52.212-2 Addendum - Evaluation - Commercial Items

52.212-2 – Evaluation –Commercial Items (Jan 1999)

(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:

1. Factor 1: Technical Approach

2. Factor 2: Past Performance

3. Factor 3: Company Experience/Capabilities

4. Factor 4: Price Proposal

Order of Importance: All evaluation factors other than price, when combined are approximately equal to price.

Volume I: Technical Proposal

Factor 1 – Technical Approach

The offeror shall address their understanding of FEMA’s requirement to include their technical approach to fulfilling the requirement. The offeror shall be evaluated on the extent to which each of the numbered tasks delineated in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) are addressed. In addition, each offeror shall be evaluated specifically on the sub-factors referenced below:

Sub-Factor #1a: Phase-In Plan

The offeror shall provide a draft Phase-In Plan that addresses how they plan to prepare to assume the maintenance and deactivation requirements from the current contractor. This will include obtaining information/documentation on the occupants who are currently living in the housing units such as their address and contact information, what work has been performed to date, as well as any work that needs to be completed before they are transferred to the new contractor. The phase-in plan shall include a timeline with dates and key tasks and what steps will be taken during that time to achieve phase-in and assume regular maintenance and deactivation requirements (i.e. finalizing subcontracts, if applicable; hiring new staff if necessary; training staff on the contract requirements; setting up a 24/7 service call center; finalizing internal standard operating procedures to be used in performing the contract requirements; finalizing draft plans; etc.).

Sub-Factor #1b: Quality Control Plan

The offeror shall address their Quality Control Plan (QCP) to be used in the performance of the contract. Specifically, they shall address the quality control methods to be used and if they have used them successfully in other work performed. The offeror shall also address if their quality control plan is IS9000 accredited or has received some other type of quality control accreditation. The Offeror shall address their Operations Plan. This plan will detail how the offeror plans to manage to work (i.e. how work will be staffed, how work will be accepted/issued, what procedures will be followed to ensure work is being performed in a timely manner and of high quality, what corrective action of measures will be taken when work is not performed in accordance with contract terms and conditions/QC plan, etc.). Offerors will explain their process from point of receipt of an emergency work order until completion. Offerors will explain their data management capabilities and procedures for filling, constructing and maintaining databases, and for prioritizing workload.

The offeror’s Quality Control Plan should explain the items that will be monitored and the methods that will be used for managing all aspects of this acquisition. The offerors proposed performance metrics and measures, target performance levels, and methods of surveillance should be explained in such a way that it will be clear to the Government how self-surveillance and other controls will minimize potential problems. In essence, Offerors will describe how problems will be identified, tracked, escalated if needed, and resolved.

Sub-Factor #1c: Sustained Readiness:

The offeror shall express ideas and processes that demonstrate contract management capabilities to support an effort of this magnitude. Offerors should address how their organizational structure will successfully sustain the contract and program management functions, with special emphasis on the busiest scenarios. Offerors must demonstrate abilities to staff the contract with employees who have had background checks at the beginning of performance. Offerors must devise and propose an approach to ensure smooth and effective staffing for initiation of the work. Offerors must demonstrate the ability to rapidly provide the appropriate staffing to meet the requirements of the contract, and have the ability to provide personnel in all labor categories as required and remain always in a 24/7 readiness posture. What will be your plan to ensure a rapid response to a significant maintenance problem? What is your communications structure for ramping up and scaling down workload? Offerors shall provide an outline of how it will perform standard, surge and catastrophic responses under strict time constraints with little or no advance notice. Describe your capability to plan, coordinate, and monitor multiple task orders. Describe your methodology to ensure project management support including such aspects as staffing, finance, logistics, operations, etc. What is your maximum capability to perform emergency maintenance work - and in what timeframe?

