Attachment 2 Evaluation -Commercial Items.pdf

ATTACHMENT 2

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212‐02 EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JAN 1999)

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing offerors’ past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than cost or price considerations. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. All technically acceptable offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

A. Price Evaluation. Initially, offers shall be ranked according to price, excluding any option prices if applicable. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified on page 2 of the RFP by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) to confirm the extended amount for each. When applicable, the price evaluation adjustment for HUBZone small business concerns will be applied in accordance with FAR 52.219‐4, Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns, to arrive at an evaluated price. The price evaluation will document the reasonableness and affordability of the proposed total evaluated price.

B. Technical Acceptability. Next, the government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals submitted on a pass/fail basis, assigning a rating of Acceptable, Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable or Unacceptable. The proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactors:

a. ISO 9001:2008 certification for the repair of turbo‐machinery and associated equipment – The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal to ensure the offeror has current ISO certification for the repair of turbo‐machinery and associated equipment, and that work will be conducted in accordance with procedures identified in the ISO certification process.

b. Level II non destructive testing certification – The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal to ensure the offeror can provide nondestructive testing (NDT) by a Level II magnetic particle and ultrasonic testing certified inspector as required in the statement of work.

C. Performance Confidence Assessment. Using questionnaires, the contracting officer shall seek relevant performance information on the three technically acceptable lowest priced offerors based on

(1) the past and present efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources. The government reserves the right to seek information on higher priced offerors if none of the lower priced offerors receive a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment.

D. Relevant performance is defined as fabricating, refurbishing, and balancing of 9‐stage axial compressor rotors, with volumetric flowrate of 275,000 CFM (minimum) and discharge temperatures of 450 degrees F (minimum) that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in this Request for Proposal (RFP), based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence, as defined in AFFARS MP5315.3, Table 3, listed below:

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the require effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort

Unknown Confidence No performance record is identifiable or the offeror’s performance record is so spars that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned

Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be considered as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history shall receive the rating “Unknown Confidence”, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

E. In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFP.

F. If the lowest priced evaluated technically acceptable offer is judged to have a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment, that offer represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offerors.

G. If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment, the next lowest priced offeror’s past performance will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror is judged to have a Substantial Confidence performance assessment or until all offerors are evaluated. The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

H. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in the proposal preparation instructions (Attachment 1). Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

I. The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.