Atch_10_52.212-2_section_final.pdf

FA9301-19-R-A013 SOLICITATION ATTACHMENT 10

52.212-2 -- Evaluation -- Commercial Items (Oct 2014)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

(i) Price

(ii) Technical Capability

(iii) Past Performance

*Past Performance is significantly more important than Price when being evaluated.

(b) The Government will evaluate an offeror’s Mission-Essential Contractor Services Plan and Government Property Plan on a Technically Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. See FAR 52.212-2 Addendum.

(c) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of the option shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option. If, after award, the contract is extended in accordance with FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, then the contract price for the extension will equal the last year’s pricing.

(d) 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 TO FAR 52.212-2

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 higher than price. By submission of its offer in accordance with the instructions provided in FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors, the offeror accedes to the terms of this model contract and all such offerors shall be treated equally except for their prices, technical submissions, and performance records. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined non-responsive. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

A. Price Evaluation. Offers will initially be ranked according to price (lowest to highest), including the option. The offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in the Pricing Schedule by the unit price for each item to confirm the extended amount for each. The evaluation will begin with the lowest priced offer being evaluated for technical capability.

B. Technical Requirement.

Subfactor 1: Mission-Essential Contractor Services Plan The Government will evaluate that the offeror adequately addressed the elements outlined in paragraph 3 (items A-F) of the plan template (Attachment 3 to the RFP). This requirement is met if the offeror’s plan reflects a sound, logical, and detailed approach to the performance of mission-essential services during a time of emergency crisis. Submission of a plan does not guarantee an acceptable/unacceptable rating. Offerors will be assigned a technical rating as outlined in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table A-1. If the plan is found technically unacceptable, proposal evaluation stops and the Government will begin evaluating the proposal of the next higher-priced offeror. If the plan is found technically acceptable, the offeror’s Government Property Plan (Technical Subfactor 2) will be evaluated.

Subfactor 2: Contractor’s Government Property Plan The Government will evaluate that the offeror adequately addressed the elements outlined in plan guidelines (Attachment 4 to the RFP, paragraph (c)(3)(i-vi)). This requirement is met if the offeror’s plan reflects a sound and logical approach to managing Government property.

Submission of a plan does not guarantee an acceptable/unacceptable rating. Offerors will be assigned a technical rating as outlined in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table A-1. If the plan is found technically unacceptable, proposal evaluation stops and the Government will begin evaluating the proposal of the next higher-priced offeror. If the plan is found technically acceptable, the offeror’s Past Performance will be evaluated.

Table A-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Rating Description Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

C. Past Performance.

1. 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 solicitation, based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance. Past Performance regarding predecessor companies or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement (as set forth in the FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors) will be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. If choosing to use key personnel submissions for past performance purposes, (as set forth in the FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors) will be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence defined in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5.

2. The Contracting Officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information on the lowest-priced offer based on (1) the reference provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. Relevant present/past performance efforts are those that involve a similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities required by this solicitation. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to supply the wastewater treatment services that meet the end user’s needs based on the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance.

a. Recent: Ongoing contracts (a minimum of six (6) months is required to be considered current) with a performance history and contracts completed within five (5) years from the issue date of this solicitation (see SF 1449 Block 6).

b. Relevant: Includes performance of efforts involving wastewater treatment plant operations and maintenance services involving a similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities required by this solicitation (see DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4 and the solicitation Relevancy Definitions, Chart A).

3. The Government will evaluate the quality and extent of an offeror’s performance deemed recent and relevant to the requirements of this solicitation. Past performance efforts will be evaluated on relevancy and assigned a relevancy rating as outlined in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4 (below). Current performance will generally have greater impact in the performance assessment than recent performance. Performance that is more recent will usually have more impact than less recent performance. Past performance information that is found to be neither current nor recent will not be evaluated. Higher relevancy will be assessed for contracts that are most similar to the effort, or portion of the effort, for which that Contractor is being proposed (i. e., contracts performed on Federal or State Facilities located in the state of California will be given a higher relevancy rating). The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. 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 solicitation. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing current or recent and relevant contracts (note: the items listed in the “Assessment Area” column are listed in descending order of importance):

Chart A. Relevancy Definitions Assessment Area Very Relevant Relevant Somewhat

Relevant Not Relevant

Scope of work -Operates, maintains, and repairs minimum Class III WWTP and Class IV or V Activated Sludge Tertiary WWTP and pumping systems that generate and distribute reclaimed water -Performs repair or replacement projects

-Operates, maintains, and repairs Class IV or V Tertiary WWTP and pumping systems that generate and distribute reclaimed water

-Operates, maintains, and repairs Class IV WWTP and pumping systems

-Performs repair or replacement projects

Magnitude/Complexity -Water treatment facility over 2 million gallon permitted capacity daily -Contract amount greater than or equal to $500K annual operation

-Water treatment facility 1-2 million gallon permitted capacity daily -Contract amount greater than or equal to $200K- $499K annual operation

-Water treatment facility under 1 million gallon permitted capacity daily -Contract amount greater than or equal to $100K- $199K annual operation

Contract Type Firm-Fixed Priced contract, Fixed-Price with Incentive or Award Fee Contracts

Time and Materials contract, Labor Hour Contract

Cost Reimbursement contract

Contract Environment/Location of Performance

Contract performance on a CA military facility

Contract performance on a CA state, county, or municipal facility or military facility in any other state

Contract performance on an industrial complex servicing more than 10,000 people; state, county, or municipal facility in any other state

Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition Very Relevant Present/Past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/Past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/Past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/Past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

4. The Government will also consider the performance quality of relevant efforts that are recent. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition. That quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, and CPARS information. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government.

The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of correction actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

a. Quality Assessment: The performance quality of EACH recent and relevant effort (how well the contractor performed on the contracts) will be assessed and result in a Quality Assessment Rating.

Table 4 A, Performance Quality Assessment

Quality Assessment Rating

Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E) During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

GOOD (G) During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered.

Contractor took timely corrective action.

SATISFACTORY (S) During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL (M) During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

UNSATISFACTORY(U) During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or fail) to meet most contract requirements.

Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

NOT APPLICABLE (N) Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

5. Overall Performance Confidence Assessment: As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment Rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence. The performance confidence assessment ratings are outlined in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5.

6. If the lowest priced evaluated offer is judged to have a Substantial Confidence performance 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 offers. If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until and offeror is judged to have a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment or until all offerors are evaluated. The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision. The Government reserves the right to seek information on higher priced offerors if none of the lower priced offerors receives a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment. The Government could also award to

Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessments Adjectival Rating Description Substantial Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence

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

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

the lowest priced “Satisfactory Confidence” offeror if no offeror receives a performance rating of “Substantial Confidence.”

D. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors –Commercial Items. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) 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.

E. The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors in accordance with FAR 52.212-1(g), Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items, Contract Award. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exception in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

52.212-2 -- Evaluation -- Commercial Items (Oct 2014)