Evaluation of Offers 12.12.11.pdf

FA8601-12-R-0010

Addendum 2

Evaluation of Offers

1. Evaluation General Information

a. Basis for Contract Award: This acquisition will utilize simplified procedures in accordance with FAR Subpart 13.5, as supplemented to determine which offer, if any, represents the best value to the Government, price and other factors considered.

Tradeoffs will not be made at all and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability in any factor or subfactor. Subject to an affirmative determination of responsibility, award will be made to the offeror whose offer:

i. is in conformance to the terms and conditions of the solicitation;

ii. offers the lowest total evaluated price that is determined to be fair and reasonable; and

iii. is acceptable pursuant to evaluation of all non price factors.

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 the Contracting

Officer (CO) determines them to be necessary.

b. Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government intends to select one contractor to perform UNINTERRUPTIBLE POWER SUPPLY/POWER DISTRIBUTION

UNIT MAINTENANCE. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending upon the quality of the offers submitted including price reasonableness and the availability of funds.

c. Rejection of Unrealistic Offers: The Government may reject any offer that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of technical approach. The Government may also reject offers that are unrealistically high or low in price when compared to the

Government estimate or as determined through use of any other price analysis technique or via cost analysis. The Government may determine that an offer is priced so unrealistically low that is doubtful that the offeror could perform to the required standards at the offered price. Furthermore, an unrealistically high or low price may be deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the

Government’s requirement.

d. Correction Potential of Offers: The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any offer uncertainty. The judgment of such

"correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If there is an uncertainty pursuant to evaluation of an offer and the offer, in the Government’s judgment, is considered correctable, the CO may open discussions. If any aspect of an offer not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable pursuant to initial evaluations or following discussions, the offer will receive no further consideration for award.

2. Evaluation Methodology: The Government will initiate concurrent evaluation of all factors and subfactors on all offers. If at any time during the evaluation, any one of an offer’s non price factors is determined to be unacceptable or not correctable pursuant to an offer uncertainty, no further consideration will be given to that offer for award.

a. Factor 1 - Price:

i. Total Evaluated Price: The total evaluated price will be calculated as the sum of the extended prices for Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs)

0001 through 5003 for the base performance period and all options.

The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The

Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

ii. Unbalanced Pricing: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalance 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 shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items or subline items. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the CO determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

iii. Fair and Reasonableness of Proposed Price: Proposed prices will be evaluated to determine if they are fair and reasonable. 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.

Price reasonableness is expected to be established via price competition.

Price reasonableness may also be evaluated using other price analysis techniques including comparing proposed prices with Government estimates, prices the Government previously paid for the same or similar supplies or services, and any other pricing information the

Government may obtain internally or through market research. If price reasonableness cannot be determined pursuant to price competition or use of other price analysis techniques, the CO may require submission of “Other than Certified Cost or Pricing Data” to the extent necessary to determine a fair and reasonable price.

b. Factor 2 – Technical: The offer will be evaluated to determine whether it is acceptable or unacceptable using the ratings and descriptions in the table below.

Rating Description

Acceptable Offer clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

Subfactor 2-1:

Description: Proof of Authorized Service Partner Status to sell, configure and consult with Liebert and Powerware systems.

Measure of Merit: The measure of merit is met when the offeror provides written proof of authorization to sell, configure and consult with Liebert and

Powerware systems. If authorization is due to expire during within five (5) years, offeror shall provide a detailed explanation of how the authorization will be renewed.

Subfactor 2-2:

Description: Preventive Maintenance – This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s approach to providing a Preventive Maintenance Plan with standards specified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) paragraph 1.2.1, Preventive

Maintenance.

Measure of Merit: The measure of merit is met when the offeror provides a detailed description of the plan be utilized to provide preventive maintenance that clearly demonstrates that the UPS and PDU will meet the standards specified in PWS paragraph 1.2.1, Preventive Maintenance.

Subfactor 2-3:

Description: Emergency Maintenance – This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s approach to providing emergency maintenance with standards specified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) paragraph 1.2.2, Emergency

Maintenance.

all information requested specified in PWS paragraph 1.2.2.1-1.2.2.5.

Subfactor 2-4:

Description: Special Qualifications – This subfactor will evaluate whether all contractor technicians possess the certifications specified in PWS paragraph

1.2.3.3, Special Qualifications.

copies of all of the certifications specified in PWS paragraph 1.2.3.3.

c. Factor 3 – Past Performance: Past performance will be rated on an “acceptable” or

“unacceptable” basis using the ratings and descriptions in the table below.

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. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

The past performance evaluation will result is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of relevant present/past performance information that pertains to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements.

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate whether the offeror’s present/past performance is relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts.

(End of Provision)