52 212-2 Janitorial.doc

Janitorial Services –Solicitation HSFLGL-10-R-00004

52.212-2 -- Evaluation -- Commercial Items.

As prescribed in 12.301(c), the Contracting Officer may insert a provision substantially as follows:

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 included in descending order of importance

_ technical capability of the item offered to meet the Government requirement;

_ past performance (see FAR 15.304

_ price;

Technical capabilities and past performance, when combined, are more important when compared to price.

“Addendum to 52.212-2 -change paragraph (a) to read:

add changed paragraph here.”

(a). The evaluation and award selection process will be an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. For those offerors found to be within the competitive range based on the evaluations conducted in accordance with the factors listed below, tradeoffs will be made between Technical capabilities, past performance and price, with Technical capabilities and past performance (non-price factors) being considered each more important than price. However, price will become more important if the Technical capabilities and past performance of two offerors is determined to be relatively equal.

a. Technical capabilities- The Government will evaluate Technical capabilities through the four factors listed in Clause 52.212-1 to determine if the offeror has the ability and understanding of the requirements. Each offeror’s Technical capabilities proposal will be evaluated to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the Performance – Based Statement of Work (PBSOW) and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The Technical capabilities portion of the contractors’ proposal will be rated using the following scale:

exceptional – acceptable – marginal – unacceptable. The definitions of the rating standards are:

EXCEPTIONAL (E): Offeror’s proposal exceeds all requirements of the solicitation and the offeror has fully analyzed, evaluated, and defined these requirements in the proposal. The proposal fully and completely meets all expectations and sets forth plans and approaches that demonstrates the highest probability of obtaining superior service.

ACCEPTABLE (A): Offeror’s proposal meets all requirements of the solicitation and is acceptable. Procedures are provided to the extent requested, and the key points raised by the applicable evaluation factors have been satisfactorily addressed in the proposal. The offeror demonstrates an understanding by a direct translation of the solicitation requirements in the offeror’s proposal.

MARGINAL (M): Offeror’s proposal is minimally acceptable. However, the offeror’s interpretation of the solicitation requirements is so vague that it must be considered unsatisfactory. There are serious questions concerning the offeror’s understanding of the solicitation requirements and to the planned approach. There are also serious doubts concerning whether the offeror can satisfactorily perform the services required under the contract.

UNACCEPTABLE (U): Offeror’s proposal is unacceptable as it does not satisfy the requirement in the solicitation for an acceptable proposal. It is doubtful that the proposal can be made acceptable without substantial rewrite or Government assistance.

The Technical capabilities proposal shall meet specified performance and capability requirements. These requirements are necessary for acceptable contract performance and will receive a “exceptional” or “acceptable” rating. If the proposal fails to meet specified minimum performance and capability requirements, the offeror will be given an assessment of “marginal” or unacceptable”. An assessment of either of these ratings will result in the proposal as being found unacceptable. Proposal risk will be a part of the criteria considered in the acceptability decision. Proposal risk assesses the risk associated with the offeror’s proposed approach as it relates to accomplishing the requirements of this solicitation. Offerors may be determined unacceptable, even though the minimum requirements are met, if the proposed approach poses too great a risk.

The following factors will be evaluated as part of the Technical capabilities evaluation for this solicitation: Service, Management and Administration Plan, Quality Control Plan, Risk and Contingency Plan and Environmental Management Plan.

b. Past Performance (see FAR 15.304)- The Government will evaluate Past Performance through an integrated analysis of those risks and strengths the Government identifies in the offeror’s recent and relevant contract performance. Evaluations will be based on present and past performance information gathered from various sources known to the government, to include: Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) reports, interviews with program managers and contracting officers or other sources known to the government, Past Performance Questionnaire responses, telephone and email interviews with offeror-provided references and other known sources located by the Government.

