REVISED 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). This section is intended to explain the rationale and precise criteria by which proposals resulting from this solicitation will be evaluated. Proposals shall be evaluated against the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP, without regard for the relative strengths and weaknesses of competing proposals. This acquisition will utilize a Trade off source selection procedure to make an assessment for a best value award decision. Evaluation factors are divided into three categories:

Technical (FACTOR A);

Past Performance (FACTOR B):

and Price (FACTOR C).

The non-price factors A and B are considered of equal importance; and all non-priced factors, when combined, are each more important than price. The offeror’s proposal shall contain a response to each of the evaluation factors outlined in this clause, and shall be in the form prescribed by this solicitation. Only those proposals deemed technically satisfactory or higher will be considered for award. Once all tradeoffs are determined and the proposals rated overall, the proposals will be rank ordered.

Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to all requirements set forth in the solicitation and is deemed to offer the best value to the Government. While the Government will strive for maximum objectively, the source selection process by its nature is subjective therefore; professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process.

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 The Technical capabilities proposal shall meet specified performance and capability requirements. 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)- Past Performance information must correlate directly to a minimum of the Performance Base Statement of Work requirements.

Using questionnaires, the contracting officer shall seek relevant performance information on all offerors based on the past and present efforts provided by the offeror and data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources.

Relevant past performance includes performance of efforts involving janitorial services that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation.

The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in this RFP, based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror.

In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFP. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Addendum 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items.

Offeror’s may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision. If an Offeror, or the proposed key employees of the Offeror, does not have a past performance history deemed relevant to this solicitation, the Offeror will receive a neutral rating.

However, the proposal of an Offeror with no relevant past performance history, while rated neutral in past performance, may not represent the most advantageous proposal to the Government and thus may be an unsuccessful proposal when compared to the proposals of other offers.

Please Note: If there are extenuating circumstances concerning any negative past performance, provide background information and references for validation.

The past performance information must demonstrate that the Offeror:

(1) was capable and committed adequate resources to efficiently and effectively perform:

(2) performance conformed to the contract terms and conditions:

(3) performed on schedule;

(4) performed with reasonable costs;

(5) effectively managed the workforce and maintained good business relations.

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 understands the contract requirements as expressed by the Performance – Based Statement of Work. Although burdened rates provided by offerors for CLIN 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 (Non-Price Factors A and B 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. Once all tradeoffs are determined and the proposals rated overall, the proposals will be rank ordered.

The Government reserves the right to reject any or all proposals at any time prior to award; to negotiate with any or all proposers; and to award to the proposer submitting the proposal determined by the Government to be the most advantageous to the Government. Offeror should not assume that they will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to qualify, discuss, or revise their proposals. The evaluation process, by its nature is subjective and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire evaluation process.

Basis for Assignment of Overall Rating for Non-Priced Factors: The following will be used to determine the overall non-priced factors acceptability of each proposal. A less than satisfactory rating in one or more of any of the non-priced factors will result in an overall rating of marginal or unacceptable and the Offeror will not be eligible for award without resolving the deficiencies. Once all tradeoffs are determined and the proposals rated overall, the proposals will be rank ordered.

OVERALL NON-PRICED RATING

Demonstrates a good understanding of the solicitation.

Weaknesses, if any, are minor and need to be corrected prior to award. There is little risk of failure to meet the RFP requirements.

The proposal lacks essential information or is conflicting. The proposal presents risk to the Government by containing deficiencies that will need to be corrected before further consideration. There is no reasonable likelihood of success without revision or rewrite of the proposal. The proposal is unacceptable without resolving deficiencies.

(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)