Attachment_2_-_Evaluation_Factors.pdf

FA8601-19-R-A035

Attachment 2

ADDENDUM 52.212-2 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. The Government will use FAR Part 13 Simplified Acquisition Procedures 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 Mission 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 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 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:

SUBFACTOR 1: Quality Control Plan

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror’s proposal has included quality control procedures that demonstrate adequate understanding of the PWS requirements. It must be determined workable and acceptable with only minor clarification. Offeror must include the descriptions of the duties and responsibilities of the individual responsible for the quality of workmanship during all aspects of contract performance. Proposal must also show minimum requirements of the Quality Control Plan.

SUBFACTOR 2: Scheduling Methodology

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror’s proposal includes a realistic work schedule and exhibits an understanding of work by addressing all requirements listed in the PWS to include the Work Load Data.

SUBFACTOR 3: Personnel

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates the Contractor has sufficient, licensed and certified staff to perform all tasks in the PWS. The proposal must also show the offeror has personnel with a knowledge and understanding of lead-based paint and asbestos regulations and handling procedures. The proposal shall include technical experience, licenses and any formal classes completed pertaining to maintenance and repair, including certifications such as EPA and OSHA certifications of proposed personnel.

Offerors must also include the number of years experience for all personnel assigned to the performance of the contract office personnel.

Subfactor 4: Utilities

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror's proposal includes the appropriate size, number, and type/description of equipment and supplies to be used in the performance of this contract that demonstrates an understanding of the requirements of the PWS pertaining to utilities.

SUBFACTOR 5: Equipment and Supplies

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror's proposal includes the appropriate size, number, and type/description of equipment and supplies to be used in the performance of this contract that demonstrates an understanding of the requirements of the PWS.

SUBFACTOR 6: Prior Experience

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror’s Technical Capability Proposal includes documentation that clearly demonstrates that the offeror has performed services, within five years of the effective date of the solicitation, that were similar in type and scale to those called for in the PWS.

SUBFACTOR 7: Management Plan

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror’s proposal has included the provisions and procedures that demonstrate adequate understanding of the PWS requirements.

This includes the lines of authority; description of the plan for managing execution and administration of the contract; the proposed material purchasing system and delivery plan; the on-site management team and management of sub-contractors. The plan must be determined workable and acceptable with only minor clarification.

SUBFACTOR 8: BUILDER

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates a knowledge, understanding, skills and experience of the BUILDER Sustainment Management System. This includes, but is not limited to, collection and input of data used to assess the condition of buildings physical components (roofs, walls, and floors) and electromechanical systems (plumbing, HVAC, fire protection, and electrical) through Builder Remote Entry Database (BRED).

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 Attachment 3 —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:

(i) The sum of the extended prices (unit quantity multiplied by unit price) for CLINs 0001 through 4002 for the base performance period and option periods I through IV as well as CLINs 5001 and 5002 for the six month extension; and

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 0001-0002 $100,000 Option I 12 Months 1001-1002 $103,000 Option II 12 Months 2001-2002 $106,090 Option III 12 Months 3001-3002 $106,090 Option IV 12 Months 4001-4002 $106,090 Extension 6 Months 5001-5002 $53,045

Total Evaluated Price $574,315

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