ATTCH_8_-_Commercial_Part_52_212-2_Section_M_-_031119_FNL.pdf

RFP Attachment 8, – ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS

(SECTION M)

MULTI-PURPOSE CANINE SERVICE AND SUPPLY

1. EVALUATION CRITERIA

Government intends to issue a single award to the Lowest-Priced Technically Acceptable (LPTA) proposal. The LPTA award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors. The following factors shall be used to evaluate all offers:

Table 1, Evaluation Criteria

Volume 1, Technical Factor 1 Acceptable/Unacceptable

Technical/Management Approach Subfactor 1 Not Assigned Individual Rating Qualifications and Experience of Personnel Subfactor 2 Not Assigned Individual Rating

Volume 2, Past Performance Factor 2 Acceptable/Unacceptable Volume 3, Price Factor 3 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

2. SECURITY QUALIFYING CRITERIA:

Verification of FCL will be conducted by the PCO via review of Volume 2 – Security Qualifying Criteria information provided by the offeror supplemented by records provided by the NSW Command Security Manager. In order to qualify for evaluation under factors 1, 2 and 3, the Government will verify in the Defense Security Service (DSS) Industrial Security Facilities Database (ISFD) whether the Prime offeror possesses an active Secret Facility Clearance (FCL) as of the solicitation closing date. If the offeror lacks such a facility clearance, the offeror will not be evaluated further.

3. FACTOR 1 – Technical: Technical proposals will be evaluated to ensure the offeror understands and meets the requirements of the solicitation in accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and following descriptions of each Technical evaluation factor:

Sub Factor (1), Technical/Management Approach: The Technical/Management

Approach will be evaluated on how well it demonstrates the offeror’s technical knowledge and understanding of the requirements of the PWS and this solicitation; and how well it demonstrates its ability to perform the work through its management capabilities and expertise to successfully perform and manage the tasks in the PWS.

Spec Sub Factor (2), Qualifications and Experience of Personnel: The offeror shall submit a narrative response that clearly demonstrates the requisite qualification and experience of personnel to accomplish the complexity and magnitude of service requirements set forth by the standards of the PWS and Attachment 2 – MPC Support Personnel Qualifications.

SECTION M - Table, Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets or exceeds the requirements of the solicitation Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

4. FACTOR 2 - Past Performance: Evaluation of the Past Performance Factor considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing similar products that meet users’ needs. Past Performance evaluation will focus on how well the offeror performed or is performing on other recent and relevant contracts. For proposed major subcontractors, evaluation will focus solely on work that the subcontractor is proposed to perform under this contract.

a. The Government will conduct a review and evaluation of all performance data obtained and determine if it meets or does not meet the recency criteria outlined in the 52.212-1 Addendum (Section L). All efforts meeting the recency criteria will be assessed for relevancy. For those efforts determined relevant, a performance evaluation will be conducted based on the data gathered by the submitted SF 294/295s or equivalents and CPARS reports as available through the Past Performance Retrieval System (PPIRS). Additionally, if CPARS reports are not available and/or additional information is deemed necessary in order to determine a particular performance rating, the Government may conduct interviews with those references provided in the offeror’s proposal (Past Performance Information Sheets). The Government is not limited to these resources. A performance rating will be established for each of those relevant efforts utilizing the same performance rating definitions contained within the

CPARS.

b. Once all data has been gathered, the Government will assign an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating for Factor 2 considering the offeror’s team’s overall recent/relevant performance record. The ratings with definitions that will be utilized are contained within Table 3 below.

SECTION M - Table, Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method Adjectival 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.

c. 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."

5. Factor 3 - Price: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s price by adding the total Firm-Fixed

Price of delivery/task orders 0001 and 0002 combined to include all option years. Travel costs will not be proposed or evaluated and is not otherwise included in the TEP calculation as the Government intends to use a ‘plug’ amount to be applied on a COST only basis upon award. All proposed prices for the contract will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness, which may be determined based on prices submitted by the competition, historical pricing, current market conditions, comparison to the Independent Government Estimate, and/or other proposal analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1. The inclusion of option prices in arriving at a "total price" does not obligate the Government to exercise all or any part of the options. The Government may reject an offer as materially unbalanced if prices for the basic requirement or prices for the option quantities are unreasonable in comparison to each other. An unbalanced offer or proposal is one that is based on prices significantly less than cost for some work and/or significantly overstated for other work.

The Government may require submission of information other than cost or pricing data to the extent necessary to evaluate price reasonableness. A contract will not be awarded to an offeror whose proposed price is not determined reasonable. PLEASE NOTE: The Pricing Spreadsheet MUST be submitted in MS Excel format for the full 5 year period. Submissions of this Attachment in formats other than MS Excel may be grounds for rejection of offer without further consideration or evaluation.

6. Basis of Award: Award will be made to the offeror that qualifies by passing through the security review, is rated acceptable in technical and past performance, and has the lowest TEP of the competition.

(End of provision)