RFP_Atch_5_-_FAR_52.212-2_FINAL.pdf

FA9451-18-R-0023

Attachment 5

FAR 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:

Technical Past Performance

Price

Technical and past performance, when combined, are more important than price.

(b) 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. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) 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, Evaluation – Commercial Items

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This section defines the criteria the Government will consider in its evaluation of an offeror’s proposal submitted for the Phillips Research Site (PRS) Technical Library Services (TLS) acquisition. This is a 100% 8(a) small business set-aside competitive acquisition. The applicable NAICS is 519120, Size Standard $15M. The Government’s intent is to award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose proposal represents the best value in accordance with the factors of this solicitation. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical, Past Performance, and Price. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and it is reasonably determined that the technical and/or past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference. The agency reserves the right to award to a lower priced offeror, with acceptable or higher technical and past performance ratings. Award may be made without discussions with the offeror(s). The Government intends to award one contract, or to not award any contracts, depending on the quality of proposals submitted and availability of funds. No partial awards will be made. The offeror’s proposal shall be composed of the completed Technical and Request for Proposal & Contract Documentation volumes. Responses to any additional information requests from the Government will also be evaluated.

1.1 Compliance with Terms and Conditions

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information in the format specified in the proposal preparation instructions located in FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors -- Commercial Items and addendum. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being removed from consideration for award.

Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation’s terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale in appropriate volumes in addition to the Contract Documentation volume.

2.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

This acquisition is a competitive acquisition and will result in a commercial contract in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is deemed most advantageous to the Government, based upon an integrated assessment using the evaluation criteria, and who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.5 and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements.

The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by FAR 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors – Commercial Items and addendum. While the Government Evaluation Team will strive for maximum objectivity, the evaluation process, by its nature, is subjective, therefore; professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is evaluated as the most advantageous to the Government. The Government will evaluate proposals based upon the following factors in descending order of importance:

• Factor 1: Technical o Sub-factor 1: Key Personnel o Sub-factor 2: Management Approach

• Factor 2: Past Performance

• Factor 3: Price

Technical and Past Performance, when combined, are more important than price. (Reference 52.212.-2, Evaluation-Commercial Items)

3.1 Evaluation of Factors

3.1.1 In arriving at the best value decision, the Government will do the following:

(a) Factor 1 will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. Sub-factors are listed in descending order of importance, with sub-factor 1 being more important that sub-factor 2. The offeror must receive an acceptable rating in both sub-factors to receive an overall acceptable technical rating. Unacceptable technical proposals will be eliminated. See Table 1 for the technical ratings definitions.

(b) The Government will evaluate offerors that receive an acceptable rating for Factor 1 for past performance on an acceptable/unacceptable basis, assigning ratings of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” in accordance with the ratings described in Table 2.

(c) The Government will conduct a price evaluation of only the proposals that received acceptable rating in Factors 1 (Technical) and 2 (Past Performance). The price evaluation will document the reasonableness of the proposed total evaluated price including option prices and the six month extension.

(d) Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is evaluated as most advantageous to the Government based on the stated evaluation factors. The Government will not make an award at a price premium it considers disproportionate to the benefits associated with the evaluated superiority of one technical proposal over another.

3.2 Factor 1: Technical

Each offeror’s technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the sub-factors below to determine at what level the offeror:

(a) meets the minimum requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS); and

(b) demonstrates a thorough knowledge, understanding, and approach to meeting those PWS requirements.

Technical proposals will be rated in accordance with Table 1 below:

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and is unawardable.

3.2.1 Sub-factor One: Key Personnel

The Government will evaluate the resumes provided by each offeror against the minimum requirements identified in Table 3.2.1 below and will assign a rating in accordance with the definitions in Table 1.

