DeicerEvaluationFactorsAttach2_2017.pdf

Attachment 2

FA8601-16-R-0059

26 September 2016

ADDENDUM 52.212-2 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. The Government will use FAR Part 12.602 Streamlined Evaluation of Offers vs. FAR 15.3 Source Selection to evaluate offers submitted in response to the solicitation. The factors that shall be used to evaluate proposals are Technical Capability and Price, as expounded below. All evaluation factors are equal in importance; however, a proposal is unawardable at any price if, after final evaluation, the Technical factor receives a rating of “Unacceptable.” The evaluation does not permit tradeoffs between price and non-price factors. Award will be made to the responsible offeror who submits a proposal that (1) conforms to the requirements of the solicitation; (2) that receives a rating of “Acceptable” on the Technical evaluation factor; and (3) that submits the proposal with the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP), provided that the TEP is not unbalanced and is fair and reasonable. The Government reserves the right to award no contract at all depending upon (1) the quality of proposals received and (2) the fair and reasonableness of the pricing of proposals received

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirement of the solicitation.

2. TECHNICAL CAPABILITY:

a. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s Technical Capability Proposal shall be made. Each proposal will be assigned a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable.

b. Each offeror must show evidence of a capability to provide the mandatory requirements set forth in the Statements of Work (SOWs) 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 Statements of Work (SOWs) and this entire solicitation.

(2) Understanding of the requirements of the Statements of Work (SOWs) and this entire solicitation.

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

c. The following specific factors and subfactors will be evaluated in the Technical Capability Proposal. Any factor or subfactor determined unacceptable will render the entire Technical 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. Technical Capability Evaluation Factors and Sub Factors are as follows:

LIQUID DEICER EVALUATION FACTORS

(1) SUBFACTOR 1: Training Plan (SOW Paragraph 1.2)

Description: This element will evaluate whether or not the offeror has included a Training Plan in their proposal which includes application rates and usage guidelines.

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the training plan includes a general overview to include application rates and usage guidelines.

(2) SUBFACTOR 2: AMS 1435 Certified (SOW Paragraph 1.3)

Description: This element will evaluate whether the offeror meets AMS 1435 certification standards.

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the vendor provides:

a) AMS 1435 certification of the fluid from an independent laboratory with the bid submittal dated within 24-months of the bid submittal.

b) Name and location of the fluid production site

(3) SUBFACTOR 3: Other Technical Information (SOW Paragraph 1.5)

Description: This element will evaluate the offeror's approach for ensuring compliance with environmental, MSDS, handling, storage and application requirements.

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror provides written technical information indicating the fluid's environmental impact, MSDS, handling, storage and application guidelines.

(4) SUBFACTOR 4: Aquatic Toxicity Test Report (SOW Paragraph 1.6)

Description: This element will evaluate the offeror's Aquatic Toxicity Test Report.

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the report includes the following:

a) The report shall be from an independent party

b) The results shall meet the requirements of EPA Method 40 Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) Part 797.1300 and 797.1400

c) The 48-hour daphnia test result shall be reported and shall not be less than 1000 mg/L

d) The 96-hour test result for rainbow trout, bluegill or fathead minnow shall be reported and shall not be less than 1000 mg/L

(5) SUBFACTOR 5: Other Test Reports (SOW Paragraph 1.8)

Description: This element will evaluate the offeror's other test reports not listed in the other Sub Factors, in accordance with the Statement of Work.

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when an independent third party test report is included for all of the following IAW the Statement of Work.

a) Compatibility with asphalt concrete pavement materials, including bitumen softening and asphalt concrete adhesion strength before and after immersion

b) Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and theoretical total oxygen demand

(TOD)

(6) SUBFACTOR 6: Aviation Product Liability Insurance (SOW Paragraph 1.12)

Description: This element will evaluate the offeror's Aviation Product Liability Insurance.

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when proof of insurance is included in the proposal and it covers $100M.

SOLID DEICER EVALUATION FACTORS

(1) SUBFACTOR 1: AMS 1431 Certified (SOW Paragraph 1.2)

Description: This element will evaluate whether the offeror meets AMS 1431 certification standards.

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the vendor provides AMS 1431 certification of the product from an independent laboratory with the bid submittal dated within 36-months of the bid submittal.

(2) SUBFACTOR 2: Other Technical Information (SOW Paragraph 1.4 and 1.6)

Description: This element will evaluate the offeror's approach for ensuring compliance with environmental, MSDS, handling, storage and application requirements as well as the product's biological oxygen demand and toxicity.

