Final DCAA INTERPRETER SERVICES FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION COMMERCIAL ITEMS ATTACHMENT 2.pdf

DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY (DCAA) INTERPRETER SERVICES

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION- COMMERCIAL ITEMS

ATTACHMENT 2

1. Selection Process

The Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) Interpreter Services requirement will utilize the Trade-off evaluation process where technical approach, management and staffing plan, and past performance when combined are significantly more important than total price. The tradeoff process is appropriate when it is in the best interest of the government to consider award(s) to other than the lowest priced quoter or other than the highest technically rated quoter. This process permits trade-offs among cost or price and non-cost/price factors and allows the government to accept other than the lowest priced offer. The perceived benefits of the higher priced offer must merit the additional cost/price, and the rationale for trade-offs must be documented in the contract file. The government’s objective is to obtain the highest quality services considered necessary to achieve the required objectives. When using the trade-off process, all of the evaluation factors that will affect the purchase order issuance and their relative importance must be clearly stated in the solicitation.

2. Evaluation Factors

Evaluation factors represent those specific characteristics that are tied to the request for quote (RFQ) requirements and are expected to be discriminators or are required by statute/regulation.

They are the uniform baseline against which each contractor’s quote is evaluated allowing the government to make a best value determination. The evaluation factors, their relative order of importance, and the importance of non-price to price factors must be set forth in the solicitation in enough depth to communicate what will be evaluated. The evaluation factors will be the primary determinant of the detailed information requested in the solicitation’s instructions to contractors.

Relative importance. All non-price evaluation factors when combined are significantly more important than price. The non-price factors are of equal importance. As the non-price factors become more equal among quotes, the evaluated price becomes more important.

Basis for award(s). Quotes will first be evaluated on the basis of the non-price evaluation factors as defined below. Past Performance will be evaluated by the Contracting Officer as Acceptable or Unacceptable. Pricing will be evaluated for accuracy, fairness, reasonableness, and completeness. The purchase order will be issued to the contractor whose quote offers the best value to the government based on the PWS requirements and the established evaluation factors.

Factor 1 Technical Approach

Contractors must provide a capability statement detailing their technical abilities in performing the work outlined in sections II. Performance Requirements A Specific Tasks through D.

Deliverables Schedule of the performance work statement (PWS). Ratings will be in accordance with Table 1 below and based on the technical proficiency that the contractor provides in their response.

Factor 2 Management and Staffing Plan

The Management and Staffing plan will be evaluated based upon Table 1 below.

Contractors must provide a Management and Staffing Plan that can sufficiently handle all of the requirements listed in the solicitation across all of the locations listed in the PWS. Additionally, the contractor’s quote must address at a minimum the following items:

1. Contractor must have experience in implementing, updating, and maintaining their own scheduling platform for a requirement.

2. The ability to fulfill all of the solicitation requirements without travel being reimbursed.

3. Experience and expertise in providing sign language services nationwide given a 4 days’ notice.

4. Experience and expertise in meeting the 90% fulfillment rate.

5. The ability to recruit qualified personnel that will be able to fulfill the solicitation requirements at all locations.

Factor 3 Past Performance

The past performance evaluation will determine how well the quoter performed on the prior contracts. Past performance information will be based on Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) reports and other government data systems. If a contractor does not have past performance data in these systems, the Contracting Officer may request government points of contact for references. The government will consider the following in determining past performance acceptability.

a. Relevancy. Past performance data will be reviewed for relevancy to the current solicitation.

Relevant past performance data is a stronger predictor of future success. Past performance relevancy will be rated as either relevant or not relevant.

b. Recency. Past performance data will be reviewed for recency, which is defined as within the past three (3) years. Past performance recency will be rated as either recent or not recent.

DTW0081

Highlight

c. Quality. Evaluation of past performance data will be based on actual ratings received in CPARS for technical/quality, schedule, cost, and management. If CPARS ratings are not available, the Contracting Officer may request three to five government points of contact (POCs) to provide past performance information. Past performance quality will be rated as either quality or not quality.

Table 1- Technical Approach and Management and Staffing Plan Rating Table

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Quote meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements with multiple strengths (four or more) identified with few or no weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Quote meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements with a few strengths (three or less) identified with few or no weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Quote meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Identified strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Quote does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The quote has several weaknesses (three or more) that are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Quote does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Quote is unawardable.

Table 2- Past Performance Rating Acceptable Based on the quoter’s performance record, the government has a reasonable expectation that the quoter will successfully perform the required effort, or the quoter’s performance record is unknown. (See note below)

Unacceptable Based on the quoter’s performance record, the government does not have a reasonable expectation that the quoter will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

In the case of a quoter 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 quoter may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the quoter must be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating must be considered “acceptable.”

Total Price

Contractors must submit pricing using Attachment 4 DCAA Interpreter Services ROM spreadsheet that was provided. Please ensure all Excel calculations, equations, etc. are viewable, in-tact, and unprotected, limit dollar amounts to two decimal places.