52.212-2.pdf

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

(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.

(b) The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any time prior to award of the contracts; to negotiate with offerors in the competitive range; and to award the contracts to the offerors submitting the lowest priced, technically acceptable offers.

The LPTA process is selected as appropriate for this acquisition because the best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price.

(c) The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. In addition, if the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

(d) An overall non-price factors, as listed below in detail, rating must be at least “ACCEPTABLE” in order to be eligible for award. An “UNACCEPTABLE” rating in any factor results in the overall non-price factors proposal being rated “UNACCEPTABLE” unless corrected through discussions. An overall non-price factors rating of “UNACCEPTABLE” makes a proposal ineligible for award. If an offeror receives an “UNACCEPTABLE” rating in any non-price factor, no additional proposal evaluation will be performed. Accordingly, under this methodology, some of the technical factors of some of the evaluated proposals may not be evaluated by the Navy.

(e) The solicitation requires the evaluation of price and the following non-price factors.:

Factor 1 (Volume 1, Tab 01) – Recent Relevant Experience

Factor 2 (Volume 1; Tab 02) – Technical Capabilities

Factor 3 (Volume 1, Tab 03) (sub-tabs as needed) – Past Performance Price

The distinction between recent relevant experience and past performance is relevant experience pertains to the types of work and volume of work completed by a contractor that are comparable to the types of work covered by this requirement, in terms of size, scope, and complexity. Past performance pertains to both the relevance of recent efforts and how well a contractor has performed on the contracts.

If past performance and experience is supplied for a firm that does not match the proposer’s

CAGE CODE or DUNS NUMBER, the offeror MUST provide a detailed written explanation of how the past performance, experience and/or safety data is relevant. For example, if a proposal is from a newly formed subdivision of a parent company or is a new company formed by executives from another company and the offeror uses past performance from the parent company or another subdivision with a different CAGE CODE or DUNS NUMBER, the offeror MUST demonstrate how the same policies and procedures, processes and management systems will be used in the newly formed firm and delineate why there is an expectation that the same high quality of past performance will be achieved. If experience is cited that was gained through another firm with a different CAGE CODE or DUNS NUMBER, the proposal must clearly show how this experience is relevant to the offeror’s ability to perform the requirements of this contract. The relevant consideration is whether the resources of the parent or affiliate company will be provided or relied upon for contract performance such that the parent or affiliate will have meaningful involvement in contract performance. Failure to provide an adequate connection or link, as described above, between the offeror and the submitted past performance, or experience could result in the finding of a deficiency, thereby making the offer ineligible for award without discussions.

Basis of Evaluation and Submittal Requirements for each Factor.

Factor 1 (Volume 1, Tab 01) – Recent Relevant Experience

Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The information provided in this factor shall reflect whether contractors have performed similar work before, not to be confused with Factor 2: Past Performance, where the evaluation is based how well contractors furnished supplies and performed services. The offeror shall provide information for a minimum of two and no more than three recent and relevant projects. Recent and relevant projects are those projects completed or substantially completed* in the past five years that are comparable in size, scope and complexity** with this project as described in Performance Work Statement (PWS) within

Attachment 1.

Information for each project shall include:

1. Project name and location;

2. Description of the project;

3. Contract awarded amount;

4. Project start date;

5. Project completion date;

6. Demonstration that the project is at least 75% complete if applicable;

7. Point of contact information (Name, address, telephone number)

8. Demonstrate the capability and/or the plan to have a system replacement within 48 hours in accordance with the PWS.

*Substantially completed is defined as having completed more than 75% of the project work at the time of proposal submission.

** Size: Similar in size are those projects between $100,000 and $400,00 where the majority of work is for on-time delivery and maintenance of HPAC units.

Scope: Similar in scope are HPAC deliveries that requies 24 hour response time and 48-hour repair time and other items described in the statement of work.

Complexity: Similar in complexity is work performed on a secure facility with restricted traffic flow and limited space.

