ATCH_7_Evaluation_Factors_for_Award.pdf

MNUSAF Custodial Services

FA8601-10-R-1000

ATCH 7

7 December 2009

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

1. GENERAL INFORMATION

a. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

(1). All proposals timely received will be evaluated in two (2) separate areas:

- Mission Capability

- Price

(2) This acquisition will utilize the Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2, as supplemented, to make a best value award decision.

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, which is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements.

(3) The application of the LPTA technique in the contract award selection and approval process is as follows:

(a) Initially, the Government shall evaluate the Mission Capability Proposals on a pass/fail basis. Each proposal will be assigned a rating of: Acceptable, Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable, or Unacceptable. Only those offerors determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions/clarifications, will be considered for award. All technically acceptable proposals are considered equal.

(b) All technically acceptable offerors will then be ranked from lowest to highest price based on the total evaluated price. Cost/Price will be evaluated for realism and reasonableness. NOTE: The Government reserves the right to reject proposals priced either so unrealistically high, or so unrealistically low, as to indicate an inherent lack of understanding of the requirements in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

(c) At this point, the offeror with the lowest evaluated price represents the best value for this acquisition and award shall be made to this offeror, subject to a positive responsibility determination.

(d) The Government reserves the right to award only one or no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposal(s) submitted and the availability of funds

(e) The Government anticipates making award(s) without conducting 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 to be necessary by the Source Selection Authority.

2. MISSION/TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

a. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s Mission Capability Proposal shall be made. Each proposal will be assigned a rating of:

(1) Acceptable: The Mission Capability Proposal meets all the minimum mandatory Mission Capability Proposal requirements in the solicitation. Only those proposals determined acceptable, either initially or as a result of exchanges will be considered for award.

(2) Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable: The Mission Capability Proposal does not meet

ATCH 7

7 December 2009 some of the minimum mandatory Technical Proposal requirements in the solicitation; however, there is reason to believe that through exchanges an acceptable Mission Capability Proposal could result. For award without discussions these proposals are considered “unacceptable”.

(3) Unacceptable: The Mission Capability Proposal substantially fails to meet the minimum mandatory Mission Capability Proposal requirements in the solicitation. Mission Capability Proposals with an unacceptable rating will not be considered for award.

b. Each offeror must show evidence of a capability to provide the mandatory requirements set forth in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and elsewhere in this solicitation. A technical review team composed of key Government personnel will use their technical skills, knowledge and experience to thoroughly review the adequacy of the proposals. In evaluating the Mission Capability Proposal, the Government will use the following evaluation criteria:

(1) Compliance with the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and this entire solicitation.

(2) Understanding of the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and this entire solicitation.

(3) Compliance and understanding of the requirements of the PWS as applied specifically to each factor/subfactor listed below.

c. The following specific factors and subfactors will be evaluated in the Mission Capability Proposal (as outlined in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1). Any factor or subfactor determined unacceptable will render the entire Mission Capability Proposal as unacceptable. Upon final determination that a proposal is unacceptable, the Contracting Officer (CO) shall promptly notify the firm submitting the proposal that it will not be considered for award and shall indicate in general terms the basis for the determination.

d. Mission Capability Evaluation Factors and Sub Factors are as follows:

FACTOR 1 - Notification Plan (PWS Para 1.5.1). The proposal includes a notification plan for daytime/after hour’s point-of-contact for emergencies, snow removal, one-time cleanups and special event cleaning. Plan shall be updated as changes occur. The plan shall also include a statement indicating what method will be used to notify personnel. This element is met when the offeror’s Mission/Technical Capability proposal includes a notification plan for both daytime and after hour emergencies. The plan shall address the procedures to be taken to notify all personnel and should updated when changes occur.

FACTOR 2 - Quality Control (PWS Para 1.5):

SUBFACTOR 1.1 - Quality Control Plan (PWS Para 1.5.2). This element is met when the offeror’s Mission/Technical Capability proposal includes a detailed quality control plan, which demonstrates that custodial services will be consistently performed in accordance with (IAW) the requirements of the PWS. As a minimum, the quality control plan shall include:

(a). Title(s)/name(s), duties and responsibilities of individual(s) who will oversee the program.

(b). Title(s)/name(s), duties and responsibilities of individual(s) who will perform the inspections.

(c). Title(s)/name(s), duties and responsibilities of other key personnel involved in quality control.

(d). Description of how quality will be maintained throughout the life of the contract and how defects will be prevented, identified, corrected and prevented from reoccurring.

ATCH 7

7 December 2009

(e). Identification of all facilities, locations and areas to be inspected on a scheduled basis, including, but not be limited to, task and frequency charts of the performance of work; frequency (daily, weekly, monthly, etc.) of inspections; and type of inspections (periodic surveillance, 100% inspection, statistically random inspection, etc.).

(f). Description of inspection records including what inspections are conducted, when they are to be conducted, how their results and any necessary corrective actions are to be documented. Description shall also include the location of inspection records and key control logs and an acknowledgement that the quality control plan, with all of its related documentation, and key control logs shall be maintained at the designated location and shall be available to the Government at all times throughout the life of the contract. The description of inspection records shall also include a sample of each inspection/observation record that reflects the characteristic or element inspected, type of inspection, date/time of the inspection, number of observations, number of defects observed and the overall inspection status (e.g. pass/fail, acceptable/unacceptable).

