Attachment_5-_ADDENDUM_TO_FAR_52_212-2_.pdf

ADDENDUM 52.212-2 EVALUATION -- COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

(a) This acquisition will be awarded to the offeror in accordance with FAR 15.101-2, LOWEST

PRICE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS, FAR 52.212-2,

EVALUATION COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014), and DLA Energy Special Contract Provision

M72, EVALUATION OF OFFERS (EXCEPTIONS/DEVIATIONS) (DLA ENERGY) (APRIL 1997).

This procurement will be awarded based on three (3) evaluation factors:

(Factor 1) Technical Capability (Factor 2) Price (Factor 3) Past Performance

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. 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.

For purposes of this solicitation, Factor 1 – Technical Capability and Factor 3 – Past Performance are hereby combined to determined technical acceptability.

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

FACTOR 1- TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

SUBFACTOR 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 and provide suitable transportation of samples from job site to laboratory to fulfill the requirements of Statement of Work

(SOW).

SUBFACTOR 2-Laboratory Operations: Technical and operational details of laboratory calibration program, testing equipment, and trained personnel to meet mission requirements. The proposal must demonstrate they 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.

SUBFACTOR 3-Laboratory Testing: Contractor demonstrates they have experience and necessary equipment and expertise in Laboratory Testing of all grades of fuel:

a. Laboratory Testing of Aviation Turbine Fuel, Grade JET A1 and JET A-1, NATO F-35 (Specification: ASTM D1655 latest version)

b. Laboratory Testing of Turbine Fuel, Aviation, Kerosene Types, NATO F-34 (JP8) (Specification: MIL-DTL-83133 latest version)

c. Laboratory Testing of Turbine Fuel, Aviation, Grades JP5 NATO F-44 (Specification: MIL- DTL-5624 latest version)

d. Laboratory Testing of Fuel, Navy Distillate NATO F-76 (Specification: MIL-F-16884 latest version)

e. Laboratory Testing of Gasoline, Aviation, 100LL (Specification: ASTM 910, DEF STAN91- 90 latest version)

f. Laboratory Testing of Inhibitor, Fuel System Icing, High Flash (FSII) (Specification: MIL- DTL-85470 latest version)

g. Laboratory Testing of Fuel, Automotive Spark Ignition Engine (Specification: ASTM D4814 latest version)

h. Laboratory Testing of Marine Residual Fuel Oil Grade (MGO) (RME-180) (Specification:

ISO 8217 latest version)

i. Laboratory Testing of Lubrication Oil, Steam Turbine and Gear (LTL) MIL Symbol 2190 (Specification: MIL-PRF-17331 latest version)

j. Laboratory Testing of Lubrication Oil, LO6, NATO O-278 (Specification: MIL-PRF-9000 latest version)

k. Laboratory Testing of Diesel Fuel Oil, Grade No.1 and No. 2 (Specification: ASTM 975 latest version, STANAG 7090, EN590)

l. Laboratory Testing for Fuel Oil, Reclaimed (FOR) (Specification: MIL-PRF-24951 latest version)

m. Laboratory Testing for Turbine Fuel, Aviation, Thermally Stable, Grade JPTS (Specification:

MIL-DTL-25524 latest version)

n. Laboratory Testing for Oxygen, Aviator’s Breathing, Liquid and Gas (Specification: MIL- PRF-27210 latest version)

o. Laboratory Testing for Propellant Pressurizing Agent, Helium (Specification: MIL-PRF- 27407)

SUBFACTOR 4-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 (Section C-2.0) and operating hours to successfully accomplish all SOW tasks. The offeror’s laboratory personnel shall have relevant work experience in petroleum products to fulfill the requirements of the SOW.

SUBFACTOR 5-Contract Compliance: Technical and operational details of quality management for the life of the contract to meet mission requirements. The proposal must demonstrate their 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.

SUBFACTOR 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 duties when requested.

SUBFACTOR 7-Witnessing: Technical and operational details of petroleum sampling to meet mission requirements. Personnel must have the technical expertise and to evaluate operations such as tank trucks uploads/downloads, storage tanks, bulk containers, conversion calculations and laboratory testing procedures via proper ASTM.

SUBFACTOR 8-Access to Locations: Ability to provide immediate access to DLA Energy personnel to all facilities that product is stored, tested or sampled. Offeror shall provide applicable information for access, provide follow-up to obtain access (for personnel and vehicles) to all facilities that product is tested or sampled. For areas that require special admission the Contractor will assist gaining access.

TECHNICAL RATINGS:

Acceptable: Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable: Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Award will be made using formal source selection procedures IAW FAR Subpart 15.3. This acquisition will be awarded to the offer whose proposal provides the best overall value to the Government. In the event pricing is not offered for all tests at that location, the Government will assume the offeror is not capable of meeting the testing requirements at that location and will be determined unacceptable.

FACTOR 2- PRICE

The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes in accordance with FAR 52.212-2 – Evaluation – Commercial Items as follows:

(1) Multiple awards may result from the subject solicitation with a potential award for each of the following locations: ME Region, Iraq and Afghanistan. The locations and their constituent line items are as follows:

Two-year Base Period** CLIN 0001-0015- Middle East region (Kuwait, UAE, Oman, Joran, Bahrain and Qatar) CLIN 0001-0015- Iraq CLIN 0001-0015 - Afghanistan

Two-year Option Period** CLIN 0016-0030 - Middle East region (Kuwait, UAE, Oman, Joran, Bahrain and Qatar) CLIN 0016-0030 - Iraq CLIN 0016-0030 - Afghanistan

**Please note: The CLIN structure above is for example purposes only. The actual CLIN structure will vary as EBS system constraints allow only for sequential numbering and may be affected by the number of resultant awards.

The lowest price technically acceptable offeror for each location shall be awarded all constituent line items. An evaluated price for each location shall be the aggregate price of all estimated tests at that location as described below. Tests that have an estimated quantity of zero shall be considered to have a quantity of one for the purposes of determining evaluated prices.

Price evaluation will be accomplished as follows:

a) Estimated test quantity per location (incl. witnessing, sampling and transportation) × offered base unit price per test = total base price per location

b) Total base price per location × 2 years = total price for two-year base period

c) Estimated test quantity per location (incl. witnessing, sampling and transporation) × offered option unit price per test = total option price per location

d) Total option price per location × 2 years = total price for two-year option period

e) Total price for two-year option period / 4 = total price for six-month extension

f) Total price for two-year base period + total price for two-year option period + total price for six-month extension = evaluated price per location

(2) Two-year Option Period: In accordance with FAR 52.217-9, Option to Extend the Term of the Contract, the Government may extend the term of this contract by written notice to the contractor within 30 days of contract expiration; provided the Government gives the contractor a preliminary written notice of its intent to extend at least 30 days before the contract expires.

The preliminary notice does not commit the Government to an extension.

(3) Option (Extension Provision): 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 total price for the six-month extension will be evaluated by dividing the total price for the two-year option period by four.

(4) 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).

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

FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

Past Performance will be rated as Acceptable or Unacceptable. Past performance information will initially be evaluated for relevance as described below. Relevancy will be determined by evaluating the size, scope, complexity and dollar magnitude of the past contracts.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Relevant -Present/past performance effort involved similar size, scope, complexity and dollar magnitude this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant - Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the size, scope, complexity

DCR0039

Highlight

DCR0039

Highlight or dollar magnitude this solicitation requires.

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, and subcontract/teaming arrangements, and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance. Relevancy and nonrelevancy are defined above. 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 private sectors. Upon determining how recent past performance was, relevancy, and how well the offeror performed, past performance will be rated “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, as follows:

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.”