25QE016_52.212-2.pdf

52.212-2 ADDENDUM, EVALUATION—COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES (NOV

2021)

Addendum to Paragraph (a). Paragraph (a) is changed to read as follows:

Submission of Offers.

The Government intends to award a single Firm-Fixed Price (FFP), Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to the Offeror’s quote that represents the best value to the Government. This acquisition will be conducted in accordance with FAR Parts 12 and 13, utilizing a comparative analysis approach of price and other factors, (e.g., past performance and quality) as outlined in FAR Subpart 13.106-1. At the Contracting Officer’s discretion, one or more, but not necessarily all, of the evaluation procedures in FAR 15 may be used. In addition, any potential awardee will need to be deemed responsible in accordance with requirements of FAR Part 9.

The Government reserves the right to not consider for award, any quote that does not adhere to the administrative requirements outlined in Addendum 52.212-1 Instruction to Offerors. By submission of its quote, the Offeror agrees to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. Failure to meet a requirement may result in a quote being determined unacceptable for award.

Failure to meet a requirement may render a quote ineligible for award consideration. Offerors shall clearly identify, in writing, any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide a complete rationale for the Government’s consideration of each exception taken. Rationale to exceptions shall state the document, item number, paragraph number, page number, etc. where the term appears.

To make the best value award decision, the Government will evaluate the following three (3) Factors and associated Subfactors for each proposal:

1. Factor 1- Technical Capability

• Subfactor 1 – Personnel List

• Subfactor 2 – Personnel Action Plan

2. Factor 2-Past Performance

3. Factor 3-Price

The relative importance of the evaluation factors is as follows: Technical Capability (Factor 1) is of equal importance as Past Performance (Factor 2). Technical Capability (Factor 1) and Past Performance (Factor 2), when combined, are more important than Price (Factor 3). All Technical Capability (Factor 1) Subfactors are of equal importance. The complete evaluation criteria are outlined below:

Evaluation Factors:

Factor 1: Technical Capability

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to determine whether their quote meets or exceeds the requirements outlined in the Evaluation Factors.

The Factor 1 quote shall provide sufficient information for the Government to assess the Offeror’s capability to successfully perform the requirement in accordance with the Evaluation Factors.

The Government will evaluate the following Subfactors as follows:

Subfactor 1 – Personnel List

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s completed Attachment 1 “Personnel” to ensure it will meet or exceed the requirements specified in the PWS (Attachment 4).

To receive an acceptable rating, the Offeror’s quote shall meet the following criteria:

• Complete Attachment 1 “Personnel”

• Propose any qualified employees in the Personnel List tab in Attachment 1 “Personnel” (PWS paragraph

2.1 to include subparagraphs) that will be available to properly officiate track and field meets.

The Government will evaluate to determine if the following criteria were met for all proposed personnel:

Officials

• Training Compliance: The contractor must ensure that all officials are trained in accordance with the rules and policies established by the National Federation of High Schools (NFHS).

• Online Training Completion: Officials must complete the required online NFHS training prior to officiating.

• Testing Requirements: Officials must pass the associated NFHS tests with a minimum score of 75% before officiating.

Contract Manager, Alternate Contract Manager, Meet Director, and Head Official

• Speaks, reads, write, and understands English (PWS 3.2.3)

The additional credentials listed below may be considered strengths by the Government.

• Speaks, reads, and writes in the Host Nation and English languages.

Proposed personnel do not need to be fully trained at contract award; however, all training is required to be completed by 15 March 2025.

NOTES: An Offeror will not receive a deficiency rating for not having the required training listed above at the time of submission of proposals. However, any indication that an Offeror’s proposed personnel will not have the required credentials by 15 March 2025 will be a deficiency in the Offeror’s proposal.

The Government will use Attachment 1 “Personnel” to assess if the total number of technically acceptable personnel listed on Tab “Personnel List” are sufficient.

Subfactor 2 – Personnel Action Plan

For the Personnel Action Plan, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed recruitment and retention approach for accomplishing the PWS requirements and the terms and conditions of the contract. The Offeror’s Personnel Action Plan will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror has developed a strategy to mitigate potential personnel risks. At a minimum, the Offeror shall address how they will:

• Recruit for the requisite personnel in accordance with the PWS requirements

• Plan to backfill personnel in performance of the contract to ensure uninterrupted services

• Retain qualified and skilled personnel (e.g., compensation, bonuses, recognition, awards, career development programs, etc.)

