Section M - ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 .docx

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2- Evaluation Factors for Award

The following additions/changes are made to FAR provision 52.212-2:

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

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 will be used to evaluate offers:

(1) PAST PERFORMANCE

(2) TECHNICAL

(3) PRICE

Technical and Past Performance when combined are significantly more important than price.

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).

A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, emailed 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.

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing offerors past performance history and technical capabilities will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price. By submission of its offer in accordance with the instructions provided in clause FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors, the offeror accedes to the terms of this model contract and all such offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

Price Evaluation. Initially, offers will be ranked according to price, including option prices. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in the Pricing Schedule by the unit price for each item to confirm the extended amount for each line item. All sub-totals will then be added to confirm the total for the base and all option periods. Similarly, the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated by adding the base plus option periods. The 6-month extension of services is IAW FAR 52.217-8, "Option to Extend Services" and will only be utilized if necessary. The 6-month extension of services is not to be considered part of the Option Period 4 and will be a separate option exercise if it is utilized. However, proposed pricing for the 6- month extension will be based on last exercised Option Period pricing.

Technical Evaluation. Technical capability is evaluated as pass/fail. The contractor must submit a Mission Essential Services Plan to include the required elements IAW DFARS provision 252.237-7004.

Performance Confidence Assessment. The contracting officer will seek recent and relevant performance information on all offers based on (1) the references provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources.

Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving municipal solid waste management services that involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexity (i.e. number of units, geographic separation, and weight/frequency of servicing) as this solicitation requires. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, or No Confidence as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5.

Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will not be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. Offerors with no recent/relevant performance history or if the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating "Neutral Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. The Government shall give greater consideration to offerors whose past performance information rates “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” than to those offerors whose past performance information rates “Neutral Confidence.”

Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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 solicitation. The following table, also from the DoD Source Selection Guide, describes past performance relevancy ratings.

Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

If the lowest priced evaluated offer, having passed the technical evaluation, is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance rating, then that offer represents the best value for the government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment or until all offerors are evaluated. The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in the proposal preparation instructions to permit a meaningful assessment of past performance. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal 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, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.