (LPTA) Source Selection procedures, with technical proposals. Technical 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, has the lowest evaluated 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.

1.1.1. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government Source Selection Team 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.

1.1.2. This source selection is conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 13 in conjunction with FAR 15.101-2, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

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 a deficiency. If a deficiency is not considered correctable, or if the amount and/or complexity of the corrections needed to meet the Government requirement requires a major proposal revision, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range. The Government also reserves the right to eliminate an offeror from the competitive range where the technical proposal does not require a major proposal revision, but the offeror is not among the most highly rated offerors.

1.4. Rejection of Offers

The Government may reject any evaluated proposal that fails to adequately address a significant portion of the requirement or contract terms and conditions.

1.5. Competitive Range Determination

If discussions are conducted, the Government shall establish a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals, in accordance with FAR 15.306(c). During the evaluation process multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition IAW FAR 15.505. The competitive range determination can be based on Factor 1 Technical, Factor 2 Price, or a combination of the two factors. 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.

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.

Factor 1: Technical Factor 2: Price

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, who has been determined responsible IAW para 2.4 below, 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. Factor 1 – Technical

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. A single deficiency related to any criteria will result in an unacceptable technical rating. The technical evaluation will also consider risk in determining overall acceptability. Risk pertains to the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. Risk will not be receive a separate rating, rather, it will be inherent within the overall Technical rating. The technical ratings are defined as follows:

The Offeror shall provide an approach for the technical portion of the Water Jet Systems requirements. As a minimum, the approach shall provide the following essential components:

a) Written specifications confirming the waterjet system meets the requirements of SPOP 750 – Ultra-High Pressure (20,000psi – 55,000psi) Water Jet Stripping General Procedure, SPOP 322 - Ultra-High Pressure (20,000psi – 55,000psi) Water Jet Stripping General Procedure, SWP 006 33 – High Pressure Water Jet Stripping. (SOW para 2.1.2)

b) Written list with a minimum of ten (10) working 55,000psi ultra-high pressure articulated arm waterjet stripping systems currently in service that the offeror has provided. The list must include the company using the machines and contact information for that company. (SOW para 2.1.3)

c) Description of equipment process with graphics that show how the offeror will strip the inside of a cylindrical part with a diameter of 3 feet and a height of 5 feet, centered on the water jet turntable without the need to flip the part. (SOW para 2.3.1.2)

d) Description of equipment process with graphics that show how the offeror will strip the area on one side of a part on existing fixtures with the following dimensions: 6.5’W x 5’D x 8’H, See appendix A of SOW for part and area. (SOW para 2.3.1.1)

e) Written specifications on the robot/controller that will be used in order to verify the requirements given in 2.3.4 and 2.3.5 of the statement of work. (SOW para 2.3.4 and 2.3.5)

f) Written specifications on the intensifier used to verify the offeror’s capability to deliver water at 3 gpm at 55,000 psi reliably and safely. (SOW para 2.5.4).

g) Description of processes that show (with a picture or graphics) how the offeror’s process control software will interface with process set points and actual readings, provide a picture or illustration of the display, and describe the creation, and modification of values. (SOW para 2.12.3 and 2.12.16)

h) Description of processes that show (with a picture or graphics) how the offeror’s process control software will display the minimum 16 optional motion controls/process functions showing that the controls system can select up to 16 different surfaces of the part being stripped. (SOW para 2.12.17)

i) Description of processes that show (with a picture or graphics) how the offeror’s process control software will allow multi-level security controls. (SOW para 2.12.4)

j) Description of processes that show (with a picture or graphics) how the offeror’s process control software will monitor and collect data during the processing of a part and how it will be stored and displayed for future reference. (SOW para 2.12.10)

k) Description of processes that show (with a picture or graphics) how the offeror’s process control software will monitor, track, and report the preventative maintenance for the water jet. (SOW para 2.12.11)