Factor 2 – Past Performance

The offeror shall submit at least two Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs). The Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 2) once completed by the references, shall be returned to the offeror in sealed envelopes, signed and taped across the seal. The offeror shall forward the unopened envelopes with their proposal. PPQs for subcontractors will not be evaluated. It is the offerors responsibility to ensure that all PPQs are received from evaluators in a timely manner to ensure they are submitted as a complete proposal package. The Government will not accept PPQs directly from evaluators or any late PPQs.

The submitted PPQs shall be of contractual work that is similar to the requirements set forth in this solicitation. If the offeror has no relevant corporate or organizational past performance, the offeror may substitute past performance of a predecessor company or of the offeror's proposed key personnel who have relevant experience. PPQs shall be for projects completed in the last five years or currently in progress, which are of similar size, scope, complexity or, in any way, relevant to the effort required by this solicitation. Contracts listed may include those entered into by the Federal Government, agencies of State and local governments, and commercial customers. Contracts with the parent or an affiliate of the offeror may not be used.

Offerors shall provide a list of any contracts terminated for convenience of terminated for default within the last three years. Offerors shall also list any contracts for which the customer did not exercise an option to continue the contract within the last three years to include an explanation as to why the option was not exercised.

The past performance evaluation will assess the Offeror’s record of how well the organization did on work for the Government and private sector clients, resilience in the face of trouble, resourcefulness, management determination to see that the organization lived up to commitments or standards, and skill in the development of a responsive team; all of which are indicators of past performance. The degree to which Offerors can supply examples of accomplishments that indicate the ability to implement the proposed methods and techniques for solving problems, will also be assessed.

Offerors should describe past performance of comparable and related work similar in kind to that required under this contract, including summaries of scopes of work, resource requirements, dollar values and points of contact for each body of work on past or current contracts (or under other arrangements) of lesser, comparable or greater scale. An Offeror’s submitted self-assessment or responsiveness to client or regulatory direction, customer satisfaction, completing projects on schedule, within cost; delivering quality products and cooperation with clients, successor contractors and others, e.g. producers, adjusters, state governments, will be compared with references.

The following information shall be provided for each referenced contract (in addition to the past performance questionnaires):

a. Administrative Data

b. Relevance

c. Compliance with subcontracting plans, if applicable.

d. Information on problems encountered on each contract and corrective actions taken to resolve those problems.

e. Experience gained on these projects that will be made available to accomplish the required services.

f. A self-assessment for each project described under its experience, indicating whether performance was satisfactory to the customer, the project was completed on schedule, the project was completed within budget, cooperation and responsiveness to clients and successor contractors, and the overall quality of the work performed. This may include a discussion of noteworthy successes, accomplishments, awards or commendations achieved during the referenced effort.

g. A current point of contact (name and phone number) for each job described under experience for the purposes of a reference.

The quality of the Offeror's past performance will be evaluated based on comparison of Past Performance Questionnaires with information the government obtains through reference checks, its own knowledge/experience, and/or from other sources. The past performance evaluation will assess the Offeror's record of how well the Offeror did on relevant and recent work for government and private sector clients. This evaluation will include assessments of the Offeror's resilience in the face of trouble, resourcefulness, and management determination to see that the organization lived up to commitments or standards. The government reserves the right to conduct telephone interviews to validate information provided in the past performance questionnaires and to obtain additional information from other internal and external sources, if known. In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror will not be given a favorable or unfavorable evaluation rating; the offeror will receive a neutral rating for the past performance factor.

Factor 3 – Company Experience/Capabilities

The experience and capabilities of the Offeror and of the proposed subcontractors and/or partners intended to occupy a major role will be considered in evaluation and selection. The government will evaluate each Offeror's corporate experience in providing services, which are of similar nature to the work to be performed under the requirement described in this solicitation. Specifically, jobs that are of similar scope, complexity, contract type, and period of performance, in relation to the requirements of this solicitation are of particular interest to the government. Offerors will describe how their organization has the requisite skill sets to perform the wide latitude of repairs and deactivations required under this contract.

