SECTION_M_52.212-02_and_addendum_modified_0001.pdf

Amendment 0001:

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

52.212-02 EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

(a) 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 shall be used to evaluate offers:

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 3: PRICE

Technical capability and past performance are hereby combined to determine technical acceptability.

(b) 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).

(c) 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), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of Provision)

ADDENDUM 52.212-02 EVALUATION -- COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

(a) 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 shall be used to evaluate offers:

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 3: PRICE

Award(s) will be made to the Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable Offer meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards of all non-price factors. Technical capability and past performance are hereby combined to determine technical acceptability.

The Government will strictly adhere to FAR 15.3, as supplemented by DFARS 215.3, DLAD 15.3 and DLAD PGI 15.3, and the evaluation process and criteria stated in FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION OF OFFERS - COMMERCIAL ITEMS during evaluation of proposals. Factor 1: Technical Capability, Factor 2: Past Performance and Factor 3: Price are the factors that will be evaluated.

Technical Capability

1. For Factor 1, Technical Capability, proposals will be rated either Acceptable or Unacceptable by using the following criteria:

In order to be considered for award there must be a Technical Capability rating of Acceptable in every sub-factor. If one technical sub-factor is rated Unacceptable, then the overall technical rating shall be considered Unacceptable. The table below represents an example rating:

Sub-factor: Acceptable Unacceptable

1. Locations X

2. Laboratory Testing X

3. Staffing X

4. Transportation X

5. Contract Compliance X

6. Product Sampling X

OVERALL RATING UNACCEPTABLE

All sub-factors will initially be evaluated using the ratings description below. After all sub-factors have been rated, an overall proposal rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” will be given.

(a) Technical Evaluation Sub-factor 1: Locations – Technical and operational details of laboratory locations and sample transportation to meet mission requirements. The proposal must include localities of nominated facilities which can meet the specified turn-around times to the locations stated, provide suitable transportation of samples from job site to laboratory to fulfill the requirements of Performance Work Statement.

(b) Technical Evaluation Sub-factor 2: Laboratory Testing – Technical and operational details of laboratory calibration program, testing equipment, and trained personnel to meet mission requirements. The proposal must demonstrate the offeror shall have the knowledge and library of specifications, trained personnel, and calibration equivalent to ISO 10012-1 or 1702. Laboratory shall have correct equipment and testing capabilities to conduct fuel analysis on specified petroleum fuels, fuel additives, lubricants and alternative fuels. Also includes the ability to identify petroleum fuel contaminants and provide detailed report on results.

(c) Technical Evaluation Sub-factor 3: Staffing – Technical and operational details of staffing and operating hours to meet mission requirements. The proposal must demonstrate understanding of the staffing of personnel, contingency plan for continued operations, operating hours to successfully accomplish all PWS tasks. The offeror’s laboratory personnel shall have relevant work experience in petroleum products to fulfill the requirements of PWS sections:

(d) Technical Evaluation Sub-factor 4: Sample Transportation – Technical and operational details of ability to ship petroleum of samples to meet mission requirements. The proposal must demonstrate the offeror shall be capable of transporting petroleum samples from job site to laboratory in accordance with regulations or laws maintaining chain of custody.

(e) Technical Evaluation Sub-factor 5: Contract Compliance – Technical and operational details of quality management for the life of the contract to meet mission requirements. The proposal must demonstrate the offeror has a quality management system in place or is ISO 9001 and/or ISO/IEC 17025 certified at the closing date of solicitation and has provided documentation to reflect this requirement.

(f) Technical Evaluation Sub-factor 6: Product Sampling – Technical and operational details of petroleum sampling to meet mission requirements. The proposal must demonstrate the offeror shall be knowledgeable and experienced on product sampling IAW API MPMS or ASTM D4057 and perform as “Third Party” surveyor duties when requested.

2. The solicitation instructs offerors that the responses provided to these areas will be evaluated strictly on technical merit and should describe and justify the offeror’s technical approach to the requirements of the work to be performed and/or delivery of product under the contract.

3. Questions and/or comments will be addressed during negotiations. An offer can be made “Acceptable” after negotiations have been conducted. The offeror must provide additional written details for any questions and/or exceptions by the date set for submission of the Final Proposal Revision.