Basis of Evaluation:

In addition to Paragraph (d) listed above the basis of evaluation will include the Offeror’s demonstrated experience and depth of experience in performing the work identified in the statement of work. The assessment of the Offeror’s relevant experience will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the

Offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP. The Government will only review three projects. Any projects submitted in excess of the three for experience will not be considered.

Factor 2 (Volume 1; Tab 02) – Technical Capabilities

Submission Requirements:

The Offeror shall provide a technical plan demonstrating the current ability or a plan to have the ability to meet the requirements of this solicitation.

The plan shall include:

1. Current available inventory to meet the requirements of the contract.

2. A method of showing that the systems on hand are reliable and fully operational.

3. Proof of technically qualified staff on hand to perform work to maintain and repair the High

Pressure Air Compressors at operational levels.

4. The capability to deploy staff to respond and make a repair or replace determination within 4 hours of government notification of issue.

5. The capability to replace any system within 48 hours of the repair or replace determination.

6. The capability to comply with have a National Regulatory Testing Lab inspection, Government expectation is to have compliance provided 48 hours prior to delivery.

Basis of Evaluation:

In addition to Paragraph (d) listed above the Government will review the technical capabilities plan.

Offerors who provide all submission information and demonstrate the current capability to meet the technical plan or a realistic plan to attain the capability will be given an “ACCEPTABLE” rating.

Offerors who do not provide all submission information or do not demonstrate the current capability or are unable to demonstrate an adequate plan to attain the capability to meet the technical requirements of this solicitation, will be given an “UNACCEPTABLE” rating.

Factor 3 (Volume 1, Tab 03) (sub-tabs as needed) – Past Performance

Submission requirements:

Past performance is a measure of the degree to which the Offeror satisfied its customers in previous relevant contracts, and complied with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Solicitation

Submittal Requirements: The Offeror shall provide past performance information in the form of a Past

Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for the Factor 1 projects submitted.

Past Performance Questionnaire: The Past Performance Questionnaire is included in the solicitation (see

Attachment 2) for the Offeror or its team members to submit to the client/customer for each project the

Offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 2, Past Performance. (Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client/customer point of contact.)

1. Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment 2), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires.

2. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other solicitations. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. Also, include performance recognition documents received within the last five years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

3. The Government may call references to verify Past Performance information. To obtain information, the Government may contact the POCs listed by offerors; however, the Government is not required to contact the POCs and may limit the number of references it decides to contact.

4. The Government also reserves the right to use other information, e.g., pre-award survey, past performance information systems, etc. during the evaluation. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate, and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

Evaluation criteria:

In addition to Paragraph (d) listed above the Government will consider the currency (recency) and relevance of the information, the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the

Contractor’s performance (quality). This evaluation is separate and distinct from the Contracting

Officer’s responsibility determination. The assessment of the Offeror’s past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the Offeror’s probability to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP. An

Offeror’s proposal will be rated as “ACCEPTABLE” for this factor if, based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown. (*See note below.) An

Offeror’s proposal will be rated “UNACCEPTABLE” for this factor if, based on the Offeror’s performance record; the Government has no reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

* Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance

(FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “ACCEPTABLE.”

PRICE Evaluation

Price: Analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price:

(a) Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the RFP.

(b) Comparison of proposed prices with the IGCE.

(c) Comparison of proposed prices with available historical information.

(d) Comparison of market survey results.

Evaluation of the price proposal will determine the reasonableness, and completeness of the Offeror’s proposal.

**Price shall be submitted separate from the non-price factors.**

The Price Proposal will be evaluated using price analysis techniques to determine reasonableness, and completeness of the Offeror’s quote/proposal? Evaluation will determine the Offeror’s comprehension of the requirements of the RFP as well as to assess the degree to which the proposed price accurately reflects proposed performance.

For evaluation purposes, the total evaluated price will be calculated by adding the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the options. The

Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items or exhibit line items. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the balance poses an unacceptable risk to the

Government.

(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. 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.

Proposals shall be binding for 60 days upon receipt of the Government.

(End of provision)