Shot Peen FAR 52.212-2 Addendum 4-23-2020.pdf

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 -- Evaluation – Commercial Items

1.0 Basis for Contract Award:

This acquisition will be conducted under the procedures of FAR Part 12 -- Commercial Items and FAR Part 13 -- Simplified Acquisition Procedures. In accordance with FAR 13.106-2(b)(1), the procedures prescribed in FAR Part 15 are not mandatory, and therefore, the evaluation procedures established herein are within the Contracting Officer’s broad discretion as applied under FAR Part 13. This acquisition will utilize technical acceptability and price as evaluation factors. Award will be made to the vendor who is technically acceptable with the lowest total evaluated price (TEP) and whose quotation conforms to the solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, and certifications). The Government intends to award without interchanges. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct interchanges if determined necessary by the Contracting Officer (ref. FAR 52.212-2 Addendum, section 1.3).

1.1 Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

Vendors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and Statement of Work (SOW) requirements, in addition to the technical and price factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the vendor being ineligible for award. Vendors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable, and the quotation, therefore, ineligible for award.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded:

The Government intends to select one contractor for this acquisition. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the quotation, prices submitted, and the availability of funds.

1.3 Interchanges

In accordance with FAR 1.102-2(c)(3) the Government shall exercise discretion, use sound business judgement, and comply with applicable laws and regulations during the course of this acquisition. The Government intends to award without interchanges, but reserves the right to conduct interchanges if necessary. Therefore, it is imperative that vendors submit their best terms initially. If during the evaluation of quotations it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to conduct interchanges, the Contracting Officer may conduct interchanges with one, some, or all vendors before issuing any purchase order.

Interchanges are information sharing between the Government and vendors after receipt of quotations which can be conducted to address any aspect of the quotation. Interchanges may be oral or written. Written interchanges take the form of Interchange Notices (IN)s. INs are used to accurately capture contemporaneous sharing of information. If interchanges are conducted, the Government may request final quotation revisions at the conclusion of interchanges.

2.0 Evaluation Factors Used to Evaluate Each Quotation:

Award will be made to the vendor quoting the combination of factors deemed most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Customer Support

Subfactor 2: Quality Control

Factor 2: Price

2.1 Factor 1 – Technical

The Technical evaluation will be based on each’s vendor’s approach for meeting the technical requirements listed below. The evaluation focuses on the technical approach as described in each quotation. The technical evaluation does not consider price. Each quotation will be evaluated for technical acceptability, based on the criteria listed below, and by using the attached Item Cross-Reference Matrix. To be determined technically acceptable at the factor level, the vendor must meet all the criteria listed below. Failure to meet any criteria will result in an unacceptable technical rating. The technical evaluation will also consider risk in determining overall acceptability. Risk pertains to the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. Risk will not receive a separate rating, rather, it will be inherent within the overall Technical rating.

The technical ratings are defined as follows:

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

The minimum technical evaluation requirement is met when the vendor’s quotation thoroughly substantiates all the following essential criteria will be met:

2.1.1 Subfactor 1: Customer Support

The Government will assess the vendor’s proposed Customer Support approach. The subfactor minimum is met when the vendor’s quotation indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential components with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Offerors shall provide the following:

Element One.

Proof of a current and valid ISO 9001:2015, AS 9100, or equivalent Quality Management System (QMS) certificate from a nationally-recognized accreditation body such as the ANSI National Accreditation Board or Performance Review Institute to ensure it meets the requirements in Section 3.4.1 of the Statement of Work (SOW). If the offeror has a certificate that they believe is equivalent to ISO 9001 or AS 9100, the offeror shall submit the certificate and demonstrate its basis on the following management principles:

1. Customer Focus

2. Leadership

3. Engagement of People

4. Process Approach

5. Improvement

6. Evidence-Based Decision Making

7. Relationships

Element Two.

A description of the technical data provided in accordance with the requirements as stated in sections 3.4.2, 3.4.3, and 3.4.4 of the SOW. As a minimum, the offeror shall provide a description of the manuals provided, the number of copies of each manual provided, the instructions contained within the manual for operation, and the instructions contained within the manual for repair and maintenance.

Element Three.

A description of the data rights the Government will be provided for the operation and maintenance of the machine as stated in Section 3.4.8 of the SOW, and what effect it will have on the supportability of the machine during its anticipated lifespan.

Element Four.

A description of the training provided, and what services are provided after delivery and final acceptance of the machine in accordance with the requirements as stated in Section 4.3 of the SOW. As a minimum, the offeror shall provide a description of the number of people who will be trained, including the number of operators, programmers, equipment maintenance mechanics, and equipment calibrations technicians. In addition, the offeror shall provide a description of the training material covered prior to acceptance, and what customer support services are offered after final acceptance; examples include: calibration checks, software troubleshooting, and additional training.

Element Five.

A description of the warranty offered in accordance with Section 4.4 of the SOW. As a minimum, the offeror shall provide a description of the length of the warranty period offered, average response time for a warranty claim, average length of remedying a warranty claim, whether the Government will be charged for remedying warranty claims, and whether defects that result in machine downtime extend the warranty period for the length of that machine downtime.

Offerors will be evaluated using the following criteria to ensure the following requirements are met in accordance with the SOW:

Element One Criteria.

The proposal must include a current and valid ISO 9001:2015, AS 9100, or equivalent QMS certificate in accordance with SOW Section 3.4.1. The certificate must ensure the requirements in SOW Section 3.4.1 are met.

Element Two Criteria.

The offeror’s approach for technical data must ensure the requirements of SOW Sections 3.4.2, 3.4.3, and 3.4.4 are met.

Element Three Criteria.

The offeror’s explanation of data rights must ensure the requirements of SOW Section 3.4.8 are met.

