Attachment_2_Evaluation_Factors.doc

Attachment 2

FA8601-18-R-0028

04 September 2018

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 shall 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

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 Performance Work Statement (PWS) and elsewhere in this solicitation. A technical review team composed of key Government personnel shall use their technical skills, knowledge and experience to thoroughly review the adequacy of the proposals. In evaluating the Mission Capability Proposal, the Government shall 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 shall be evaluated in the Technical Capability Proposal. Any factor or subfactor determined unacceptable shall 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 shall not be considered for award and shall indicate in general terms the basis for the determination.

d. Technical Capability Evaluation Sub Factors are as follows:

· SUBFACTOR 1: Quality Control Plan - (PWS Section I, Portable Chemical Toilets; 1.3. Quality Control Plan, 1.3.1. Inspection System, 1.3.2. Deficiency Prevention, 1.3.3. Inspection of Files).

Description: Quality Control Plan – detailing methods for complying with PWS Para. 1.3, 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.3.3. The offeror shall provide, at a minimum, the following:

· Written description of an inspection system covering all areas to be inspected on a scheduled basis. frequency of inspections (daily, weekly, monthly, etc.), type of inspections (statistically-based random, 100%, etc.)

· Description of the duties and responsibilities of the quality control inspectors as well as the roles and functions of other key personnel involved with regard to quality control.

· Written description of records to be kept to document all inspections conducted and the necessary corrective action taken.

· Sample of each inspection/observation record. Each record must reflect the characteristic or element inspected, date/time, number of observations, number of defects observed and inspection status.

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror’s proposal has provided a detailed method of inspections including frequency and corrective action, describes a methodology to mitigate future defects, proposal shall demonstrate an adequate understanding of the PWS requirements, scope of the operation, duties of quality control inspectors, the ability to maintain records, and demonstrate their knowledge by providing sample records.

· SUBFACTOR 2: Schedule - (PWS Section IV General Information; 4.5. Contractor Work Schedule)

Description: Provide a realistic understanding of workload factors and a work schedule, addressing all requirements and services listed in the PWS, and Workload Data information.

· Scheduling - Offerors shall submit a workable sample schedule for the first month of contract performance and exhibit an understanding of required services and demonstrate adequate scheduling methodologies to support the requirements of PWS paragraph 4.5 Contractor Work Schedule.

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror’s proposal includes a realistic work schedule and exhibits an understanding of the scope of the effort by addressing all requirements and services by providing a workable sample.

· SUBFACTOR 3: Equipment and Personnel to Perform the Work:

(PWS Section I Description of Services-Portable Chemical Toilets, Paragraph 1.0. Description of Services).

Description: This sub-factor will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide proper equipment and knowledgeable personnel to complete the work IAW the PWS.

Measure of Merit: This sub-factor is met when the offeror provides lists of the following:

1. Number of trucks available to perform the work.

2. Proper cleaning equipment.

3. Resumes of potential personnel.

· SUBFACTOR 4: Avoiding Environmental Damage: PWS Section I Portable Chemical Toilets; 1.2. Special Requirements, 1.2.2 Spillage Control, 1.6. Environmental Protection.

Section II Grease Traps; 1.2. Special Requirements, 1.2.1. Spillage Control, 1.4. Environmental Protection.

Description: Provide a realistic understanding, and methodology to identify, prevent, mitigate the impact of, and reporting of spills.

1. Detail the proposed method/methods for avoiding environmental damage IAW PWS paragraph 1.4.1.3 Environmental Protection, and 1.2.1, 1.2.2 Spillage Control.

2. Certifications – proposal shall contain copies of all required standard certifications IAW Section I, PWS para. 1.0 Description of Services.

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror’s proposal includes an adequate method for avoiding environmental damage and required certifications.

· FACTOR 5: Prior Experience Description: Offeror shall provide prior recent and relevant experience for a minimum of three portable chemical toilet rental and service efforts, and/or grease trap cleaning service contracts, (either singularly or combined), within the past five (5) years, prior to 01 August 2018 in enough detail to show the following:

For all current or past contracts deemed relevant, provide all the information requested:

1. Company/Division Name

2. Program Title

3. Contracting Agency/POC Information

4. Contract Number

5. Type of Contract (Fixed Price)

6. Dates Performed

7. Contract Value (including any option years) Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror’s proposal contains 3 relevant prior experience efforts that demonstrate managing relevant services within the past five (5) years, prior to 01 August 2018.

Compliance with the requirements as stated in the PWS; and each proposal will be evaluated by application of the above assessment criteria to each factor, sub-factor, and element in the mission/technical capability proposal. Only those mission/technical capability proposals determined technically acceptable will be considered for award.

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

(1) Completeness: The Government shall 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 shall 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 shall 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 shall 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 4019 for the base performance period and option periods I through IV as well as a 6 month extension.

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.

4. EVALUATION PROCESS

(a) The Government shall initiate concurrent evaluation of all evaluation factors on all proposals. The Government shall 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 shall 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 shall be considered final. The entire proposal shall be rated “Unacceptable” and no further consideration shall 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 shall be rated “Unacceptable,” the initial evaluation will be the final evaluation, and no further consideration will be given to that proposal for award.

(e) The Government reserves the right to award without discussions.

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.