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror provides written technical information indicating:

a) The fluid's environmental impact, MSDS, handling, storage and application guidelines

b) The product's biological oxygen demand and toxicity

(3) SUBFACTOR 3: Chemical Toxicity Test Report (SOW Paragraph 1.5)

Description: This element will evaluate the offeror's Chemical Toxicity Test Report.

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the report includes the following:

a) The report shall be from an independent party

b) The results shall meet the requirements of EPA Method 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 797.1300 and 797.1400

c) The results shall be reported and show an LC50 of greater than 1000 mg/L for the species tested

(4) SUBFACTOR 4: Training Plan (SOW Paragraph 1.7)

Description: Description: This element will evaluate whether or not the offeror has included a Training Plan in their proposal which includes application rates and usage guidelines.

Measure of Merit: Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the training plan includes a general overview to include application rates and usage guidelines.

(5) SUBFACTOR 5: Aviation Product Liability Insurance (SOW Paragraph 1.8)

Description: This element will evaluate the offeror's Aviation Product Liability Insurance.

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when proof of insurance is included in the proposal and it covers $100M.

e. The above specific technical factors/subfactors will be evaluated in the Technical Capability Proposal. Any subfactor judged unacceptable may render the entire Technical Capability Proposal as unacceptable. Upon final determination that a proposal is “unacceptable”, the Contracting Officer shall promptly notify the firm submitting the proposal that it will not be considered for award and shall indicate the basis for the determination.

3. PRICE: Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) unbalanced pricing, (3) fair and reasonableness, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

(1) Completeness: The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with solicitation clause FAR 52.212-1 and Appendix 1—Additional Instructions to Offerors.

(2) Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze each proposal to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices proposed on different Contract Line Items Numbers (CLIN) for the same or similar services and/or supplies in the same or similar quantities and with respect to option pricing. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer (CO) determines that the option prices are significantly unbalanced or that otherwise unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(3) Fair and Reasonableness: The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated using price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) or DFARS 215.371-3 if only one offer is received.

(4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The Government will add the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement to arrive at a total evaluated price (TEP). The TEP will be calculated as:

The sum of the extended prices (unit quantity multiplied by unit price) for CLINs 0001 through 4003 for the base performance period and option periods I through IV.

The spreadsheet below illustrates calculation of a proposal’s TEP using the methodology described above. The spreadsheet is provided for illustration purposes only. Prices reflected in the spreadsheet are notional and in no way reflect the actual value of the requirement or an actual evaluation of proposed prices submitted in response to this solicitation or any other solicitation for the same or similar requirements.

Period of Performance

POP Length CLINS (Example) Notional Proposed Price (Example)

Base 12 Months 0001-0005 $100,000 Option I 12 Months 1001-1005 $103,000 Option II 12 Months 2001-2005 $106,090 Option III 12 Months 3001-3005 $109,272.70 Option IV 12 Months 4001-4005 $112,550.88

Total Evaluated Price $530,913.58

4. EVALUATION PROCESS

(a) The Government will initiate concurrent evaluation of all evaluation factors on all proposals. The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of a proposal including whether any proposal deficiency can be rectified and whether any uncertainty can be resolved.

The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government.

(b) If pursuant to initial evaluation, the Government rates the Technical factor as “Unacceptable” or if the Government determines that there is some other deficiency or uncertainty relative to an offeror’s proposal, and in the Government’s judgment, the deficiency is rectifiable or the uncertainty is resolvable; the Contracting Officer (CO) may open discussions and may continue discussions as long as, in the Government’s judgment, the deficiency is rectifiable or the uncertainty is resolvable.

(c) For the purpose of conducting discussions, if the Government rates the Technical factor as “Unacceptable” or if the Government determines that there is some other deficiency or uncertainty relative to an offeror’s proposal, the entire proposal will be rated “Unacceptable.” At the conclusion of discussions, if the Technical factor is rated “Unacceptable” or if any deficiency or uncertainty relative to the proposal has not been unresolved, evaluation of that proposal will be considered final. The entire proposal will be rated “Unacceptable” and no further consideration will be given to that proposal for award.

(d) For the purpose of award without discussions, if pursuant to initial evaluation, the Government rates the Technical factor as “Unacceptable” or if the Government determines that there is some other deficiency or uncertainty relative to an offeror’s proposal, notwithstanding that any deficiency may be rectifiable or any uncertainty may be resolvable, the entire proposal will be rated “Unacceptable,” the initial evaluation will be the final evaluation, and no further consideration will be given to that proposal for award.

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 offer'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.

ADDENDUM 52.212-2 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD