FA860121R0053 Attachment 2 Evaluation Factors.pdf

FA860121R0053

Attachment 2

July 27, 2021

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

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 Performance Work Statements (PWSs) 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 (PWSs) and this entire solicitation.

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

(3) Compliance and understanding of the requirements of the PWSs 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 Factors and Sub Factors are as follows:

(1) SUBFACTOR 1: Emergency Repairs: (PWS 1.2.5)

Description: This element will evaluate the offeror’s approach for ensuring emergency repairs are performed in accordance with (IAW) the standards in the PWS throughout the life of the contract.

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror’s proposal has provided the following information to ensure that performance is in accordance with (IAW) the standards in the PWS throughout the life of the contract to include:

1. Points-of-contact for daytime/after hour emergencies

2. Ability to respond to emergency repairs within 72 hours of notification.

3. Example of a purchasing plan for emergency repairs and how the required

3 quotes will be obtained.

(2) SUBFACTOR 2: Inspection Reports (PWS Paragraph 1.2.4)

Description: This element will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide inspection reports IAW the terms and conditions of the contract.

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror provides an effective plan, which is likely to ensure that accurate inspection reports are submitted IAW the terms and conditions of the contract. The offeror must also provide a sample Inspection Report containing the following:

1. Maintenance work performed and repairs needed.

2. Replacement parts used.

3. Recharging of the system.

4. Date of inspection.

5. Name of inspector.

6. Overall condition of equipment.

(3) SUBFACTOR 3: Prior Experience

Description: This sub-factor will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide relevant prior experience.

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror submits prior experience information on a minimum of three relevant contracts/jobs performed within five years of the issue date of the solicitation. One of which is preferred but not required to be on aircraft specific fire training facilities.

(a) Performing routine maintenance of Aircraft Fire Training Facilities

(b) Maintaining and following a schedule for routine maintenance

(c) Experience responding to emergency service calls for repair.

For each relevant contract/job described, please provide the following administrative data:

1.Company/Division Name

2.Program Title

3.Contracting Agency

4.Contract Number

5.Type of Contract (Fixed Price)

July 27, 2021

6.Dates Performed

7.Contract Value (including any option years)

(4) SUBFACTOR 4: Personnel (PWS Paragraphs 9.1.1 & 9.1.7)

Description: This sub-factor will evaluate the offeror’s ability to ensure personnel are available and technically qualified to perform regular maintenance and to notify its personnel when such services are required.

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror provides an effective Notification Plan, including points-of-contact for daytime/after hour emergencies and what method shall be used to notify personnel. The offeror shall include the following:

1. Qualifications

2. Company names and personnel qualifications of potential subcontractors to be used.

e. The above specific technical factors/subfactors shall be evaluated in the Technical Capability

Proposal. Any subfactor judged unacceptable shall 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.

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 2001 for the base performance period and option periods I through

II 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.

Period of Performance

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

Base 12 Months 0001 $10,000.00

Option I 12 Months 1001 $10,000.00

Option II 12 Months 2001 $10,000.00

Total Proposed Price for Base Period & Options I through II $10,000.00

Evaluated Value of Maximum 6-Month Option to Extend Services

IAW FAR 52.217-8

$10,000.00

Total Evaluated Price $50,000.00

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.

July 27, 2021

(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.