Table 3.2.1 – Minimum Qualifications

Position

Required Degree

Experience

Additional Qualification Information

On-site Contractor Program Management (The person filling this position will also perform Librarian tasks)

Master’s Degree in Library Science

3 years of experience post-graduate professional experience to include the performance, supervision, and management of one or more major functional areas of librarianship

None

Reference, Research, Cataloging

Master’s Degree in Library Science

1 year experience in scientific and technical reference work including online databases, On-Line Computer Library Center (OCLC) systems, search and retrieval, bibliographic instruction, and all aspects of bibliographic control of a technical library collection with emphasis on digital competencies

None

Archivist

Bachelor’s degree in Archival Science;

1 year experience in archival science, or in a directly related field of work such as history that involved the collection, appraisal, analysis, or synthesis of information having historical or archival value. Specialized experience must demonstrate the following: technical work in accessioning, May substitute for Bachelor’s Degree in Archival Science:

- Bachelor's degree with a major that includes 18 semester hours in archival science, history and/or in political science or government AND an additional 12 semester hours in one or any combination arranging, describing, preserving, using, and disposing of archives, obsolete records, and related material kept in the archives;

of the following:

archival science, history, American civilization, economics, political science, public administration, or government; OR

- Combination of education and experience with at least 30 semester hours that included courses as shown above, plus appropriate experience or additional education

3.2.2 Sub-factor Two: Management Approach

The Government will evaluate the proposed management approach and will assign a rating in accordance with the definitions in Table 1. The Government will assess the quality and extent of the offeror’s Quality Control Plan and the program management approach as they relate to the PWS sections 3.1.5 through 3.1.5.4 and 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.4, and 3.1.6.

3.2.3 Technical Ratings

One technical rating will be assigned to each technical sub-factor. In order for a technical proposal to be considered awardable, the offeror must receive an acceptable rating for each sub-factor.

3.3 Factor 2: Past Performance

Proposals that received an acceptable rating for Factor 1 will be evaluated for past performance on an acceptable/unacceptable basis as defined in Table 2 below. The Government may obtain past performance information from established systems such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and/or other data bases; and may be obtained from other sources available to the Government, such as the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials.

TABLE 2 – ACCEPTABILITY RATINGS

Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.*

Unacceptable

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

* Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

3.3.1 Confidentiality of Performance Information

Past performance information, including CPARS, questionnaires, etc., is confidential and is not to be released to anyone outside the Government source selection process. Offerors are cautioned that contacting or seeking out source(s) of past performance information is strictly prohibited.

Any attempts to influence past performance ratings will be perceived negatively and could impact the overall performance rating. Any questions should be addressed directly to the CO only and not to any other individual(s). Offerors are responsible for ensuring that all their subcontractors and teaming partners are aware of this information and are in compliance.

3.4 Factor 3: Price

3.4.1 Price Evaluation: Proposals that received acceptable ratings for Factors 1 and 2 will be evaluated to determine if the proposed prices are reasonable and balanced. The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) consists of the base year and the four option years. Additionally, the 6-month extension in accordance with FAR clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, is also considered part of this overall evaluation.

Proposed prices for all contract periods will be evaluated for reasonableness, which may be determined based on prices submitted by the competition, historical pricing, current market conditions, comparison to similar services in the industry, the Independent Government Estimate or and/or any reasonable basis in accordance with FAR 13.106-3(a). The Government may require submission of information other than cost or pricing data to the extent necessary to evaluate price reasonableness.

Proposals will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable Total Evaluated Price, the price of one or more contract line items or subline item(s) appear to be significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. An offeror’s proposal may be rejected if the CO determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

If the proposal analysis techniques listed above are insufficient to make a determination of price reasonableness, or if the CO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, the CO may request submission of other than certified cost or pricing data and may use other proposal analysis techniques as described in FAR 13.106-3(a), to the extent necessary, in order to make a determination of price reasonableness.

The contract will include FAR clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services with the potential to extend the contract an additional 6 months beyond the awarded contract performance period. The pricing for the 6-month extension will be evaluated at time of award. In the event the Government requires continued performance, the Government’s evaluation of proposed prices will be considered fair and reasonable as applied to an extension of services. Should an extension of services be required, the rates will only be adjusted as a result of revisions to applicable prevailing Department of Labor wage rates. Evaluating the option CLINs does not obligate the Government to exercise options.

3.4.2 Prime offerors are permitted to propose whatever mix (prime vs. subcontractor) they choose provided the offeror meets the requirements of FAR 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting. To meet the requirements of FAR 52.219-14, the offeror must meet the required 50% percentage. The offeror shall provide a table indicating which positions will be held by prime contractor employees and subcontractor employees and provide the percentage of work each will perform over the life of the contract (base, four option years, and 6-month extension).

3.5 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale in the cover letter located in the Request for Proposal & Contract Documentation volume (Vol. II).

(End of Provision)