Section M_NIWC_FA441824R0005.pdf

FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation - Commercial Items, applies to this acquisition and is amended as follows:

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) TECHNICAL (gate)

2) PAST PERFORMANCE

3) PRICE

Past Performance is 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, 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), unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

This is a competitive best value acquisition following source selection procedures IAW FAR Part 15 in which competing offerors past performance history 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:

Gate 1: Technical. The technical rating (“pass or fail”) is predicated on the offerors ability to have a current and active Security Clearance Certification for the company, joint venture, or prime contractor of a teaming arrangement.

If an offeror “passes” Security Clearance Certification, that offeror “passes” the requirements of Gate 1 and will advance to Factor 1: Price in the proposal evaluation process. If an offeror fails to pass Security Clearance Certification, that offeror will not be evaluated further. To determine a security clearance certification status, offerors must complete block 17A of this solicitation. Only primary contractors are authorized to submit a CAGE code. Joint Ventures must submit the cage code associated with the joint venture. Teaming partners and subcontractor submissions are allowed. The primary contractor must possess an active Security Clearance Certification for the company, joint venture, or prime contractor of a teaming arrangement.

Factor 1: Price. Offeror's proposals that pass the gate shall be ranked according to price, including option prices. An offeror’s total price will be determined by adding together the 12-month price for both the General Facility Maintenance & PMI Services and the HVAC Maintenance and PMI services for the base year and each option period. All sub-totals will then be added to confirm the total for the base and all 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 considered part of 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 Option Period 4 pricing.

Factor 2: Past Performance. Beginning with the lowest priced offer, 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.

Recent is defined as performance during the preceding three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

Relevant past performance includes performance of efforts involving facilities maintenance services that involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexity. This includes, but is not limited to:

• Number of facilities serviced;

• Types of maintenance and repairs with an emphasis on:

o Plumbing;

o HVAC (large commercial chillers and residential chillers and direct digital controls); and o Electrical (Uninterrupted power supply, primary and secondary large breaker maintenance, high voltage systems, three-phase power systems, and complex electrical systems);

• Customer service experience; and

• Utilization of a CMMS system.

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 evaluation process will result in an overall past performance evaluation rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, or No Confidence as defined in the table below.

Table 1. Past Performance Evaluation Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

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

Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record 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.

Limited Confidence

Government has a low expectation that the offeror will

No Confidence

Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to

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.

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 describes past performance relevancy ratings.

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

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

If the lowest priced evaluated offer is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” 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” rating, 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” rating or until all offerors are evaluated. The Government shall then make a best value award decision.

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information, and in the format specified in the preparation instructions, to permit a meaningful evaluation of past performance. Offerors may be asked to make clear 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 interchanges and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for revision.

The Government intends to make award based on the initial proposal submissions without conducting discussions.

However, the Government reserves the right to hold discussion using Evaluation Notices (ENs) if, during the evaluation, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Offeror responses to ENs will be considered in making the award decision. The Government may conduct discussions with one, some, none, or all Vendors at its discretion.