2.3. Factor 2 –Price

Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) price reasonableness (including completeness), (2) unbalanced pricing, (3) price realism, and (4) Total Evaluated Price. Offerors whose price is determined to incomplete, unreasonable, or unrealistic will not be considered for award. Additionally, an offeror’s price may be rejected, if it contains unbalanced pricing to the extent it poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

The Government shall evaluate the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of all offerors, including option prices. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the TEP, calculated as stated in paragraph 2.3.5 and Table 1 (calculation methodology by CLIN). The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed price calculations as computed in accordance with the detailed methodology in this section. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. NOTE: Evaluation of an option does not obligate the Government to exercise such option.

The Government shall evaluate the TEP of all Offerors. This TEP price rollup is based on the specific CLIN calculation methodology provided in Table 1. These calculations will include all evaluation periods: the Basic Period, and the Option Period. The Offeror’s price proposal will be based on the prices proposed in Section B (Supplies or Services and Unit Prices/Amounts) in the Model contract and Volume II (Pricing).

2.3.1. Price Reasonableness

The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. Analysis of 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 price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.

2.3.2. Balanced pricing

Offerors’ proposals will be reviewed for unbalanced pricing. The Government will evaluate any supporting information provided by the Offeror explaining variances that appear unbalanced. Evaluated offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be deemed ineligible for award by the Contracting Officer if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as demonstrated by application of price analysis techniques, such that:

a) There is reasonable doubt the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the Government, even though it is the lowest priced Offeror; or

b) The offer is so grossly unbalanced; its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advanced payment

2.3.3. Price Realism

Proposed prices will be evaluated for price realism. To be realistic, the proposed price must demonstrate an adequate understanding of the requirement, an adequate comprehension of the complexity and risks of the program, and must ensure the price does not pose a risk to performance. All documentation submitted to support price realism will be considered in making a determination of price realism. To evaluate price realism, the Government may use one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404. The Government may also use other evaluation techniques, as needed.

2.3.4. Data Other than Certified Pricing Data

If requested by the CO, data other than certified pricing data shall be evaluated to support a determination of reasonable and balanced pricing. This information will only be requested if all other sources have been insufficient to support a determination of reasonable and/or balanced pricing.

2.3.5 Total Evaluated Price (TEP):

Pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 pricing instructions. Table 1 below will demonstrate the TEP calculation methodology. Proposed pricing evaluated as the TEP is required in accordance with the following format.

The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the offeror’s proposed prices for the base period and the option period. The option period will be utilized in accordance with FAR 52.232-19. TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Evaluation of the option period shall not obligated the Government to exercise such option in accordance with FAR 52.217-5.

2.4.4.1. Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs (Section B) of the model contract should reflect pricing proposed in the Cost/Price Volume used to develop the TEP. Should discrepancies exist in unit prices between the hard copy and the electronic copy of the price model, the hard copy will be used for the TEP.

2.4.4.2. Information provided below demonstrates the general CLIN structure of the requirements and explains details regarding instruction of submitting proposed pricing. Explanation of proposed pricing evaluation methodology is located in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 under the Cost/Price Section. To develop the TEP for the contract, CLINs 0001 through 1002 will be proposed for evaluation and subsequent award purposes.

2.4.5 CLIN Structure:

The evaluated TEP is based on the calculation methodology provided in Table 1. Pricing will be based on TEP evaluation that includes review for price reasonableness and balance. All supporting documentation provided in the Cost/Price Volume will also be considered as part of price evaluation.

Table 1

0001 – Ultra High Pressure Water Jets 0002 – Testing and Acceptance 0003 -- Training 1001 – Ultra High Pressure Water Jets 1002 --Testing and Acceptance Proposed unit price multiplied by each quantity for the basic period and option period totaled is the evaluated total.

2.5. 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), and Volume II (Price) and Volume III (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.

2.6 Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and Statement of Work (SOW) requirements, in addition to those identified as factors. 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, and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.