A01_-_RFP_Attach_B_-_CTL_Evaluation_Factors_-_Addendum_to_52_212-2.pdf

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government anticipates awarding one contract as a result of this Request for Proposal (RFP), based on the results of a Government evaluation of proposals in accordance with this section.

However, the Government reserves the right to not award any contracts in the event that no proposals are considered to be in the best interest of the Government. Contract award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three (3) evaluation factors (listed in order of Importance): Technical, Past Performance, Price. Subfactors/elements included in the individual Factors are listed in descending order of importance. Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest priced offered.

ALL NON- PRICED FACTORS WHEN COMBINED ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN PRICE.

NOTE: THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO AWARD A CONTRACT BASED ON INITIAL SUBMISSIONS, WITHOUT EXCHANGES AND/OR DISCUSSIONS. FAR PART 13 SHALL BE UTILIZED FOR THIS ACQUISITION.

2. EVALUATION FOR AWARD: FACTORS, SUBFACTORS, AND ELEMENTS:

1. Factor 1 –Technical Subfactor 1 – Capabilities

Element 1 – General Requirements Element 2 – Conformance Testing of DBPAO Products Element 3 – Quality Control

Subfactor 2 – Program Management Element 1 – Program Management Plan Element 2 – Small Business Participation Plan

Subfactor 3 - Security

2. Factor 2 – Past Performance

3. Factor 3 – Price

FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL

Proposal rating definitions: These ratings are specific to Offeror’s proposals. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Risk Rating Descriptions:

Adjectival Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

SUBFACTOR 1 – CAPABILITIES

1. Element 1. General Requirements (L.12.2.1, PWS 2.1)

a. Capability to provide continuous conformance testing of DBPAO products in accordance with the

PWS.

1) The Government will evaluate whether the proposed testing and storage facilities have appropriate equipment, appropriate temperature and humidity control, and adequate space to conduct conformance testing procedures and store DBPAO products for needed conformance testing.

2) The Government will evaluate whether proposed technical personnel have appropriate experience working with biological agents, training and compliance on appropriate standard operating procedures (SOPs), applicable Federal, State and local Regulations, and the proposed program manager has the requisite expertise to manage successful performance of the contract.

b. Conformance Testing Equipment and Material Management

The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror has the capability to supply components that are not GFE/GFM and services necessary to perform conformance testing, as well as the ability to manage provided GFE/GFM.

c. Incident Reports

The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s summary description of handling and reporting incidents adequately meets the requirements of this PWS.

2. Element 2. Conformance Testing of DBPAO Products (L.12.2.2)

The Government will evaluate whether Offeror’s proposed test procedures adhere to or improve upon testing procedures in the approved versions of the DBPAO Conformance Test Plans for HHAs, ECL immunoassay, and ECL Positive Control as required by the PWS.

3. Element 3. Quality Control (L.12.2.3)

a. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s quality control procedures adequately covers the following as required by the PWS:

1) Inspection of GFM/GFE - detailed SOP for inspection of GFM to assure that items were shipped in accordance with SOPs with regard to temperature, labeling, and packaging requirements

2) Handling of rejected materials, handling and disposal of excess materials, and return of excess materials to the Government if needed

3) Non-routine testing, procedures to determine lot acceptance or rejection, lot identification

4) Trend analysis of QA/QC data and special studies related to QA/QC analysis

SUBFACTOR 2 – PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (L.12.2.4)

1. Program Management Plan (PMP)

a. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s PMP includes plans for data management, configuration management, risk management, and quality assurance and are in accordance with the PWS.

b. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s management plans are incorporated into a

Quality Management System (QMS) that meets ISO/IEC 17025 requirements (or equivalent standard), and are in accordance with the PWS .

c. The Government will evaluate whether best commercial practices that are in use can adequately evaluate performance, schedule risks, and manage all aspects of the contract, including interactions with the Government and management of subcontractors, and are in accordance with the PWS.

d. The Government will evaluate whether proposed changes request procedures adequately address the preparation and submission of Requests for Deviation (RFD), Specification Change Notices (SCN) or Engineering Change Proposals (ECP) for proposed changes to Government-controlled documents, and are in accordance with the PWS.

2. Small Business Participation Plan.

All offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of small businesses in the performance of acquisition (as small business prime offeror’s or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and goals established herein. The Government will evaluate:

a. The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals;

b. The extent of commitment to use such firms; enforceable commitments will be considered more favorably than non-enforceable ones;

c. Identification of the complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform;

d. The extent past performance in compliance with FAR 52.219-8 “Utilization of Small Business” and maximizing opportunities for U.S. Small Business Subcontractors.

e. The extent of participation of small business prime offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisitions. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror meets or exceeds the goals.

SubFactor 3 – Security (L.12.2.5)

The Government will evaluate if the offeror’s proposal has provided documentation that clearly demonstrates possession of an active Facility Clearance with safeguarding at the SECRET level or higher.

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE (L.12.3)

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's summary of recent (within the last three years) Past Performance Information that includes descriptions of relevant ongoing and previous (preceding three years only) Government contracts. A final Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will be assigned based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. NOTE: The Government reserves the right to Contact Contractor references provided in the proposal.

If the Offeror has limited government contract experience, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s descriptions of similar contracts with commercial entities, local and/or state governments as well as an analysis of the Offeror’s corporate experience solving challenging problems similar to those anticipated on this effort and experience with Government regulations with respect to the requirements of this effort.

Past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System eSRS), or other databases;

the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials.

Past Performance Rating definitions:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

Very Relevant The present/past performance effort involved has essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant The present/past performance effort involved has a similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant The present/past performance effort involved has some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant The present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating:

Adjectival Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

FACTOR 3 – PRICE (L.12.4)

The Government will evaluate the price proposed by the Offeror for performing all requirements outlined in the PWS/CLINS. The Offeror’s total evaluated price will be equal to the unit price times the maximum quantity for each CLIN for the five year ordering period. The offeror can propose more than one (1) unit price for each CLIN and description of any quantity or volume discounts either per Contract Line Item per Task Order and/or per

Contract Line Item for the life of the contract, if discounts are available. The total evaluated price will be based on the maximum quantity at the highest price offered for each CLIN.

A price analysis will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. All elements of the price proposal will be evaluated. Price reasonableness will be determined based on a comparison of Offerors’ total overall evaluated prices.

Comparison of proposed prices in response to the solicitation is the preferred and intended price analysis technique. Other techniques and procedures, if deemed necessary, may be used to ensure a fair and reasonable price, to include, but not limited to the following: comparison of previously proposed prices and previous Government and commercial contract prices with current proposed prices for the same or similar service/items;

comparison with competitive market prices of similar indexes; GSA Schedule(s) or Department of Labor wage/salary indexes; or comparison of proposed prices with the Independent Government estimate.

Offerors are cautioned against submitting an unbalanced offer. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to price. An example of an unbalanced offer would be proposed labor rates that are significantly less than or significantly greater than the proposed rates for other labor categories. The Government may also consider an offer unbalanced if there is a significant difference between proposed labor rates in the same labor category between pricing periods or the proposed price increases from year to year are above what would be considered a reasonable adjustment for inflation. Offers that are determined unbalanced may be rejected without evaluation of the non-price factors.

The Price will be evaluated but will not receive a color/adjectival rating.