The offeror shall describe its experience on similar and/or relevant projects and endeavors. The offeror shall provide the information listed below for prime contracts or subcontracts under which it performed work similar in nature and complexity to the subject requirement. This information may include the experience of predecessor companies, major subcontractor, or proposed key personnel.

A. Contracting Agency (Company), address and phone number.

B. Contract number and type of contract.

C. Date of contract, period of performance, and place of performance.

D. Address and phone number of contracting and technical officers.

E. Size of contract (average number full time/Part time equivalents provided per year) and dollar value.

F. Complete description of contract work and responsibilities.

G. Applicability of subcontracting plans (if any).

H. Indicate comparability of each project to the immediate one. It is not sufficient to merely state that a project is comparable in magnitude and scope. Rationale must be provided to convince the Government that a project is indeed similar.

The Government will consider the above information, as well as information obtained from any other sources, when evaluating the offeror’s experience. The Government will not restrict its consideration to the information provided in the proposal and may consider any other available information. In determining the rating for experience, the Government will give greater consideration to the experience which is most relevant to the solicitation. The evaluation of experience will focus on the relevance, complexity, and scope of the noted experience. The offeror will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably if it lacks relevant experience. In this case, the rating would be neutral.

Volume II: Price Proposal

Section 1: Completed Schedule of Pricing: Offerors shall provide fixed unit prices for all fixed price CLINS. The quantities used for the CLINS are only estimates. The Government plug numbers for repairs over $250 and for Lift Station Maintenance and Repairs are also based on estimated cost per year. These are cost reimbursement plug numbers where only actual cost shall be invoiced and reimbursed.

Section 2: Completed Representation and Certifications

BASIS FOR AWARD AND EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror(s) whose offer, conforming to the RFP, will be the most advantageous to the Government. The lowest priced proposal or the proposal receiving the highest technical evaluation rating may not necessarily receive contract award. The Government reserves the right to make more than one award.

Rating Scheme.

1. The adjectival rating scheme shown below will be used:

a. Exceptional. Exceeds many of the contract requirements in a way which yields significant benefit to the Government; weaknesses, if any, are of small impact. There are NO significant weaknesses or deficiencies.

b. Very Good. Exceeds some of the contract requirements which yields some benefit to the Government; rating indicates that the proposal contains considerable strengths and minor weaknesses.

c. Satisfactory. Meets all requirements; proposal offers no significant benefits beyond the stated requirements, yet NO significant weaknesses or deficiencies exist.

d. Marginal. Proposal has shortcomings that results in not meeting some of the contractual requirements, or has one or more significant weaknesses. Deficiencies and significant weaknesses are correctable without major revisions to the proposals.

e. Unsatisfactory. Fails to meet most of the contractual requirements; contains one or more deficiencies for which correction would require a major revision or redirection of the proposal.

Definitions.

1. A significant strength is defined as an aspect of the proposal that appreciably increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

2. A strength is defined as an aspect of the proposal that increases the likelihood of successful contract performance. Because an offeror has offered more than what the solicitation requires, does not necessarily mean the Government will benefit from such a promise.

3. A weakness is defined as a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

4. A significant weakness is a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

5. A deficiency is defined as an aspect of the proposal that fails to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

6. Ambiguity: Occasionally, language is a proposal is ambiguous, and the proposal’s technical merit will differ depending on which of the possible meanings is chosen by the evaluator. In other instances, proposal language is simply unclear, and the evaluator cannot understand it well enough to rate it without guessing at its meaning. Lastly, a proposal may sometimes describe, in general terms, a particular approach but will not provide enough detailed information to permit an evaluation of its feasibility and merit.

7. A clarification is defined as limited exchanges between the Government and offerors, for the purpose of enhancing the Government’s understanding of proposals, without entering into discussions, or requesting a revision to the proposal.

8. Discussions are defined as exchanges between the Government and offerors for the purpose of identifying to the offerors significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and other aspects of its proposal that could, in the opinion of the contracting officer, be altered or explained to enhance materially the proposal’s potential for award.

(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 options(s).