Attachment II - Addendum to 52.212-2 Amendment 01.docx

DOCX document 20 KB Posted

Attached to
Intraoperative Laser Support Services Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number
HT940623R0008
Issued by
Defense Health Agency

About this file

This solicitation seeks proposals for intraoperative laser support services. Offerors must provide technical capability, past performance, and pricing information. Technical capability will be evaluated based on the offeror's ability to perform the required services and understand the performance work statement. Past performance will be assessed for recency, relevancy, and quality on similar intraoperative laser support projects completed within the last five years. Pricing will be analyzed for reasonableness and completeness. Award will be made on a best value basis considering these factors. The Defense Health Agency is the contracting agency.

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to Intraoperative Laser Support Services, newest first.
File Type Posted
Attachment I - Addendum to 52.212-1 Amendment 03.docx DOCX document
HT940623R0008 Amendment 03.docx DOCX document
HT940623R0008 Amendment 02.docx DOCX document
Attachment I - Addendum to 52.212-1 Amendment 01.docx DOCX document
HT940623R0008 Amendment 01.docx DOCX document
Pricing Sheet Intraoperative Laser Services.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
Attachment I - Addendum to 52.212-1.docx DOCX document
Attachment II - Addendum to 52.212-2.docx DOCX document
Attachment III - Disposables List.docx DOCX document
Combined Synopsis Solicitation HT940623R0008.docx DOCX document

On GovTribe

Work with this file on GovTribe

  • Download the original file
  • Contacts named in this file
  • Similar government files
  • Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Text version

Attachment II: Addendum to 52.212-2 Amendment 01

EVALUATION CRITERIA

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the Offeror conforming to the solicitation when technical capability, past performance, and price are considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate the offer:

Order of Importance:

(i) Technical Capability

(ii) Past Performance

(iii) Price

Basis for Award: Award of this requirement will be made on a best value basis, technical capability, past performance, and price considered. The Government intends to award without discussions. The Government reserves the right to hold discussions if deemed necessary. The Offeror MUST provide their best complete proposal upon initial submission.

The Government evaluator(s) will not assume that the Offeror possess any capability or knowledge unless it is specified in the proposal. If Technical Capability received an individual rating of “unacceptable” the collective overall rating will also be “unacceptable.” Only a proposal receiving an overall rating of “acceptable” will be further considered for award.

Factor 1: Technical Capability Technical Capability will be evaluated to the degree to which Offeror demonstrates overall ability to perform the services and their understanding of the requirements set forth in the performance work statement (PWS).

Ratings
Description
Acceptable
Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.
Unacceptable
Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

As part of this factor, the Government will evaluate Small Business Participation. This will include an evaluation of the Subcontracting Plan as follows:

(1) The extent to which small businesses are specifically identified;

(2) The extent of commitment to use such firms (enforceable commitments are to be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones);

(3) The complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform;

(4) Past performance of the offerors in complying with requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan; and

(5) The extent of participation of such firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition.

A separate rating for Small Business Participation will not be applied. Rather, small business participation will be considered in the determination of an appropriate technical rating, as described above.

Factor 2: Past Performance Past Performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet this contract’s requirements. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

Recency: The first aspect to be evaluated is recency. To be considered recent, the offeror’s past performance references must have been completed not more than 5 years prior to the posting of this combined synopses/solicitation. Past performance will be assigned a value of Recent or Not Recent. If an offeror’s past performance reference has been assigned a value of Not Recent, it will not be further evaluated.

Relevancy: The second aspect to be evaluated is relevancy. To be considered relevant, the offeror’s past performance references must be for intraoperative laser support services. Past performance will be assigned a value of Relevant or Not Relevant. If an offeror’s past performance reference has been assigned a value of Not Relevant, it will not be further evaluated.

Quality of Performance: The third aspect to be evaluated is the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. During this evaluation, information will be collected regarding the level of performance provided for each past performance reference. The Government reserves the right to use information obtained from any sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, CPARS, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and commercial sources and/or non-Government sources.

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant past performance record, the Government will assign an overall Performance Confidence Assessment rating as described in the below table.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

RATING
DESCRIPTION
SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE
Based on the contractor’s relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the contractor will successfully perform the required effort.
SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE
Based on the contractor’s relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the contractor will successfully perform the required effort.
LIMITED CONFIDENCE
Based on the contractor’s relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the contractor will successfully perform the required effort.
NO CONFIDENCE
Based on the contractor’s relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the contractor will be able to successfully perform the required effort.
NEUTRAL CONFIDENCE
No relevant performance record is available or the contractor’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The contractor may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance. In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral.”

Factor 3: Price Price will be evaluated/analyzed separately from Technical Capability. Price will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 12.209 and 13.106-3 for fair and reasonableness in terms of:

- pricing is proposed based on level of effort within the solicitation

- pricing is proposed for all CLINs

(b) Price will be evaluated for:

- Reasonableness: The offeror’s proposed line item prices will be evaluated to determine the degree to which the line item prices compare to the prices a reasonable prudent person would expect to incur for the same or similar service.
- Completeness: Offeror’s have included pricing for all line items in the Pricing Sheet, and included pricing in the Disposables List.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .