Attachment 3 - 52.212-2_Evaluation Criteria_Amend 0002.pdf

ATTACHMENT 3 - FAR 52-212-2, Evaluation - Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Nov 2021).

(a) The government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, will be most advantageous to the government, price and other factors considered. The following factors will be used to evaluate quotations:

(1) Technical

(2) Price

(3) Organizational Conflict of Interest

(4) Past Performance

Past Performance, when compared to price, is significantly more important than price. Technical will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis.

(b) Task orders may be executed during the five (5) year ordering period of the contract. Task orders shall not extend beyond twelve (12) months of the last day of the basic ID/IQ contract ordering period end date. Note: If the acquisition contract award date is delayed then the period of performance start and end dates will change but the duration of the 5-year ordering period will not be affected. In the event the extension of services clause is utilized then the ordering period for the basic ID/IQ will be up to 5 years and 6 months.

In addition to the 5-year ordering period there will be an option to utilize clause FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services, with a period of performance starting the day after the 5-year ordering period expires. The Government reserves the right to place task orders anytime during the 6-month extension (reference FAR 52.217-8) provided the task order doesn’t exceed 12 months of service from the date of task order award. Options and the FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services clause are not authorized on task orders during the 6-month extension of performance.

For example, the Government reserves the right to extend the basic ID/IQ for 6 months beyond the 5-year ordering period. On the last day of the 6-month extension the Government reserves the right to execute a task order for a 12-month period of performance.

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

ADDENDUM to FAR 52-212-2, Evaluation - Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Nov 2021).

The following is inserted as new paragraph (d) of the provision:

“(d) BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) best value evaluation process conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15 in which competing offerors’ past performance will be considered as significantly more important than price. By submission of its proposal, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in a proposal being determined unacceptable. The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP) or other than the highest past performance rated offeror. The Contracting Officer will make an award decision using the Past Performance Confidence and the TEP. The evaluation process will include the following:

(1) Technical Rating Factor. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement.

Table 1. Technical Ratings Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and provides an adequate approach.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and does not provide an adequate approach.

The information will be evaluated against the following subfactor(s):

Subfactor 1: Transition: The offeror’s transition approach will be evaluated on the following:

Feasibility of approach to successful transition-in. Offers with a transition plan that is evaluated as Unacceptable is unawardable.

Subfactor 2: Key Personnel: Contract Manager resume and letter of commitment.

(2) Price Evaluation Factor. The price evaluation will document the balance and reasonableness of the total evaluated price (TEP). The Government will not be conducting a price or cost realism analysis. Nothing in this solicitation shall mean, or be construed to mean, that the Government will be doing a price or cost realism analysis.

The TEP is the total of the ordering period and Option to Extend Services clause 52.217-8. For award purposes only, the price of the Option to Extend Services clause 52.217-8 will be calculated as six months of performance of the last ordering period.

Justification for Offers proposing any employee monetary compensation less than the amounts on Minimum Compensation Matrix (RFP Attachment 4), will be evaluated to determine whether proposed non-monetary compensation to workers is adequate to obtain and retain qualified workers. If not adequate to obtain and retain qualified workers, offer is not eligible for award. The Government will not evaluate non-monetary compensation for workers for Offers proposing monetary compensation for all employees at amounts equal to, or greater than, the amounts on the Minimum Compensation Matrix (RFP Attachment 4).

For offerors proposing a base hourly rate, for any given labor category, at a given location, which is below the hourly rate identified in the Labor Category Minimum Compensation Matrix, offeror shall detail the extra non-monetary compensation that the offeror will be providing workers to off-set the sub-standard monetary compensation. A justification that states (or claims) that listed Minimum Hourly Wage is incorrect is not acceptable. Offers that attempt to justify sub-standard monetary compensation by stating or claiming that the listed Minimum Hourly Wage is incorrect are ineligible for award.

NOTE: This requirement will be awarded as an IDIQ and task orders will be issued post-award. CLIN structure on task orders will be similar to the Pricing Matrix (Attachment 5). CLIN structure on the SF 1449 - Solicitation is for RFP purposes only and does not match this pricing matrix due to contract writing system restrictions.

(3) Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan: The offeror’s technical approach will be evaluated based on the following:

This factor will be evaluated to determine acceptability of an OCI Mitigation Plan and the feasibility of intended strategies, approach, and the likelihood of successful mitigation of OCIs. Include all elements of the OCI Mitigation Plan Checklist in your response (Attachment 6). Offers from Offerors that either do not submit an OCI Mitigation Plan or submit an OCI Mitigation Plan evaluated as unacceptable with their offer are unawardable.

Table 2. OCI Ratings

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and provides an adequate approach.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and does not provide an adequate approach.

(4) Past Performance Factor. The Government will evaluate performance information on all offerors based on (i) the references provided by the offeror, and (ii) any past performance information obtained from survey/questionnaires (RFP Attachment 7), and

(iii) any data independently obtained by the government. Surveys/questionnaires will not replace existing CPARS but may be used to clarify content of the existing CPARS. In addition to evaluation of recency and relevancy, the Government will conduct a performance quality assessment of such work when assessing the entirety of an offeror’s Past Performance. The Government will look at the relevancy, recency, and quality of each PP effort. Then consider, in the aggregate, all of the efforts giving more weight to the efforts that are more recent and more relevant.

(a) The evaluation of past performance information (i) may take into account past performance regarding predecessor companies, (ii) may take into account past performance of key personnel who have relevant experience, and/or (iii) may take into account past performance regarding subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to this acquisition.

(b) To be recent past performance, performance must have been performed no earlier than 3 years prior to the RFP issuance date.

(c) Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving requirements that are similar in size, scope, magnitude of effort, and complexity to the effort that is required by this solicitation. The Government will assess relevancy for each contract/task orders and assign a rating as described in Table 2 below:

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as the effort this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the 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.

Performance Quality Assessment: For each of the recent and “somewhat or more" relevant past performance information reviewed, the performance quality of work will be assessed.

The Government will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance. The assessment process will result in an offeror’s overall performance confidence assessment rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence (Neutral). Offerors with no recent past or present performance history or the offeror’s performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will receive a rating of “Unknown Confidence,” meaning the offeror is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably (neutral). As a result of the assessments, offerors will receive an integrated past performance confidence assessment rating as described in Table 3 below:

TABLE 3. Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

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

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.

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

NO CONFIDENCE Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the government has no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE

(NEUTRAL)

No recent/relevant performance 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.

Note: More recent and/or more relevant past performance may be weighted more heavily than less recent and/or less relevant past performance.

(4) The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

(5) Integrated Assessment. Award will be made to the offeror, with a technically acceptable OCI plan, with acceptable minimum compensation for its workers, whose offer represents the best value to the Government, trading off past performance for price where past performance is significantly more important than price.

(End of Addendum)