Attch_4_-_Beale_CSA_Addendum_to_FAR_52.212-2.docx

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0. Evaluation.

1.1. Basis for Contract Award. Award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of quotes meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for the technical factors stated in the Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-1. All quotes shall be evaluated for technical acceptability. Failure to meet a requirement may result in a quote being determined technically unacceptable. Technical tradeoffs will not be made, and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. Award will be made to the offeror who: is rated “Acceptable” in Factor 1 Technical; has the lowest evaluated price; and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by this solicitation).

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The Government intends to select one contractor for this acquisition. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

1.3. Rejection of Offers. The Government may reject any evaluated proposal that fails to adequately address a significant portion of the requirement or contract terms and conditions.

1.4. Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions). Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements such as: terms and conditions; representations and certifications; PWS requirements; and those identified as factors and subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offeror shall take no exception to the solicitation requirements.

2.0. Evaluation Factors

2.1. Evaluation Factors Used To Evaluate. Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below:

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Provider Capability Subfactor 2: Local Communication Services Subfactor 3: Evidence of Agreements Factor 2: Price

2.1.1. Evaluation Methodology. The Government will evaluate all factors concurrently for all proposals. Only those offerors determined to be technically acceptable will be considered for award. Award will be made to the lowest evaluated priced proposal meeting the acceptability standards for Factor 1, who has been determined responsible and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by this solicitation).

2.2. Factor 1 – Technical

Each subfactor within the technical factor will receive one of the ratings described below based on the criteria listed below. Individual subfactor ratings will be used to determine the overall technical acceptability of each offeror. To be determined technically acceptable at the factor level, the Offeror must be rated acceptable in each subfactor. A single deficiency within a subfactor will result in an unacceptable rating for that subfactor. A final unacceptable subfactor assessment will determine an overall technical unacceptable rating. The technical ratings are defined as follows:

2.2.1. Subfactor 1: Provider Capability

a. This subfactor is met when the Offeror provides a capabilities statement to include evidence of being a telecommunications company which has the ability to deliver Direct Inward Dial (DID) and Primary Rate Interfaces (PRI) at the Government demarcation point at the site specified in the PWS Appendix 1, Paragraphs 5.2 and 5.4.3.

2.2.2. Subfactor 2: Local Communication Services

This subfactor is met when the Offeror submits a sound approach for supporting local communication services in a detailed Beale AFB, CA diagram and descriptive legend. The diagram and legend should clearly illustrate the Offeror’s capability to meet all PWS and site-specific Appendix 1 requirements. Reference the PWS Appendix 1, para. 5.13 Diagram 1, “Traditional Legacy" and Diagram 2, “Utilizing SIP Trunking", or Offerors may use a combination of both attachments to submit the Offeror’s diagram. Provide the requested diagram and legend using these formats or a similar format.

2.2.3. Subfactor 3: Evidence of Agreements

This subfactor is met when the Offeror states whether your company is providing a quote as a Local Exchange Carrier (LEC) or Competitive Local Exchange Carrier (CLEC). If providing a quote as a CLEC for ANY and/or ALL services, provide documented evidence of all interconnection agreements and/or leasing arrangements relevant to this effort.

2.3. Factor 2 – Price

2.3.1. Price Reasonableness. The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. Analysis of price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 13.106-3, SAP “Award and Documentation”, in order to determine price reasonableness. Reasonableness must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is based on competitive quotations or offers, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 13.106-3.

2.3.2. Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with FAR 52.212-1 Addendum pricing instructions. Table1 below will demonstrate the TEP calculation methodology.

Proposed pricing evaluated as the TEP is required IAW with the following format:

TOTAL PRICE FOR BASE PERIOD

TOTAL PRICE FOR OPTION YEAR (OY) 1

TOTAL PRICE FOR OY 2

TOTAL PRICE FOR OY 3

TOTAL PRICE FOR OY 4

TOTAL PRICE FOR 6 MONTH EXTENSION

TEP = (BASE + 4 OYS + 6 MONTH EXT)

The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the offeror’s proposed prices for 12-month Base Period (to include cut-over), four one-year Option Periods, and an optional six month Extension Period IAW FAR 52.217-8 “Option to Extend the Term of the Contract.” The six month Extension Period unit prices shall be based on the proposed OY 4 unit prices. The six month Extension Period under FAR 52.217-8 will only be utilized if necessary. TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The six month Extension Period is not to be considered part of OY 4 and will be a separate option exercise if it is utilized.