52.212-2__EVALUATION__COMMERCIAL_ITEM.pdf

52.212-2 – EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEM

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

PERSONAL PROTECTIVE CLOTHING (PPC)

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

1.1. This acquisition will utilize Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-2, as supplemented. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. Award will be made to the acceptable offeror with the lowest evaluated price, that is deemed responsible IAW the FAR and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors and all other information required by FAR 52.212-1 Instruction to Offerors (ITO) - Addendum of this solicitation.

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded – The Government intends to award one contract for the PPC requirement. 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 any costs incurred. The Government intends and reserves the right to award a contract without discussions.

1.3. Proposal Revisions – If a proposal receives an “Unacceptable” rating after initial evaluation and will require major revisions in order to meet the technical requirement, the Government reserves the right to exclude the offeror from the competitive range.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

2. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS valuation Factors and Sub-factors

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

Factor One – Price Factor Two – Technical

Sub-factor One – Berry Amendment Compliance Sub-factor Two – PPC Availability and Experience Sub-factor Three – PPC Inventory Control and Tracking Factor Three – Past Performance

2.1.1. Evaluation Methodology

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm%23P25_3805 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm%23P25_3805

2.1.1.1. An initial price evaluation will be performed for all offerors IAW this section and proposals will be ranked from lowest to highest price based on a Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

2.1.1.2. Next, a technical and past performance evaluation will be performed beginning with the lowest priced offeror.

2.1.1.2.1. A minimum of the three lowest priced offers will be evaluated, unless fewer than three offers are received.

2.1.1.2.2. If the lowest price offeror is technically acceptable, has acceptable past performance and meets all other requirements of this solicitation, award will be made to that offeror.

2.1.1.2.3. If the lowest price offeror is not technically acceptable or does not have acceptable past performance, then evaluations may continue and the SSA may:

2.1.1.2.4. Award to the next lowest priced technically acceptable offeror with acceptable past performance; or

2.1.1.2.4.1. Set a competitive range that may include some or all of the offerors

2.1.1.2.4.2. Continue evaluating additional offerors.

2.1.1.3. Under the scenarios described above, it is possible that higher priced offers will not be evaluated for technical and past performance acceptability.

2.2. VOLUME I – FACTOR ONE – PRICE

2.2.1. The pricing criteria used for evaluation are: (1) Completeness, (2) Reasonableness,

(3) Balance, and (4) TEP.

2.2.1.1. Completeness – The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with FAR Clause 52.212-1 ITO - Addendum of the Request for Proposal (RFP). Completeness is submitting an offeror’s pricing proposal with all the required portions filled out entirely. Incomplete price submissions may not be evaluated and the proposal may be eliminated from the competition.

2.2.1.2. Reasonableness – The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Cost or Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government-obtained information, additional information IAW FAR Subpart 15.4 will be required to support the proposed price.

2.2.1.3. Balance – Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more price elements is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR Subpart 15.404-1. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether there is unbalanced pricing within the proposals.

IAW FAR Subpart 15.404-1, offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Air Force.

2.2.1.4. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) – A TEP (Section J Attachment 3 – TEP

Worksheet) will be calculated for evaluation of offers and will be a consideration in the award decision. The TEP is the sum of the six yearly notional totals (to include the option period) within the TEP worksheets, which will include fully burdened rates for PPC leasing, cleaning, and replacement for the FFP CLINs. The yearly notional total will be calculated by the sum of the leasing, cleaning, and replacement totals for the year. The offeror’s TEP will be computed and evaluated by the Government and will include a distribution of rates from the entire lifecycle of the contract, to include base period plus option period. The distribution of PPC and quantities per rate will be based upon the Government’s best estimate of projected workload over the lifecycle of this contract. The formula for application of the notional quantities and rates used WILL NOT be disclosed to offerors. The TEP is for evaluation purposes only, however all proposed rates are contractually binding.

2.3. VOLUME II – FACTOR TWO – TECHNICAL

2.3.1. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. 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 ITO – Addendum. 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 simply copy and paste, rephrase or restate PWS language for the technical volume.

