Attachment_0032_52.212-2_Addendum,_Evaluation-Commercial_Items.pdf

Attachment 0032

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2: Evaluation-Commercial Items

The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation is determined to be the Lowest Price Technically

Acceptable. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

A. Price. The lowest price offer will be evaluated for technical acceptability. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by calculating the total price of all items (all ordering periods). Total price for all zones will be calculated. Failure to include a price for each and every item and zone may exclude the offeror from further consideration for award.

B. Technical Capability: Submissions will be evaluated for technical acceptability. Two rating categories will be used to reflect the Government’s evaluation of each offeror's ability, as demonstrated in the proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the solicitation. Technical proposals will be rated using the following criteria:

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets specified minimum standards. A proposal must have no deficiencies to receive an Acceptable rating.

Offerors must have an “Acceptable” rating in each technical evaluation sub factor to receive an overall “Acceptable” rating.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet specified minimum standards. The proposal has one or more deficiencies. Proposals which fail the technical criteria will be ineligible for further evaluation.

The Government reserves the right to open discussions to determine acceptability. Technical subfactors are of equal importance. The criteria are met when:

Subfactor 1 – The offeror submits a Quality Control Plan no longer than the 5-page limitation which fully addresses, at a minimum, the requirements outlined in 52.212-1 Addendum, Paragraph B, Subfactor 1, Quality Control (QC) Plan and successfully indicates procedures are available to provide quality performance to the Government.

Subfactor 2 – Offeror’s Guaranteed Daily Capability for the base and all ordering periods meets or exceeds the Government’s minimum acceptable daily capability listed in the solicitation.

Subfactor 3 – Vehicles. Evidence of ownership and availability of, or ability to lease (e.g., lease agreement with rental company or subcontractor), required vehicles, (including size, type, and quantity of each) and proof of insurance.

Subfactor 4- Facility. The offeror submits a copy of their most current DD Form 1812 warehouse inspection report that contains an approval by the Regional Storage Management Office.

C. Past Performance. The Government will conduct an evaluation and review of all recent past performance data obtained to determine how closely the work performed under these efforts relates to the proposed effort and how well that work was performed. The offeror shall consider the requirements contained in FAR Clauses 52.212-1 and 52.212-1 (Addendum) when submitting their past performance references. Past performance shall be evaluated for recency, relevancy and quality of services rendered. To consider relevancy and quality the past performance evaluation will consider all aspects of an offeror’s past performance, focusing on and targeting performance relevant to areas identified in the Relevancy Criteria listed below. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. Evaluation of past performance will be a critical assessment based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances. For purposes of this evaluation, recent is defined as contracts performed within the past three (3) years from the issuance date of the solicitation. Relevant will be evaluated according to these criteria:

Relevant is defined as contracts of a similar scope, magnitude, and complexity for the packing, containerization and local drayage of personal property shipments.

RELEVANCY CRITERIA

TABLE

RATING DESCRIPTION

Relevant (R) Relevant is defined as contracts of a similar scope, magnitude, and complexity for the packing, containerization and local drayage of personal property shipments.

Similar in scope means that the work must have been for packing, containerization, local drayage and warehousing services.

Similar in magnitude means the work must have been for similar number of shipments: Range for number of shipments are 200- 600shipments annually with an average up to 18,000 lbs. per shipment. The total number of shipments could be the result of multiple contracts performed (concurrent or consecutive).

Similar in complexity means the work must have involved handling multiple task orders concurrently.

Not Relevant (NR) Present/past performance was not within scope and/or did not involve any of the magnitude of effort and complexities that this solicitation requires.

The contracting officer shall seek relevant performance information on all offerors based on (1) the references provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in the solicitation, based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable as defined below:

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. (See note below.)

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.

Note: In the case of an offeror has no record of relevant past performance or whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable”.

D. Award Process: The Government will make award to the offeror found technically acceptable with the lowest price. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows: Offers will be ranked by price. The lowest priced offer will be evaluated for technical acceptability. If the lowest priced offeror receives a rating of “Acceptable” for technical acceptability they will be evaluated on past performance.

If the lowest priced evaluated offer is found to have an “Acceptable” past performance rating and is determined to be responsible, the offeror will receive the award. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

If the lowest price offer is not rated as acceptable for technical capability and/or past performance, the next lowest price offer will be evaluated. The process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror is rated as “Acceptable” for both technical capability and past performance.

(a) Ordering Periods. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price of zones 47-50 for all ordering periods to arrive at the total price. The

Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the ordering period prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of ordering periods shall not obligate the

Government to exercise the ordering period(s).

(End of provision)