ELEMENT 1.1.1 - Inspection System (PWS Para 1.5.2.1). Written procedures for the inspection system to include the title of the individual who shall oversee the program, the title of the individual(s) who shall perform the inspections, location of inspection records/key control logs, and acknowledgement by the contractor that all said documentation shall be maintained at the designated location and made available to the government at all times during the term of the contract.

ELEMENT 1.1.2 - Deficiency Prevention (PWS Para 1.5.2.2). A description of the methods for identifying and preventing defects in the quality of service performed before the level becomes unacceptable and is recorded on an inspection form.

ELEMENT 1.1.3 - Inspection Record (PWS Para 1.5.2.3). The proposal includes an inspection record which reflects the following information:

(a) Date, time, and location (Building number) of the inspection.

(b) Title and signature block for the person who performed the inspections.

(c) Ratings of acceptable or unacceptable for all work performance inspected.

(d) Areas (Room number, Section, etc.) found to be deficient and corrective action taken.

(e) Total number of observations and defects.

(f) Type of inspection (Periodic surveillance, 100% inspection, statistically random inspection, etc.)

(g) Frequency (Weekly, Monthly, Daily, etc.) of inspection.

ELEMENT 1.1.4 - Key Control System/Daily Log (PWS Para 1.5.2.4). This element is met when the offeror’s Mission/Technical Capability proposal includes a detailed description of its key control/entry access card accountability system that will ensure all keys/entry access cards issued to the contractor and its personnel are secured and accounted for at all times. The description of the proposed system shall include the means by which the contractor will document and track incidences of loss, theft, duplication or other compromise of keys/entry access cards and notify the Contracting Officer (CO) and Quality Assurance Personnel (QAP) within 24 hours of occurrence. Daily log includes the following information:

a. Key Number/Identification

b. Printed name and signature of employee.

c. Date and time key was signed out and signed back in.

d. Annotation to the fact that a key/entry card number/identification was lost/ stolen/ possible duplicated and the CO and QAP will be notified within 24 hours of occurrence, in writing.

ATCH 7

7 December 2009

FACTOR 3 - SCHEDULING METHODOLOGIES (PWS Para 1.5.8)

SUBFACTOR 3.1 - Work Schedule. This element is met when the offeror’s Mission/Technical Capability proposal includes a realistic work schedule that demonstrates an understanding of the work to be performed by addressing all requirements specified in the PWS, particularly the Task Frequency Charts in Appendix A. As a minimum the work schedule shall reflect all building numbers; levels of service as defined in Appendix A, Minimum Frequency Standards; and completion times. The work schedule shall also address Snow and Ice Removal.

SUBFACTOR 3.2 - Staffing Plan. This element is met when the offeror’s Mission/Technical Capability proposal includes a workable staffing plan for each category of cleaning (excluding Emergency Cleanups, Special Events Cleaning, and Snow and Ice Removal) by building that includes a schedule and an adequate number of employees for all shifts. The plan shall include manning information for each level of service as defined in Appendix A, Minimum Frequency Standards. The plan shall permit for adjustments from one level of service to another.

FACTOR 4 - EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES

SUBFACTOR 4.1 - Equipment (PWS para 1.5.12.1) . The proposal shall include an equipment list which reflects the Type, unit size (5hp, small, 6ft, etc,), and quantity of items to be maintained and used in performance of this contract.

SUBFACTOR 4.2 - Supplies (PWS para 1.5.12.2). . The proposal shall include a supply list which reflects the type, unit Size (12oz, 100/box, etc.), purchase size (12/case, etc.), and estimate monthly usage (6/cases.

12/each, etc.) to be maintained and used in performance of this contract

3. COST/PRICE FACTOR.

a. An offeror’s proposal price is the sum of the total price for all line items including the Base year plus Options 1 thru 4 submitted on the Standard Form 1449 Continuation Sheet, Schedule of Supplies/Services. All options should be priced as if they will be exercised. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. However, the sum total price of the base plus option years will be considered in the evaluation process. Price will be a substantial factor in the Source Selection Authority’s (SSA) decision. Selection will be based on the most advantageous offer (price and other factors considered) and though not necessarily the determinative factor, price will contribute substantially to the award decision. The Government reserves the right to request other than cost or pricing data if cost analysis is deemed necessary.

b. The basis of the proposed price must be compatible with all other elements of the proposal. Since discussions are not contemplated, the offeror should submit their best price upon initial submission of the proposal.

c. No advantage will be gained by an offeror who submits an unrealistically low price proposal.

Unrealistically low proposed prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition. Such a proposal may be viewed as indicative of lack of understanding of the Government’s desired objective. Cost realism means that the costs in an offeror’s proposal are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the various elements of the offeror’s mission capability proposal.

d. 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 contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the SSA determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. In addition, offerors are cautioned against submitting a materially unbalanced offer. Offers that are determined to be materially unbalanced may be rejected. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices or separately priced line items. An offer is mathematically

ATCH 7

7 December 2009 unbalanced if it is based on prices which are significantly less than the cost for some contract line items and significantly overstated in relation to cost for others. An offer that is mathematically unbalanced is materially unbalanced, if:

(1) There is a reasonable doubt that the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the Government, even though it is the lowest evaluated offer; or

(2) the offer is so grossly unbalanced that its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advance payment.

e. Price will be evaluated for reasonableness and realism.

(1) For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market. Reasonableness will be assessed by comparing proposed prices with other prices received and other pricing information that the Government may obtain internally or through market research.

(2) For a price to be reasonable it must be realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and be consistent with the various elements of the offeror’s technical proposal.

(3) Exhibit A, Bid Schedule pricing shall also be evaluated for the reasonableness and realism.