FAR 52.212-2 Boiler Chemicals.pdf

FAR 52.212-2 - Evaluation Factors for Award

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FAR 52.212-2

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

BOILER AND WATER TREATMENT CHEMICALS

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 on GSA's aquisition.gov, https://www.acquisition.gov/. 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– 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 Boiler Chemicals 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 – Water treatment component and weight certifications

• - Sub-Factor Two – Water treatment chemical samples and MSDSs

• 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 Pricing 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 may be 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. A price evaluation will be performed for all offerors in accordance with VOLUME 1 – PRICING. Proposals will be ranked from lowest to highest price based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of CLIN 001 (Water Treatment Chemicals and Testing Reagents five-year ordering period), CLIN 0002 (Water Treatment Chemicals and Testing Reagents six-month ordering period). VOLUME 1 – Pricing (NO PAGE LIMIT) Offerors shall fill out the provided excel worksheet titled “APPENDIX A PRICE LIST” and insert proposed Unit Prices. Extended Prices, Yearly Totals and Total Evaluated Prices are calculated automatically, however offeror is responsible for accuracy of their pricing. Extended Prices for each item are calculated by multiplying the offeror’s Unit Price and the Estimated Quantity listed under the column “EST QTY” in APPENDIX A. Yearly Prices are calculated by adding all Extended Prices for the year.

Total CLIN Price is calculated by adding all five (5) Yearly Prices together. Total Evaluated Price is calculated by adding the Total CLIN Prices for all CLINs. Offerors are hereby notified that all rates proposed in the Price List are CONTRACTUALLY BINDING and shall be utilized to calculate delivery order prices throughout the life of the contract. Offerors shall provide filled out Price List in Electronic unprotected Excel Format for review by the Contracting Officer.

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 Statement of Work (SOW) sections required in FAR 52.212-1 – 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 – WATER TREATMENT COMPONENT AND WEIGHT

CERTIFICATION Minimum criteria is met when the proposal includes the following:

Contractor shall submit a letter certifying all components and weight percentages in each of the six “Water Treatment Chemicals” listed in Table 1, SECTION 2 of the Statement of Work.

Samples submitted during the selection period of the RFP are expected to be representative of what the bidders will provide to the government during the period of performance of the awarded contract.

In order to ensure conformity and adherence to each chemical formulation, a certificate of Compliance/Analysis is expected with each shipment/order that the government receives. This includes Physical and Chemical properties and any other information normally provided on an MSDS. The chemical solutions listed in Table 1 are based on current chemical formulations and are the formulations that are expected by the government. Specifications for the chemical compositions are expressed as wt. percent minimums and the chemical component ratios should be maintained as listed in Table 1. Higher concentrations of no more than 10% of the minimum wt. % listed in the table of a chemical component may be acceptable if it is beneficial to the government but will not be considered advantageous in the cost analysis. The primary goal of the government is consistency of quality and concentrations to ensure process stability during any transition.

4.4. SUB-FACTOR TWO – WATER TREATMENT CHEMICAL SAMPLES & MSDSs Minimum criteria is met when the proposal includes the following:

Offerors will submit one-liter samples of each of the six “Water Treatment Chemicals” listed in Table 1, SECTION 2 of the SOW according to specified formulations. Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) shall be supplied for each sample. Samples will be tested and determined “pass or fail” in accordance with SECTION 1, 1.2 of the Statement of Work. Samples due at solicitation closing to this address: Christian R Ferguson, 5713 LAHM LANE, Building 593 S HAFB, Utah 84056

5 VOLUME III – CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

5.1. This volume will be reviewed for completeness; and proposal includes 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, paragraph 7 “Contract Documentation”. An incomplete package may be excluded from the competitive range and/or award.

5.2. The proposal includes 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 contains 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 SOW, 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.