4. The Government will rate the technical proposals for Factor 1, Technical Capability according to the definitions below:

ACCEPTABLE (A): Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE (U): Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Past Performance

The Government will conduct a past performance evaluation that examines an offeror’s recent and relevant contracts submitted in the Past Performance Proposal. The past performance evaluation will consider the following relevant factors: 1) number and severity of problems, 2) the effectiveness of any corrective action taken, 3) how well the contractor performed on projects the same or similar in size, scope, complexity and dollar magnitude as the requirement described in the solicitation, and the offeror’s overall performance record.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s submitted past performance using a Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 3) to solicit information from an offeror’s submitted references in the following areas: (1) schedule (2) management of key personnel (3) quality of services and (4) business relations. The Government will review this past performance information and determine its quality and usefulness as it applies to the procurement. Additionally, the Government may use any other data available to its evaluators, including but not limited to CPARS, PPIRS, FAPIIS, or other databases, interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, the Defense Contract Management Agency, past and present customers and their employees, other subcontractors, and any others who may have useful and relevant information. Past Performance information submitted may include performance still in progress, however, it should have a minimum of one year of performance history. Contracts listed may include those entered into with Government agencies or the private sector. A record of poor performance may be considered an indication that the offeror has failed to conform to contract requirements and/or to standards of good workmanship, adhere to contract schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance, provide reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction, and/or display a business-like concern for the interests of the customer.

Recent past performance is defined as past performance on contracts performed within the past three years. The evaluation will determine the degree to which a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is relevant to the effort to be acquired through this acquisition. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration shall be given to those aspects of an offeror’s contract history that would give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will satisfy the current procurement. This relevancy assessment shall measure the extent of similarity between the service effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, subcontract/teaming arrangements, and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance. Performance relevancy ratings are explained in the table below.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved 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.

Upon determining how recent past performance was, relevancy, and how well the offeror performed, past performance will be rated “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. See the chart below:

Past Performance Acceptable Ratings

RATING DESCRIPTION

ACCEPTABLE Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

UNACCEPTABLE Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

In the case of an offeror 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 (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “Acceptable.”

Evaluation for Joint Ventures and Teaming Arrangements will be performed by evaluating the past performance of each partner in accordance with the procedures outlined above. The ratings for each partner will be combined and the Joint Venture or Teaming Arrangement will receive one rating.

Offerors are instructed that Past Performance information submitted may include performance still in progress, however, it should have a minimum of one year of performance history and no more than three

(3) years old from the closing date of this solicitation. Contracts listed may include those entered into with Government agencies or the private sector.

Price A firm-fixed price contract will result from this solicitation. Price will be evaluated for reasonableness The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes in accordance with FAR 52.212-2 – Evaluation

– Commercial Items as follows:

(1) For each area of consideration, price evaluation will be accomplished by multiplying the monthly price for the base period by 24 to obtain total price for the base period, multiplying the monthly price for the option period by 24 to obtain the total price for the option period, and adding the total price for the option period to the total price for the base period to obtain the total contract price.

(2) Option (Extension Provision) price: In accordance with FAR 52.217-8 (Option to Extend Services), the Government has the unilateral right to extend any resulting contract under the same terms and conditions for a total of not more than six months. The method for evaluating the extensions is to utilize the monthly price for the two-year option period. The Government will evaluate the option to extend by adding six months of the offeror’s performance period price to the offeror’s total price.

(3) The offeror’s price may in exceptional cases be evaluated for price realism to determine whether the offeror understand the requirements and to determine the firm’s responsibility in accordance with FAR 15.404(b)(2).

(4) No adjectival ratings will be used to evaluate price.

M-0001-M72 EVALUATION OF OFFERS (EXCEPTIONS/DEVIATIONS) (DLA ENERGY APR

1997)

(a) Offerors are expected to submit offers in full compliance with all terms and conditions of this solicitation.

(b) Any exceptions/deviations to the terms and conditions of this solicitation will result in the Government's determination that either--

(1) The exception/deviation is material enough to warrant rejection of the offer in part or in full; or

(2) The exception/deviation is acceptable.

(c) If the exception/deviation is in reference to a specification contained in this solicitation and the offeror cannot supply product fully meeting the required specification(s), the product can be offered for consideration provided the offeror clearly indicates, by attachment to the offer, the extent to which any product offered differs from the required specification(s).

(d) If the exception/deviation is in reference to a particular test, inspection, or testing method contained in this solicitation, the offer can be considered provided the offeror clearly indicates, by attachment to the offer, the extent to which its offer differs from those requirements.

(e) If the exception/deviation is determined acceptable, offered prices may be adjusted, for evaluation purposes only, by the Government's best estimate of the quantitative impact of the advantage or disadvantage to the Government that might result from making an award under those circumstances.