Element Four Criteria.

The offeror’s approach for training must ensure the requirements of SOW Section 4.3 are met.

Element Five Criteria.

The offeror’s approach for providing a warranty must ensure the requirements of SOW Section 4.4 are met.

2.1.2 Subfactor 2: Quality Control

The Government will assess the vendor’s proposed Quality Control approach. The subfactor minimum is met when the vendor’s quotation indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential components with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance:

Offerors shall provide the following:

Element One.

A description of the air pressure control strategies you are offering in accordance with Sections 3.2.1.3 and 3.2.1.3.2 of the SOW. As a minimum, the offeror shall provide a description of the volume booster, pressure transducer, and electronic regulator that are used in the design of the machine. In addition, the offeror shall provide a description of how the machine will be designed to balance air pressure between each nozzle.

Element Two.

A description of the media flow control strategies you are offering in accordance with Sections 3.2.1.3 and 3.2.1.3.8 of the SOW. As a minimum, the offeror shall provide a description of the media flow valve and flow controller that are included in the design of the machine. In addition, the offeror shall provide a description of the number of media flow valves and flow controllers, how the media flow is balanced between all nozzles, and how the machine will be capable of continuous media flow for eight hours during the operational test.

Element Three.

A description of the type of recovery system you are incorporating into the machine in accordance with Section 3.2.2 of the SOW. As a minimum, the offeror shall provide a description of how the media recovery system prevents media from escaping, what filters or guards will be used to prevent small objects (e.g. screws, bolts, etc.) from entering the recovery system, whether it is capable of recovering 100 pounds of media per minute, and what safety guarding will be installed to protect personnel from moving parts.

Element Four.

A description of the gantry arm control you are offering in accordance with Sections

3.2.3 and 3.2.4 of the SOW. As a minimum, the offeror shall provide a description of what CNC controller will be used in the machine, what size motors will be used for each axis, the accuracy of the gantry arm, how the ball screws and bearing surfaces are protected from debris and foreign objects, and how the CNC system buttons are labeled on the machine and in the operating manual.

Element Five.

A description of the operator interface system used in the machine in accordance with Section 3.2.6.3 of the SOW. As a minimum, the offeror shall provide a description of what process instructions or process control data will be displayed on the interface during a peening cycle, how alarms are displayed on the operator interface, how the system will shut down the peening cycle if a shutdown set point is exceeded, how the system will prevent operators from editing programs, how buttons are labeled on the screen, what descriptions of buttons are included in the operating manual, and how the machine detects and shuts down if the air pressure is outside the limits established in AMS 2432.

Offerors will be evaluated using the following criteria to ensure the following requirements are met in accordance with the SOW:

Element One Criteria.

The offeror’s approach for air pressure control must ensure the requirements of SOW Sections 3.2.1.3 and 3.2.1.3.2 are met.

Element Two Criteria.

The offeror’s approach for media flow control must ensure the requirements of SOW Sections 3.2.1.3 and 3.2.1.3.8 are met.

Element Three Criteria.

The offeror’s approach for the media recovery system must ensure the requirements of SOW Section 3.2.2 are met.

Element Four Criteria.

The offeror’s approach for gantry arm control must ensure the requirements of SOW Sections 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 are met.

Element Five Criteria.

The offeror’s approach for the operator user interface must ensure the requirements of SOW Section 3.2.6.3 are met.

2.2. Factor 2 – Price

Price quotations will be evaluated as follows:

2.2.1 Completeness

Quotations will be reviewed for completeness. Incomplete quotes will be considered ineligible for award.

2.2.2 Price Reasonableness

The contractor’s prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. Reasonableness must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business.

Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 13.106-3(a).

2.2.3 Price Realism

The Government intends to determine price realism based on adequate price competition. In the event the Government cannot determine price realism based on adequate price competition, the Government reserves the right to conduct a more detailed price realism evaluation using one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 13.106-3(a). The Government may also use other evaluation techniques, as needed. To be realistic, the proposed price must demonstrate an adequate understanding of the requirement. Quoted prices that are determined to be unrealistically low due to an inadequate understanding of the requirement will make the quotation ineligible for award.

2.2.4 Unbalanced Pricing

Vendors’ quotations will be reviewed for unbalanced pricing. The Government will evaluate any supporting information provided by the vendor explaining variances that appear unbalanced.

Evaluated quotes that are determined to be unbalanced may be deemed ineligible for award by the Contracting Officer if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total price, the price of one or more line items (including sub line items) is significantly over or understated as demonstrated by application of price analysis techniques, such that:

a) There is reasonable doubt the quote would result in the lowest overall cost to the

Government, even though it is the lowest priced quote; or

b) The quote is so grossly unbalanced; its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advanced payment.

2.2.5 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the total proposed prices for all separately priced line items (including sub line items). The total proposed price for each separately priced line item shall be calculated as the proposed unit price multiplied by the corresponding quantity.

The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only.

2.2.6 Price Evaluation Techniques

The primary techniques the Government intends to use to evaluate price reasonableness, price realism, and balance are FAR 13.106-3(a)(1), Adequate Price Competition, and/or FAR FAR 13.106-3(a)(2)(vi), Comparison of proposed prices with Independent Government Estimates (IGE). In the event the Government cannot determine proposed prices are reasonable, realistic, and balanced based on one or both of the primary techniques, the Government reserves the right to conduct a more detailed evaluation using one or all price analysis techniques described in FAR 13.106-2(b)(1) and FAR 13.106-3. If a more detailed analysis is needed, the Government reserves the right to request additional price data from Offerors, such as, but not limited to, the basis for material estimates and prices, and/or the basis of labor hours, or other information as needed.

(End of provision)