Healthcare Env Cleaning DRAFT FAR 52.212-2.pdf

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items

Pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 12.301(c), FAR Provision 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Items, Paragraph (a) is replaced in its entirety by addendum as follows:

1. Basis for Contract Award. Multiple awards will be made in response to this solicitation. DHA intends to make awards utilizing subjective tradeoff procedures to the offerors who give DHA the greatest confidence that they will best meet or exceed our requirements. In accordance with FAR 2.101, a qualifying Offeror means an Offeror that is determined to be a responsible source, submits a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, and the Contracting Officer has no reason to believe would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing. This acquisition will be conducted in three phases:

Phase I - Proposal Responsiveness Phase II - Technical Capability Phase III - Past Performance

The Government intends to award without discussions. Therefore, each proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical capability and past performance standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if in the best interest of the Government. If discussions are held, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (EN’s) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in award determination. Clarifications and communication exchanges may be conducted.

The Contracting Officer (CO) may determine that the number of proposals exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted. For the purposes of efficiency, the CO may establish a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals based on evaluation criteria, as stated in FAR 15.306(c).

Task orders will be competed among contract holders based on the work defined in individual Task Order Proposal Requests. DHA reserves the right to re-open this RFP to make additional awards in accordance with the procedures established for On-Ramping and Off-Ramping in Section 1.24 and 1.25 of the PWS.

2. EVALUATION PROCESS The offeror is responsible to verify the proposal and supporting documentation provided meets the requirements of the solicitation.

The evaluation process shall be conducted in three (3) phases, using the following procedures and factors:

2.1 Phase I Evaluation – Proposal Responsiveness.

DHA will confirm the required SF 1449 and applicable SF 30(s) are complete as well as ensure the offeror provided the required information in each volume. DHA will consider an offeror ineligible for award if any volume was not submitted by the required date and time, is incomplete (missing items, signatures, etc.), or does not comply with format requirements.

Non-responsive Failed to address one or more requirements of Proposal

Completeness Responsive Addressed all requirements of Proposal Completeness

2.2 Phase II Evaluation – Technical Capability

All proposals rated Responsive in Phase I will then be evaluated for Phase II (Technical Capability).

a. SubFactor 1 - Procedure Manual. DHA will evaluate an offeror’s Procedure Manual that details cleaning and disinfecting procedures for all Service Levels (1 through 6) that meet or exceed industry and regulatory guidelines as required in the PWS and mandatory publication/regulations. DHA will assign a rating as follows:

Unacceptable Failed to satisfactorily address one or more requirements of the

Procedure Manual Acceptable Satisfactorily addressed all requirements of a Procedure

Manual Outstanding Proposed enhancements, innovative techniques or use of advanced technology in the Procedure Manual that will be of benefit to the DHA.

b. SubFactor 2 - Quality Control Plan – DHA will evaluate the offeror’s Quality

Control Plan to ensure it demonstrates:

Inspection processes to assess completion of services Efficacy of cleaning and disinfecting services Timeliness metrics Clearly detailing customer interactions Reporting procedures for all applicable service levels (Part 5 of the PWS and Part 8, Exhibits)

DHA will assign a rating as follows:

Unacceptable Failed to address one or more requirements of a quality control plan.

Acceptable Satisfactorily addressed all requirements of a quality control plan.

Outstanding Proposed inspection and test procedures above visual inspections to ensure efficacy of completed cleaning and disinfection activities.

Those offerors whose Technical Capability Subfactors I and II are rated Acceptable or higher will continue to Phase III, Past Performance. If Subfactor I or II is deemed unacceptable the offeror will receive an unacceptable rating for the Technical Capability factor. Thus, the CO may discontinue evaluation at this point and the offeror will not be eligible for award.

2.3 Phase III Evaluation – Past Performance.

All proposals rated Acceptable or Outstanding in Phase II will then be evaluated for Phase III (Past Performance) and will be assigned an “Integrated Performance Confidence Assessment” rating.

The Past Performance evaluation considers the Offeror’s past and present work record to assess the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability of successfully performing as proposed. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level, focusing on performance that is relevant to technical capability. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance volume and information obtained from other sources, such as PPIRS or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), interviews with program managers and Contracting Officers, and other known commercial sources. The past performance evaluation will include verification of dates of service for recency and type of work for relevancy. A complete reference as provided by the offeror in Volume III includes: past performance information sheet from the PPI tool (Attachment 2) and saved as a pdf file, a completed Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 3) if no CPARS is available, Consent Letter (Attachment 4) if applicable, and Client Authorization Letter (Attachment

5) if applicable. Only completed references will be evaluated for recency, relevancy and quality of past performance.

a. To be recent, the effort must have been ongoing for at least six (6) months prior to the date this solicitation is issued and must have been in performance within the three (3) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails to meet this recency criteria will not be evaluated.

b. The most relevant contracts will be those that provided HEC services to DoD as outlined below in Table 1. Offerors may not consolidate option periods or individual task orders, GSA, Federal Supply Schedules (FSS), Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPA) or commercial agreements to increase relevancy. To be relevant, the reference should involve similar scope, magnitude and complexity to the solicitation requirements. Therefore, the reference must be for aseptic cleaning and disinfecting services in a medical facility and other provisions as shown in Table 1 below. The Past Performance Evaluation Team (PPET) may not agree with the offeror’s opinion of relevancy.

