FAR_52.212-2_Addendum_II_Hood_and_Ducts.pdf

FAR 52.212-2 Addendum II - Evaluation Factors for Award

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FAR 52.212-2 Addendum II

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

HOODS AND DUCTS CONTRACT

SOURCE SELECTION

1. Basis for Contract Award

1.1. This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures, Appendix C, 31 March 2016. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the proposal with the lowest evaluated price from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors. A Contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR Part 9.1 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 Addendum I – Instruction to Offers [ITO] of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and sub-factors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal. While the Government 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 the Hoods and Ducts Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines it is in the Government’s best interest. If the Government determines to not award a contract the Government is not liable for costs in connection with any response to this RFP. The Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions.

1.3. In addition to the IDIQ contract award, the Government intends to issue a single task order to the awardee of the basic contract. The Awardable Sample Task Order, (base year) proposed prices will be contractually binding and may be awarded at the sole discretion of the Government.

1.4. If the Government determines to not award a contract, the Government will not be liable for costs incurred by Offeror(s). The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions, however, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions if it determines that doing so would be in its best interest.

1.5. Correction Potential of Proposals - The Government will consider, through the evaluation, the

“correction potential” of an “Unacceptable” rating after initial evaluation. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an Offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government’s requirement, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range, if one is established, or contract award.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/

EVALUATION CRITERIA

2. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS

2.1. The Government will evaluate for acceptability the factors and sub-factors below

• Volume I – Price

• Volume II – Technical Acceptability Acceptable/Unacceptable)

• - Sub-Factor One – Licensure and Certification

• - Sub-Factor Two – Local Presence

• - Sub-Factor Three – Site Visit

• - Sub-Factor Four - Experience

• Volume III – Contract Documentation

2.2. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY –

2.2.1. A price evaluation will be performed on all proposals in accordance with Section 3.1 and proposals will be ranked from lowest to highest price based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). If a TEP for an Offeror cannot be calculated due to the omission or error of the Offeror, the Government may set aside the Offeror’s proposal and proceed to other Offeror’s proposals.

2.2.2. Next, a technical and experience evaluation will be performed beginning with that of the lowest priced Offeror. A minimum of three lowest priced offers will be evaluated, unless fewer than three offers are received. Evaluations will cease when three technically acceptable proposals receive an acceptable experience rating.

2.2.3. Award will be made to the lowest evaluated priced proposal meeting the acceptability standards for the non-price factors.

2.2.3.1. If a sufficient number of Offeror(s) as determined by the Government are not technically acceptable or do not have acceptable experience, then evaluations may continue and the SSA may:

2.2.3.1.1. Establish a competitive range and enter into discussions. The contracting officer may determine the number of most highly rated proposals exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted. The competitive range may be limited for purposes of efficiency.

2.2.4. Under the scenarios described above, it is possible that higher priced offers will not be evaluated for technical and past performance acceptability. It is also possible that higher priced offers may receive an award if lower priced offers are not technically acceptable or do not have acceptable past performance.

2.2.5. Technical evaluation of an Offeror does not ensure inclusion in a competitive range, if one is set.

3. VOLUME I – PRICE

3.1. The pricing criteria used for evaluation are (1) Reasonableness; (2) Balanced and (3)

Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

3.2. Reasonableness – The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained, or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using analysis of the provided information, additional information IAW FAR 15.4 maybe required to support the proposed price.

3.3. Balanced 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 price elements are significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR 15.404-1. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether there is unbalanced pricing within the offers. IAW FAR 15.404-1, offers determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3.4. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) – The TEP will be a sum of all the CLINs and respective ordering periods. The rates proposed by the Offeror receiving award will be contractually binding.

4 VOLUME II - TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY –

4.1. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding requirements. The proposals must demonstrate a thorough understanding of the requirements as listed and offer complete technical solutions to the Performance Work Statement (PWS) sections required in FAR 52.212-1 Addendum I – Instruction to Offerors (ITO). The proposals will be evaluated for acceptability IAW the criteria set forth in this section. The technical proposal must convey to the Government that the Offeror possesses adequate technical expertise and experience, sufficient resources, and is able to plan, organize, and use those resources in a coordinated and timely fashion to meet the needs of the Government. The Government may make a final determination as to the Offeror’s capability to perform based on the proposal as submitted without requesting further information from the Offeror. The Offeror’s proposal shall not merely copy and paste, rephrase, or restate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

4.2. Technical Acceptability - The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals by assigning ratings of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. The technical factor as a whole will be rated “Unacceptable” if any single sub-factor is rated “Unacceptable.”

Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The Offeror is reminded that the Government intends to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions.

However, the Government may hold discussions if necessary.

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

4.3. SUB-FACTOR ONE – LICENSURE AND CERTIFICATIONS Minimum criteria is met when the proposal included the following:

• One (1) Concern License issued by the Office of the Utah State Fire Marshall in commercial kitchen exhaust cleaning service.

• One (1) certificate of registration per inspector and service technician in commercial kitchen exhaust cleaning service competency training issued by the proper personnel sanctioned by the Office of the Utah State Fire Marshall.

4.4. SUB-FACTOR TWO – LOCAL PRESENCE Minimum criteria is met when the proposal included the following:

• Local presence established through the proof that the contractor operates in the local area, within 75 miles, with established facilities for the management and operation of personnel needed to fulfill the requirements established by the PWS, not just sub-contracted and managed remotely. A Google maps or equivalent to verify proximity of facilities and a copy of the local business license.

4.5. SUB-FACTOR THREE – SITE VISIT Minimum criteria is met when the proposal included the following:

• The site visits to each facility prior to proposal submission is required in order to submit a valid proposal. A copy of the site visit attendance logs with company representative signature, a smartphone captured copy should be of high enough quality to be legible.

4.6. SUB-FACTOR FOUR – EXPERIENCE Minimum criteria is met when the proposal included the following:

• Must establish minimum of three (3) years hands on experience in commercial kitchen exhaust cleaning service. May submit copies of contracts or invoices with a minimum of related completion/deficiency reports. The minimum number of reports is 2 annual, or 3 quarterly, or 8 monthly completion or deficiency reports.

4.7. Experience information will be gathered from Offeror submissions. Only recent and relevant experience information will be considered to assess work performed.

4.8. Recency is defined as performance less than 4 years old from the issue date of the RFP.

The Government will not consider experience where performance was concluded more than Four years prior to this solicitation’s issue date.

4.9. Relevancy is defined as work that involves approximately the same types of inspections, and maintenance services described in this RFP.

5 VOLUME III – CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

5.1. This volume will be reviewed for completeness; and proposal included a signed copy of the

Model Contract Standard Form (SF) 1449, Sections A through K, signed amendments to the solicitation (if any), and all other information required by FAR 52.212-1 Addendum I, paragraph 7 “Contract Documentation”. An incomplete package may be excluded from the competitive range and/or award.

5.2. The proposal included documentation of adequate financial resources such as a commitment or explicit arrangement that will be in existence at the time of contract award, to acquire the needed materials, equipment, personnel and other resources necessary to sustain operations.

5.3. The proposal contained evidence that the Offeror will be able to comply with the limitations on subcontracting IAW FAR 52.219-14.

6 DISCUSSIONS

6.1. It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions; therefore, it is imperative that Offerors submit their best terms initially. However, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions. Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs), and the Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

7 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements as detailed in the PWS, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.