(i) Special emphasis will be placed during evaluations on relevant performance related to areas covered by the PBSOW. Relevant performance for past performance evaluation purposes are drivers training support services provided on comparable contracts of similar scope/magnitude for types of services (i.e. the cleaning of Gymnasiums, Health Care Units, Firing Ranges and Child Care Centers ). Past Performance information shall be recent, defined as within the past three years. Current past performance will have a greater impact in the confidence assessment than earlier past performance. Performance trends and consistency in performance will also be considered during Past Performance evaluations.

For technically acceptable proposals, the past performance assessment will assess the confidence in the offeror’s ability (which includes, if applicable, the extent of its critical subcontractors’ or teaming partners’ involvement) to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying services that meet users’ needs including cost and schedule. The currency 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.

(ii) The Government will perform an independent determination of rating of the data provided or obtained. A rating determination of the offeror’s present/past performance (which includes, if applicable, the extent of its critical subcontractors’ or teaming partners’ involvement) will be made. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The Government may consider an offeror’s contracts in aggregate in determining relevancy, should the offeror’s present and past performance lend itself to this approach. For example, an offeror’s work experience on three contracts may, by definition, represent only an acceptable effort when each contract is considered as a stand-alone effort. However, when these contracts are performed concurrently (in part or in whole) and are assessed in the aggregate, the work may more accurately reflect a exceptional effort.

(iii) The following past performance ratings apply:

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

1. Evaluation of present and past performance will include consideration of overall customer satisfaction and conclusions of informed judgment.

2. Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information (subject to the restrictions of FAR 15.306(e)(4)). Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The rating 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 offeror’s overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

3. Past performance information will also be considered regarding critical key personnel. If an offeror, or the proposed key employees of the offeror, do not have a past performance history deemed relevant to this solicitation, the offeror will receive a neutral confidence rating. A performance rating will be assigned based on the offeror’s ability to perform the requirements of the solicitation.

4. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information in the format specified. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the Government reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision. Offerors are advised to submit their most favorable proposal initially because the Government reserves the right to award without additional discussions.

c. Price- The Price volume must include CLIN price breakdown detailing labor categories, labor burden, other direct costs, indirect rates to include overhead and G&A and profit percentage proposed for this effort. The overall price proposed will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 to determine if the proposed price is fair and reasonable. The Government may determine the offeror unacceptable if the proposed price(s) are materially unbalance (significantly understated or overstated in relation to the actual cost of that work); for this reason, unique and innovative approaches must be clearly explained in the price proposal. The proposed price will be evaluated to determine the offeror’s understanding of the contract requirements as expressed by the Performance – Based Statement of Work. Although burdened rates provided by offerors for CLINs X004 and X005 will not be evaluated as part of the overall dollar amount of the contract, the rates will be evaluated for price reasonableness as specified below. One or more of the following techniques may be used to perform price proposal evaluations:

(i) Comparison of proposed priced received in response to the solicitation.

(ii) Comparison of previously proposed prices and previous Government and commercial contract prices with current proposed prices for the same or similar services.

(iii) Application of rough yardsticks to highlight significant inconsistencies.

(iv) Comparison with competitive published price lists, published market prices, similar indexes and discount or rebate arrangements.

(v) Comparison of proposed prices with prices obtained through market research for the same or similar items.

The Government intends to award one contract to the offeror deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation, whose proposal conforms to this RFP’s requirements, and is determined to be the best value to the Government. The “best value” is the most advantageous offer, price and other factors considered, consistent with the Government’s stated importance of evaluation criteria (Past performance and technical capabilities are each more important than price). The Government reserves the right to award to other than the low offeror without conducting discussions. This may result in award being made to a higher-rated, higher priced offeror where the Contracting Officer determines that the past/present performance of the higher-priced offeror or the offeror with the higher level of technical proficiency outweighs the price difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the Contracting Officer will conduct an integrated assessment conducting tradeoffs between Technical Capabilities, Past Performance and Price. The evaluation process, by its nature is subjective and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire evaluation process.

(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 option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of Provision)