52.212-2 Addendum - Evaluation Factors 23Mar21.pdf

BUSINESS SERVICES CONSULTING

52.212-2 ADDENDUM

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

U.S AIR FORCE

OO-ALC

52.212-2 Addendum Evaluation factors for award i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items

2 Basis for award:

2.2 Evaluation Methodology:

2.3 Factor One – Price

2.4 Factor Two – Technical

2.5 Factor Three – Past Performance

2.6 Discussions

2.7 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

52.212-2 Addendum Evaluation factors for award

1 52.212-2 EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

1.1 The Government will award one (1) contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

1. Factor I - Price Proposal

2. Factor II – Technical

3. Factor III – Past Performance

1.2 A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful Offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the Offeror’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

FAR 52.212-2 ADDENDUM – EVALUATION CRITERIA, BASIS FOR CONTRACT

AWARD:

2 BASIS FOR AWARD:

2.1 This acquisition will utilize Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with 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 technically acceptable Offeror with the lowest evaluated price, which is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements. The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by 52.212-1, Instructions to Offeror’s and associated 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. If the Contracting Officer determines it necessary to conduct discussions, procedures at FAR 15.306 will be followed. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

52.212-2 Addendum Evaluation factors for award

2.2 Evaluation Methodology:

2.2.1 Initially, offers shall be ranked according to price from the lowest price to highest based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP will be used for Price comparison and evaluation.

2.2.2 Next, the government Technical and Past Performance evaluation teams will review the Technical and Past Performance proposal submitted by the lowest priced Offeror on an acceptable/unacceptable basis to ensure the solicitation requirements including all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by this solicitation are met. The Technical and Past Performance proposal will then be evaluated for the next lowest priced offer. For price comparison purposes, Technical and Past Performance evaluations cease when the Technical and Past Performance evaluation teams finds two acceptable proposals. Only proposals deemed acceptable, both Technical and Past Performance (either initially or as the result of discussions) will be considered for award.

2.3 Factor One – Price

2.3.1 The pricing criteria used for evaluation are (1) Reasonableness, (2) Balance, and (3) Total Evaluated Price.

2.3.1.1 Reasonableness – The Offerors price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 (Proposal Analysis Techniques). Generally, adequate price competition will satisfy the criteria for price reasonableness.

2.3.1.2 Balance – Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. 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 price analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items or sub-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.

2.3.1.3 Total Evaluated Price (TEP) – The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the proposed rates applied to notional hours for all years of the contract.

The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Government determined elements of the notional formula WILL NOT be disclosed to Offerors. A no bid or an omitted rate may result in an incomplete price submission. An omitted rate may result in proposal elimination. The TEP is for evaluation purposes only.

52.212-2 Addendum Evaluation factors for award

However, all proposed fully burdened rates will be contractually binding and formally prescribed by attachment to the Basic contract when awarded.

2.3.2 The rates submitted for the attached wage determination (Section J Attachment 2) will also be evaluated to ensure they meet or exceed the rates in the applicable Wage Determination for SCLS Coded positions. Rates that do not meet or exceed minimum wage rates identified in the WDOL will be deemed non-responsive and proposal will be eliminated from possible award.

2.3.3 The Government will also evaluate whether the clause 52.222-43 -- Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Labor Standards -- Price Adjustment (Multiple Year and Option Contracts) was followed in that the contractor warrants that prices in a Section J Attachment do not include any allowance for any contingency to cover increased costs for which adjustment is provided under 52.222-43. SCLA base labor rates shall not include inflation.

2.4 Factor Two – Technical

2.4.1 The Government evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning one of the ratings in the table below. Only those proposals determined to meet minimum specified criteria, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The Offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions. The proposals shall be evaluated against all requirements found in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

Rating Description

Acceptable The proposal meets specified minimum requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance.

Unacceptable The proposal fails to meet specified minimum requirements necessary for contract performance. Proposals with an unacceptable rating are not awardable.

2.4.2 The Proposals shall be evaluated against the following sub factor criteria:

2.4.3 Sub-factor 1: Marketing

2.4.3.1 Marketing: The Proposal is technically acceptable when the Offeror provides a level of detail and supporting documentation of a clear methodology, which must convey to the Government that the Offeror is

52.212-2 Addendum Evaluation factors for award capable, possesses adequate expertise and experience, and is able to plan, organize, and use their resources in a coordinated and timely fashion to provide marketing analysis and strategies IAW Basic PWS Para 2.2 and subparagraphs 2.2.1 through 2.2.3.

2.4.4 Sub-Factor 2: Business Opportunities

2.4.4.1 The Proposal is technically acceptable when the Offeror provides a level of detail and supporting documentation of a clear methodology which must convey to the Government that the Offeror is capable, possesses adequate expertise and experience, to identify, assist in the generation, implementation and integration of new business activities or workloads IAW PWS Basic Para 2.3 and subparagraphs 2.3.1 through 2.3.4.

2.4.5 Sub-Factor 3: Human Resources and Retention Plan

2.4.5.1 The Proposal is technically acceptable when the Offeror provides a level of detail and supporting documentation of a clear methodology, which demonstrates how the Offeror is capable of hiring and retaining candidates possessing the experience and skill level to accomplishe the requirements outlined in PWS Basic Para 2.2 through 2.5, and IAW PWS Paragraphs

2.7 and 8.0.

2.5 Factor Three – Past Performance

2.5.1 Offerors shall, if available, submit recent and relevant contracts (maximum of three contracts) as defined below. Performance as subcontractor may be included; the Offeror shall include contract number and prime contractor. The Government will consider this information, along with information obtained from other sources (e.g., Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reports System (CPARS), customer interviews, etc.), and may rely on this information. Offeror may use past performance of subcontractor to satisfy recent and relevant past performance. Only recent and relevant past performance information will be considered.

2.5.1.1 Recency - is defined as performance within the last three years from the date of the issuance of the solicitation. The Government will not consider performance on contracts where performance was concluded more than three years prior to the solicitation issue date or contracts awarded. The contract/Task Order in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance if any part of the contract performance falls within the three year timeframe.

52.212-2 Addendum Evaluation factors for award

2.5.1.2 Relevancy - is defined as work that involves approximately the same type(s) of services described in the RFP, PWS, 52.212-1 Addendum, and 52.212-2 Addendum.

2.5.2 Offerors shall address any past performance problems or issues that the Government may identify and explain corrective action taken and current status.

The Government will consider this information in determining the Offeror’s past performance rating.

2.5.3 An Offeror’s failure to address performance problems or issues within this volume does not preclude the Government from using such information in determining a past performance rating.

2.5.4 If a joint venture is contemplated, provide complete information as to the joint venture. Include any relevant and recent past performance information on previous joint ventures with the same partner. If this is a first time joint venture, each party to the joint venture should provide a list of past relevant contracts (maximum of three).

2.5.5 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 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 instance 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. Therefore, the Offeror will be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability or unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “Acceptable.”

2.6 Discussions

2.6.1 The Government intends to award without discussions. Therefore, it is imperative that Offerors submit their best offer initially. However, if during the evaluation

52.212-2 Addendum Evaluation factors for award period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror responses to discussions and the Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

2.7 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

2.7.1 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.

(End of provision)