2.3.2. Technical Acceptability – The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals by assigning ratings of technically “Acceptable” or technically “Unacceptable.” Any “Unacceptable” sub-factor rating criteria below shall result in a proposal being rated technically “Unacceptable”.

2.3.3. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable either initially, or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The technical factor as a whole will be rated “Unacceptable” if any single element or sub-factor is rated “Unacceptable.” The offeror is reminded that the Government intends to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions. Proposals shall be evaluated against the following Sub-Factors: One – Berry Amendment Compliance, Two – PPC Availability and Experience, and Three – PPC Inventory Control and Tracking.

2.4. The proposals shall be evaluated against the following sub-factor criteria:

2.4.1. Sub-factor One – Berry Amendment Compliance

2.4.1.1. The proposal is Acceptable when the offeror’s methodology or plan provides an approach with a level of detail and supporting documentation, to include subcontracting plans if applicable, to clearly demonstrate compliance with the Berry Amendment (USC, Title 10, Section 2533a) and IAW PWS para 2.1.

throughout the lifecycle of the contract.

2.4.2. Sub-factor Two – PPC Availability and Experience

2.4.2.1. The proposal is acceptable when the offeror describes and demonstrates an executable plan to provide the PPC listed in PWS Appendix B. The plan shall include the availability of PPC items during fluctuations of inventory requirements based on Government need, to include new requirements IAW PWS para 2.1 in its entirety.

2.4.2.2. The proposal is acceptable when the offeror demonstrates three years of consecutive experience successfully providing PPC or other leased or purchased clothing IAW PWS para 2.1 in its entirety. The years of consecutive experience can be met via subcontracting or partnering or other methods considered to be applicable that meets the above criteria.

2.4.3. Sub-factor Three – PPC Inventory Control and Tracking:

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

2.4.3.1. The proposal is acceptable when the offeror describes and demonstrates an executable plan to provide inventory control of leased PPC types listed in PWS Appendix B. The plan shall include tracking and accountability methods throughout the pick-up and delivery process to drop stations; billing and invoicing; identification labeling; service life expectancy; and repair and replacement procedures IAW PWS para 2.4 through 2.6 in their entireties.

2.5. VOLUME III – FACTOR THREE – PAST PERFORMANCE

2.5.1. Past performance information will be gathered from offeror submissions and Government databases (e.g., Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), customer interviews, etc.). Only recent and relevant past performance information will be considered.

2.5.1.1. Recency is defined as performance less than three years old. The Government will not consider performance on contracts or task orders where performance was concluded more than three years prior to this solicitation’s issue date.

2.5.1.2. Relevancy is defined as work that involves similar types and complexities of services described in the RFP. For subcontracting and contracting teaming arrangements also include information on the portion of work performed by the offeror that is considered most relevant in demonstrating the ability to perform the proposed effort.

2.5.2. Past performance will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis using the following ratings.

Rating Description

Acceptable

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below).

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

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 or unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “Acceptable.”

2.6. VOLUME IV – CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

2.6.1. This volume will be reviewed for completeness. The offeror’s proposal shall include a signed copy of the Model Contract and Solicitation, Sections A through K, signed amendments to the solicitation (if any), and all other information required by FAR 52.212-1 Instruction to Offerors (ITO) - Addendum “Contract Documentation.” An incomplete package may be excluded from the competitive range.

2.6.2. The proposal shall contain evidence of adequate financial resources. Acceptable evidence normally consists of 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.

2.6.3. Total Case Incident Rate (TCIR) and Days Away, Restricted and Transferred

(DART) rates, or, injury and illness rates should be equal to or lower than the most recently published Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) national average for North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 336413. For offerors that do not possess three years of consecutive recording data, submit this information for the time period you do possess. Other comparable data from a recognized agency, such as workers compensation, insurance rates, etc., for the same time period is also acceptable.

2.6.4. Safety Plan will be reviewed for compliance with applicable Clauses, regulations and PWS requirements.

2.6.5. Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be reviewed for compliance with applicable Clauses and regulations.

3. DISCUSSIONS

3.1. It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions; therefore, it is imperative that offerors submit its best offer 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 Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

4. SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS

4.1. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, 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.