Section_K_Corrected_FAR_Clauses.pdf

CORRECTED SECTION K CONTRACT CLAUSES

6. FAR 52.212-02 EVALUATION—COMMERCIAL ITEMS Clause Corrected Fill-in Information only, 52.212-2, Is populating twice, with the first one IS not showing any data and shall be ignored.

7. FAR 52.212-5 EVALUATION—COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014) Clause Corrected Fill-in Information only, Addendum to FAR 52.212-02 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

GENERAL EVALUATION PROCEDURES

1. This acquisition will utilize the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection method to make an integrated assessment award decision. Award will be made to the responsible offeror with the lowest price whose proposal meets the acceptability standards for non-cost factors and demonstrates balanced pricing (see discussions in paragraph 6.(a) through (c).) Offerors should propose their best solution to meet the stated requirements.

2. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

a. TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

b. PRICE

3. The Government intends to award without discussions, however reserves the right to: (a) clarify certain aspects of an offerors proposal or resolve minor or clerical errors, (b) enter into limited communications (to establish a competitive range), or (c) conduct discussions (after establishment of a competitive range) if the Contracting Officer (CO) determines they are necessary. Proposals rated as "Technically Unacceptable," either before or after discussions (in the event the CO determines discussions are in the best interest of the Government) will be eliminated from the competition and receive no further consideration.

4. The Government will consider an offeror's proposal unawardable if such offeror fails to comply with all Instructions listed in FAR 52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS--COMMERCIAL ITEMS, FAR 52.212-1 Addendum instructions, Proposal Checklist and Summary Pricing Sheet contained within this solicitation. This includes, but is not limited to: proposal submission procedures, proposal volume organization, omission of requested documents, inclusion of circumscribed identifying information, or incomplete documents submitted with the proposal.

5. Each proposal will be assigned an identifying number which will be used in lieu of the offeror's name during technical evaluation. (Reference FAR 52.212-01 Instructions to Offerors, Volume I: Technical Proposal, Addendum)

6. Proposals will be ranked from lowest to highest total evaluated price (TEP). Any proposal with unbalanced pricing may indicate a lack of understanding of the requirements and may be eliminated from further consideration.

(a) Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. The Government will use the Independent Government Cost Estimate and similar historical acquisitions to determine if each proposed contract line item price is significantly over or understated.

(b) All offers with separately priced line items or subline items shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced. If cost or price analysis techniques indicate that an offer is unbalanced, the contracting officer shall --

(1) Consider the risks to the Government associated with the unbalanced pricing in determining the competitive range and in making the source selection decision; and

(2) Consider whether award of the contract will result in paying unreasonably high prices for contract performance.

(c) An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

7. The two lowest-priced proposals with balanced and reasonable pricing will be evaluated for technical acceptability.

8. A technical review team composed of key government personnel, who are experts in their respective disciplines, will use their technical skills, knowledge and experience to thoroughly review the adequacy of the proposal. Technical proposals shall be rated either Acceptable or Unacceptable.

9. In order to be rated "Technically Acceptable", the offer must have an "Acceptable" rating in each and every sub-factor. If neither of the first two lowest-priced proposals is determined to be technically acceptable, the next lowest-priced proposal will be evaluated for technical acceptability. This process will continue until a proposal is rated Technically Acceptable.

10. When a proposal is rated technically acceptable, with balanced and reasonable pricing, the evaluation process stops at that point. That proposal will be determined to represent the best value for the Government. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

11. If discussions are held after a competitive range determination, the CO will conclude those discussions and each offeror, still within the competitive range, shall be given an opportunity to submit a Final Proposal Revision by a common cutoff date and time, as established by the PCO (see FAR 15.307(b)). If the additional information, submitted timely, establishes technical acceptability, it shall be so rated. Otherwise, the proposal shall be rated technically unacceptable.

12. Additionally, if no offers are rated technically acceptable, the CO has the discretion to cancel the Solicitation in lieu of conducting discussions. In this case, the Government is under no obligation to release a new Solicitation.

EVALUATION FACTORS

Proposals will be evaluated against the following factors/subfactors:

1. Factor 1: TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

(a) Each technical subfactor will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis and assigned a rating on whether the proposal meets the solicitation requirements. Extra credit will not be assigned for exceeding the acceptable/unacceptable subfactor criteria. A rating of "Acceptable" will be required in all subfactors to be eligible for award.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATINGS

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

The following subfactors will be evaluated to determine technical acceptability:

(1) Subfactor 1: Technical Proposal Questionnaires (TPQs)

a. Description: Offerors shall complete the TPQs.

b. Measure of Merit: This subfactor is met when the offeror provides completed TPQs in accordance with FAR 52.212-01, as tailored within this solicitation and the responses demonstrate capabilities to provide mandatory requirements set forth in the Cover Purchase Description (PD) and all Appendices.

(2) Subfactor 2: Commercial Literature/Cut Sheets

a. Description: Offerors shall provide commercial literature/cut sheets that depict/describe the specific equipment that will be provided.

b. Measure of Merit: This subfactor is met when the literature/cut sheets are provided in accordance with FAR 52.212-01, as tailored within this solicitation and thoroughly describe/depict the characteristics of the specific equipment required to meet the requirements of the PD and Appendices and the methodology proposed.

(3) Subfactor 3: Proposed Schedule

a. Description: Offerors shall provide their proposed methodology and schedule for accomplishing the objectives in the Cover PD and Appendices.

b. Measure of Merit: This subfactor is met when the proposed schedule depicts a logical progression of defined objectives, events, and submittals and have included steps which are relevant and required to complete the work in accordance with the delivery schedule contained in Section F and FAR 52.212-01, as tailored within this solicitation.

2. Factor 2: PRICE

(a) A proposal's Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be determined by the sum of all separately priced CLINs (except the Data CLIN) as presented on the SF 1449 and the Summary Pricing Sheet. If separate CLIN prices AND a TEP (as applicable) are not included, or are not clearly stated, miscalculated and/or understandable, the offer will be rejected as non-responsive.

(b) The contract proposal prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it shall represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.

(c) CLIN prices will be evaluated for balance. Unbalanced pricing is grounds for rejection of a proposal.

Per FAR 15.404-1(g), 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 will analyze each offeror's proposed price for each contract line item for balance to determine if the proposed contract line item price is significantly over or understated. The Government will use the Independent Government Cost Estimate and similar historical acquisitions (in lieu of price realism analysis) to determine if each proposed contract line item price is significantly over or understated.