Section M- Evaluation_Factor_Attachment_FAR PART 12-13 v1.docx

Attachment M

W91QF5-22-P-XXXX

ADDENDUM 52.212-2 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. The Government will use FAR Part 12.602 Streamlined Evaluation of Offers. Pass Performance shall be evaluated IAW the procedures in FAR Part 13.106-2 Evaluation of quotations or offers vs FAR 15.3 Source Selection to evaluate offers submitted in response to the solicitation. The factors that shall be used to evaluate proposals are Technical Capability, Past Performance and Price, as expounded below. All evaluation factors are equal in importance; however, a proposal is unawardable at any price if, after final evaluation, the any factor or sub-factor receives a rating of “Unacceptable.” The evaluation does not permit tradeoffs between price and non-price factors. Award shall be made to the responsible offeror who submits a proposal that (1) conforms to the requirements of the solicitation; (2) that receives a rating of “Acceptable” on all evaluation factors; and (3) that submits the proposal with the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP), provided that the TEP is not unbalanced and is fair and reasonable; (4) The Government will only evaluate the three (3) lowest priced, responsive offers. Should any of these offers be found unacceptable, the next lowest priced offers will be evaluated.

The Government reserves the right to award no contract at all depending upon (1) the quality of proposals received and (2) the fair and reasonableness of the pricing of quotes received

Table 1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

2. FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY:

a. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s Technical Capability Proposal shall be made. Each proposal will be assigned a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable.

b. Each offeror must show evidence of a capability to provide the mandatory requirements set forth in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and elsewhere in this solicitation. A technical review team composed of key Government personnel shall use their technical skills, knowledge and experience to thoroughly review the adequacy of the proposals. In evaluating the Mission Capability Proposal, the Government shall use the following evaluation criteria:

(1) Compliance with the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and this entire solicitation.

(2) Understanding of the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and this entire solicitation.

(3) Compliance and understanding of the requirements of the PWS as applied specifically to each factor/subfactor listed below.

c. The following specific factors and subfactors shall be evaluated in the Technical Capability Proposal. Any factor or subfactor determined unacceptable shall render the entire Technical Capability Proposal as unacceptable. Upon final determination that a proposal is unacceptable, the Contracting Officer (KO) shall promptly notify the firm submitting the proposal that it shall not be considered for award and shall indicate in general terms the basis for the determination.

d. Technical Capability Evaluation Factors and Sub Factors are as follows:

(1) SUBFACTOR 1: Quality Control Plan (QCP) (IAW PWS Para: 3.2-4.0)

Description: This element will evaluate the offeror’s approach for ensuring performance will be in accordance with (IAW) the standards in the PWS throughout the life of the contract.

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror provides a detailed QCP that is likely to ensure that performance will be in accordance with (IAW) the standards in the PWS throughout the life of the contract to include:

1. Identification of personnel responsible for quality control;

2. A description of the offeror’s inspection system with types and frequencies of inspection to be conducted and personnel responsible for conducting inspections;

3. A system for preventing the occurrence of deficiencies; and

4. A description of how inspections will be documented with sample inspection records for each type of inspection to be conducted.

SUBFACTOR 2: Project Manager (IWA PWS Para. 2.4.3 and 2.4.3.1)

Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s to provide Project Manager (PM) who is responsible for the performance of the work electronically. The PM shall have full authority to act for the Contractor on all contract matters relating to daily operation of the contract. The name of the PM shall be provided to the KO and shall be available during normal duty hours. In the circumstances when the PM is not available, the Contractor shall designate an alternate who can perform the same duties during the absence. IAW the terms and conditions of the contract.

Measure of Merit: This subfactor is met when the offeror provides an effective PM plan, which is likely. These key personnel shall be available 24/7/365 including Federal holidays. These individuals designated as key personnel shall be able to understand, speak, read, and write the English language

(1) SUBFACTOR 3: Special Qualifications (IAW PWS Para 2.17.1 and ANNEX H Para 19.0)

Description: The Contractor shall furnish in writing to the Contracting Officer evidence of qualifications for each of his maintenance and service employees prior to commencing work under this contract. All employees assigned by the Contractor to perform the work under this contract shall be physically able to do the assigned work and have a minimum of one (1) year of experience.

3. FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

Description: This factor will evaluate the offeror’s prior experience, based on prior experience, relevancy, and size. Contractor to perform the work under this contract shall be physically able to do the assigned work. Past performance ratings likely to ensure the contractor’s capability to successfully meet the requirements of the PWS.

Measure of Merit: This factor is met when the offeror provides acceptable prior experience IAW the description above, and includes (in at least one of their three references). However if the Offerors 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. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable

3. PRICE: Price proposals shall be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) unbalanced pricing, (3) fair and reasonableness, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

(1) Completeness: The Government shall review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with solicitation clause FAR 52.212-1 and Appendix 1—Additional Instructions to Offerors.

(2) Unbalanced Pricing: The Government shall analyze each proposal to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices proposed on different Contract Line Items Numbers (CLIN) for the same or similar services and/or supplies in the same or similar quantities and with respect to option pricing. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer (CO) determines that the option prices are significantly unbalanced or that otherwise unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(3) Fair and Reasonableness: The offeror’s Price proposal shall be evaluated using price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) or DFARS 215.371-3 if only one offer is received.

(4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The Government shall add the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement to arrive at a total evaluated price (TEP). The TEP will be calculated as:

4. EVALUATION PROCESS

(a) The Government shall initiate concurrent evaluation of all evaluation factors on all proposals. The Government shall consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of a proposal including whether any proposal deficiency can be rectified and whether any uncertainty can be resolved. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government.

(b) The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct negotiations if they are deemed necessary.

(c) If deemed necessary, the Contracting Officer (CO) may open discussions and may continue discussions as long as, in the Government’s judgment, the deficiency is rectifiable or the uncertainty is resolvable.

(d) For the purpose of conducting discussions, if the Government rates the Technical factor as “Unacceptable” or if the Government determines that there is some other deficiency or uncertainty relative to an offeror’s proposal, the entire proposal shall be rated “Unacceptable.” At the conclusion of discussions, if the Technical factor is rated “Unacceptable” or if any deficiency or uncertainty relative to the proposal has not been unresolved, evaluation of that proposal shall be considered final. The entire proposal shall be rated “Unacceptable” and no further consideration shall be given to that proposal for award.

(e) For the purpose of award without discussions, if pursuant to initial evaluation, the Government rates the Technical factor as “Unacceptable” or if the Government determines that there is some other deficiency or uncertainty relative to an offeror’s proposal, notwithstanding that any deficiency may be rectifiable or any uncertainty may be resolvable, the entire proposal shall be rated “Unacceptable,” the initial evaluation will be the final evaluation, and no further consideration will be given to that proposal for award.

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.