If an Offeror has one or more deficiencies in their rating, the Government maintains the right to rate the proposal as unacceptable. However, if the Government chooses to enter discussions, an Offeror within the competitive range may be given the opportunity to address any deficiency.

Factor 1 and all Subfactors will be rated in accordance with the following Adjectival Rating Method:

Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

• Acceptable: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

• Unacceptable: Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

A rating of “Unacceptable” for any Subfactor will result in the proposal being deemed Technically Unacceptable and not eligible for contract award.

Factor 2: Past Performance.

Past Performance will be evaluated as a measure of the government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform based on previous and current contracts. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in providing services that meet the contract’s requirements. The Government will evaluate the information collected to include but is not limited to responses received from Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) and Attachment 2 Past Performance Proposal, to determine the quality of the Offeror’s overall record of recent and relevant past performance.

A performance confidence assessment rating will be assigned to each Offeror after reviewing recent and relevant past performance information. A performance confidence rating will be based on the following rating method:

Performance Confidence Assessment

Adjectival Rating Description

• 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.

• 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.

In assessing the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements, the Offeror’s evaluation and Overall Rating of Recency, Relevancy and Quality of the Offeror’s Past Performance will be based on the following ratings methods:

Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent according to the following:

Past Performance Recency Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

• Recent: The effort must be ongoing or must have been completed within the last three (3) years by the closing date and time of this solicitation.

• Not Recent: The effort has been completed for more than three (3) years by the closing date and time of this solicitation.

Relevancy Assessment. The Government will determine how relevant the effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the solicitation. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s assessment of relevancy. To be relevant, the Offeror must demonstrate that their performance involved similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities this solicitation requires.

Scope: Refers to the type of work performed in the Offeror’s past performance reference when compared to the type of work required in this solicitation. The type of work required is for sports officiating services.

Magnitude of effort: Refers to the size (e.g., currency/dollar amount, personnel,) of an Offeror’s past performance reference. The Offeror’s past performance reference will be compared to the Government’s estimated amount to perform the work required in the PWS.

Complexity: Refers to the level of complication of an Offeror’s past performance reference. The level of complexity will be compared to the Government’s estimated complexity level.

Relevancy will be rated in accordance with the following Rating method:

Past Performance Relevancy

Adjectival Rating Description

• Relevant : Present/past performance effort involved similar 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.

Quality Assessment. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment.

The government will consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to an individual contract basis when assigning a confidence rating. In addition to past performance information submitted by the contractor, past performance information may be obtained from Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), the System for Award Management (SAM), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA); and interviews with Program Manager, Contracting Officers, or other sources known to the government.

In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those individual contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation. The Government also reserves the right to give greater consideration to an individual Offeror’s past performance information rather than the combined past performance information of an Offeror and its associates using teaming arrangements.

Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that a past performance rating cannot be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and as a result, will receive a “Neutral” rating for the Past Performance factor.

However, the Government reserves the right to determine that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best value analysis.

If the Government chooses to enter into discussions, Offerors will be provided with an opportunity to address any adverse past performance information not previously addressed. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information which supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation aspect or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

The Government may reject a quote if it is found that the Offeror deleted, misrepresented, or withheld any information that might have a negative impact on its past performance record.

Factor 3: Price

This factor will not be assigned a rating. However, the Offeror’s proposal, using Attachment 3, will be evaluated to determine if it is fair and reasonable in accordance with the techniques and procedures stated in FAR Subpart 13.106-3.

In addition, the Government reserves the right to conduct a Price Realism analysis to determine whether a low-price was offered due to a lack of technical understanding, or to assess the inherent risk of the Offeror’s low-priced quote.

If the Price Realism analysis reveals that the low-priced offer was caused by a lack of technical understanding or the inherent risk of the low-priced offer is deemed too great, a quote can be rejected.

(b) Addendum to Paragraph (b). Paragraph (b) is changed to read as follows:

Evaluation of Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the base period. The Offeror shall submit pricing for the base period and all option periods. 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).

To account for the option period(s) possible under FAR 52.217-8 (maximum six months) Option to Extend Services, the Government has provided a table within Attachment 3, labeled “FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services.” The Offeror shall provide a Unit Price for each CLIN Description. If the Government decides to exercise the option under FAR 52.217-8 in an option period other than the last option year, then the rate proposed for the last year performance was completed will be used.

(End of Addendum to FAR 52.212-2)