FAR 52.212-2 Addendum.pdf

Addendum to FAR 52.212-4, Evaluation

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and Subpart 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. Tradeoffs may be made between past performance price, with past performance considered significantly more important than price. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in Paragraph II below. Contract terms and conditions consistent with customary commercial practices are specified in the solicitation/contract, with otherwise tailored terms and conditions specified in the Addendum to the solicitation/contract.

II. Proposal Evaluation

A. General

1. Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

2. Completed RFP: Offerors are cautioned to submit all required 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.

B. Past Performance Factor

1. General: The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture members’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered.

2. Past Performance Assessment: The Government will conduct a past performance evaluation that examines an offeror’s recent and relevant past performance record to assess the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to perform as proposed. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy and quality.

a) Recency: For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation.

b) Relevancy: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent four (4) submitted contracts. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s proposal:

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.

Very Relevant: The effort must have included at least 7 of the following 9 aspects:

- Cooking and serving a variety of meals

- Serving a minimum of 8,000 meals per month

- Providing daily meal service to include weekends and holidays

- Cashier services and related accounting procedures

- Repair/maintenance of kitchen equipment

- Cleaning/housekeeping and sanitation services

- Experience with providing on-site management

- Following standardized menus/procedures

- Providing alternative meal offerings, such as boxed lunches, in addition to standard menu

Relevant: The effort must have included at least 6 of the following 9 aspects:

- Serving a minimum of 8,000 meals per month

- Providing daily meal service to include weekends and holidays

- Cashier services and related accounting procedures

- Repair/maintenance of kitchen equipment

- Cleaning/housekeeping and sanitation services

- Experience with providing on-site management

- Following standardized menus/procedures

- Providing alternative meal offerings, such as boxed lunches, in addition to standard menu

Somewhat Relevant: The effort must have included at least 4 of the following 9 aspects:

- Serving a minimum of 8,000 meals per month

- Providing daily meal service to include weekends and holidays

- Cashier services and related accounting procedures

- Repair/maintenance of kitchen equipment

- Cleaning/housekeeping and sanitation services

- Experience with providing on-site management

- Following standardized menus/procedures

- Providing alternative meal offerings, such as boxed lunches, in addition to standard menu

NOTE: Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the above definitions not only includes the technical complexities identified for each effort, but also the programmatic and logistical considerations including but not limited to length of effort and dollar values. When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical complexities, and the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort as separate aspects.

If both of these aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract effort, the overall relevancy rating assigned to that contract will be affected. For example, if the submitted contract meets essentially the same technical complexities, but involves only some of the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, a lesser relevancy rating may be assigned.

In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

c) Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance proposal. Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as

Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

d) Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror/joint venture member has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

e) Critical Subcontractors: The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture members’ present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any subcontractor(s) even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

f) Key Personnel: The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture members’ present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any key personnel even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

3. Ordering Type Contracts Submission: In an ordering type contractual vehicle, performance is demonstrated at the order level (i.e. a delivery/task order). Therefore, in accordance with FAR 52.212-1, Information to Offerors, if the contract you are submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, including but not limited to an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), the offeror should have submitted an individual delivery/task order (or series of orders) for evaluation, in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. The Government shall use the information submitted for each order (or series of orders) to evaluate the effort’s recency, relevancy, and quality.

3.1 Series of Orders: If a series of orders was submitted for evaluation, in lieu of the basic ordering contract, the offeror should provide the total dollar value and total period of performance. The Government shall add up all total dollar values in the series of orders to arrive at a Total Dollar Value for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation. In addition, the Government shall add up the period of performance of each order to calculate the Total Period of Performance for the series of orders to be used in the evaluation.

The Total Dollar Value and Total Period of Performance for the series of orders will be used to evaluate the submitted effort’s programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, as described in Paragraph II.B.2. The technical complexities along with the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort and complexities will be evaluated to arrive at a Relevancy Rating for the effort. The more orders in the series of orders, the higher the potential programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort could be.

Caution: All orders, within the series of orders being submitted, should contain the same continuous technical scope. These orders, within the series of orders should demonstrate relevance to the instant acquisition. The Government reserves the right to request additional information from the offeror of Points of Contact provided, in order to verify that the series of orders is for the same continuous technical scope.

4. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The ratings are as follows:

Adjectival Rating Definition 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 a reasonable 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.

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 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 is 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 past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral”. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

5. Small Business Compliance in Past Performance Efforts: Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated the offeror’s/joint venture members’ compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, when these clauses were contained in the submitted contracts.

On the four (4) respective contracts submitted for evaluation by the offeror/joint venture, when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the offeror/joint venture member award subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. Please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL offerors, whereas FAR 52.219-9 only applies to large businesses.

If none of the contracts submitted by the offeror/joint venture members included these clauses, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror/joint venture member’s policy to utilize small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

C. Price Proposal Factor: The offeror’s proposed price will be evaluated for Reasonableness, Balance, and Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

1. Reasonableness: Proposed prices for all contract periods will be evaluated for reasonableness.

Adequate price competition is expected to support the determination of reasonableness. The price analysis techniques listed at FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) may be utilized to further validate price reasonableness. If the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition does not exists, the Contracting Officer may request submission of other than certified cost or pricing data and may use other proposal analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) to the extent necessary, in order to make a determination of price reasonableness.

2. Balance: In accordance with 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 overstated or underestimated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether unbalanced separately priced line items exist. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3. Total Evaluated Price: A TEP will be calculated for evaluation purposes only and used to assist in determining the best value to the Government. Proposals shall be evaluated, for award purposes, based upon the TEP, which consists of the pricing for 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.