Table 1 - PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY ASSESSMENT Rating Description

VERY

RELEVANT

Past/present performance effort involved aseptic HEC services:

• Medical Centers or Hospitals with inpatient and specialty patient care services;

• Required all 6 Service Levels to be performed; and

Customer is DoD, other Federal Agency or civilian hospital

OR

• Multiple facility types with geographically-separated buildings or performance locations in at least two (2) different states;

and

• Required all 6 Service Levels to be performed; and

• Customer is DoD, other Federal Agency or civilian hospital

RELEVANT Past/present performance effort involved aseptic HEC services:

• Medical facilities with > 50K square feet; and

• Required at least 5 of the Service Levels to be performed;

and

• Customer is DoD, other Federal Agency or civilian hospital

SOMEWHAT

RELEVANT

Past/present performance effort involved aseptic HEC services:

• Medical facility with < 50K square feet; and

• Requires less than 5 Service Levels but at least 2 to be performed; and

• Customer is DOD or a civilian facility.

NOT

RELEVANT

Past/present performance did not involve aseptic cleaning and disinfection services or was not performed in a medical facility this solicitation requires.

IDIQ Contract References: The Offeror shall determine the mix of contracts to best represent depth and breadth of past performance through relevant contracts. Indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts will typically demonstrate more depth and breadth than a single Task Order or single contract. References on IDIQ contracts submitted as individual Task/Delivery Orders will only be counted as one past performance reference regardless of the quantity of Task Orders submitted for the same contract. Likewise, references for the same contract but different option periods will be evaluated as a single past performance reference. Note: Offerors may include performance information from multiple Task Orders against the same contract number as part of an individual past performance reference if desired; however the entire submission will only count as one past performance reference.

Past Performance References: The evaluation for the Past Performance section will ensure the Offeror provided a record of relevant and recent past performance with no more than five (5) previous/current contracts with a minimum of one (1) reference being from the Prime Contractor. The evaluation will ensure that past performance information for each teaming partner/subcontractor is identified on Contractor Team Organization (Attachment 1). The Government will use data provided by each Offeror in this section and data obtained from other sources in the evaluation. If more than five (5) past performance references are submitted, the PPET may only consider information provided for the first 5 references of the past performance volume.

Joint Venture: If an Offeror is a joint venture (JV) with no past performance information, the past performance record of all companies forming the JV will be considered. If the JV, as an Offeror, has less than two (2) past performance records, the past performance records of the individual companies comprising the JV may be submitted as long as the total number of references does not exceed the maximum number of five

(5) past performance references for the Offeror.

Organizational Change History: If the Government cannot assess a past performance reference because the organizational history does not describe the reorganization in sufficient detail, the past performance reference will not be used in the performance confidence assessment.

c. Quality of Performance. Past Performance Questionnaires sent to the reference by the offeror must be included in Volume III in each reference Tab (1A through 2E). The evaluator must sign all questionnaires. The Source Selection Evaluation Team may NOT consider any past performance questionnaires that are incomplete or unsigned by the customer. DHA will consider the performance quality of recent and relevant efforts. The quality level assigned by the performance raters is shown in Table 3, Performance Quality Ratings below.

CODE Table 2 - PERFORMANCE LEVEL

E EXCEPTIONAL – The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and consistently exceeds many. Very few, if any, minor problems were encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective correction action.

V VERY GOOD – The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and consistently exceeds some. Some minor problems encountered. Contractor took effective and timely corrective action.

S SATISFACTORY – The contractor’s performance meets contract requirements. For any problems encountered, the contractor took effective corrective action.

M MARGINAL – The contractor’s performance does not meet some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

U UNSATISFACTORY – The contractor’s performance does not meet most contract requirements. Serious problem(s) encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive customer oversight and involvement was required.

N NOT APPLICABLE – Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance aspect.

d. The performance quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings.

Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. The Offeror will be afforded the opportunity to respond to any adverse information which has not been previously addressed. For adverse information identified, the DHA will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. More recent and relevant past performance may be weighed more heavily than less recent and somewhat relevant past performance.

e. Performance Confidence Assessment: As a result of the relevancy and performance quality ratings of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating in accordance with Table 3. The resulting Performance Confidence Assessment is made in conjunction with the technical capability assessment represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance. If an Offeror’s past performance rating is “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence”, the Offeror will not be considered for award.

Table 3 - Performance Confidence Rating

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence

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

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

Once the ratings for each of the phases are complete for each offeror, the PPET will rank offerors on Technical Capability and Past Performance Confidence ratings to make an integrated best value decision.

3. Award and Tradeoff Considerations. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal represents best value to the government. This process permits tradeoffs between technical capabilities and past performance. The technical factor is significantly more important than past performance. This may result in an award to an Offeror with an outstanding technical rating with a satisfactory past performance rating, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines the outstanding technical rating outweighs past performance. The Government intends to make award without discussions, however reserves the right to enter discussions with one, some or all offerors.

>END ADDENDUM to 52.212-2<

a. SubFactor 1 - Procedure Manual. DHA will evaluate an offeror’s Procedure Manual that details cleaning and disinfecting procedures for all Service Levels (1 through 6) that meet or exceed industry and regulatory guidelines as required in the PWS an...