Addendum_FAR_52_212-2_Evaluation_Factors_-DATR_(Amendment_02).docx

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

EVALUATION– COMMERCIAL ITEMS

a. Basis for Contract Award.

(1) This is a source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 13.106-2(b)(3), as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS). A contract will be awarded to the Offeror deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements, and whose proposal, judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in this solicitation, represents the Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable offer.

The Government will evaluate only the proposed prices/ proposals of those offerors who are rated Acceptable in Mission Capability and Past Performance. Prices will be evaluated for reasonableness using price analysis techniques. Proposed prices/ proposal evaluated as unreasonable may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.

b. Award for All of the Work. The Government intends to award a single firm-fixed price contract to the lowest-priced, technically acceptable Offeror based on the evaluation criteria identified within the RFQ, using the procedures in FAR Part 13.

c. The Government intends to evaluate quotations and award a contract without discussions with Offerors. Therefore, the Offeror’s quotations should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to gather more information to aid in evaluating an Offeror’s quotation. The Government may choose to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

d. The evaluation factors are as follows:

Factor 1: Technical Ability Factor 2: Management Approach and Staffing Approach Factor 3: Past Performance Factor 4: Price

e. The Offeror’s quotation shall demonstrate a clear understanding of the nature and scope of the work specified in the PWS. Failure to provide a complete quotation shall reflect a lack of capability to perform the work requirements and may result in a determination that the Offeror’s quotation is unacceptable.

1) Factor 1: Technical Ability.

The proposal clearly demonstrates that the Offeror understands the requirement in its entirety; has an acceptable methodology to perform all tasks successfully and on time, and has an efficient, effective and sound approach to plan, organize, control and perform the major performance objectives in an integrated manner. The proposal’s overall technical approach has little potential to disrupt or degrade performance or to increase costs.

2) Factor 2: Management Approach and Staffing Approach.

[Element 1] The proposal clearly demonstrates that the Offeror has sound and thorough procedures to monitor and manage performance of all personnel, in all locations, to ensure timely quality work and to control costs. [Element 2] The proposal clearly demonstrates that the Offeror has offered properly qualified personnel in the appropriate labor categories to perform this requirement, has a sound recruiting and retention plan to ensure the continued availability of properly qualified personnel and has an efficient, effective and a staffing approach that ensures an appropriate number of personnel are available to perform this requirement. The proposal’s overall management and staffing approach has little potential to disrupt or degrade performance or to increase costs.

3) Rating Scheme for Factors 1 and 2:

Table 4: Technical Ratings

4) Factor 3: Past Performance The past performance evaluation will assess the probability of the Offeror and its subcontractor, teaming partners and joint venture partners, as defined above (collectively referred to as Offeror), meeting the RFQ’s requirements by examining how well the Offeror has performed recent and relevant contracts. Past Performance is assessed at the factor level using the definitions below. Offerors are cautioned that in conducting performance risk assessment, the Government may use data provided in the Offeror’s quote and data obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems and State Department Watch Lists. Past performance areas of evaluation include:

· Quality of Service

· Schedule

· Cost Control

· Customer Satisfaction

Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this RFQ. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

Relevancy Assessment. To be relevant, the effort must be similar in nature of work, size, and complexity. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine if it is the same or similar in nature of work, size, and complexity to the services being procured under this RFQ.

The Past Performance will be rated using the table below:

Table 5 Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

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

Factor 4: Price.

Price will not be scored or rated. Evaluation of price will be performed on quotations that have been evaluated and determined to be Acceptable for both Factors 1 and 2. Price will not be evaluated on those responses found to be Unacceptable in either Factor 1 or Factor 2. The Government will determine whether prices are reasonable, complete and balanced. However, unreasonably high, unbalanced, inaccurate or incomplete price proposals may be the grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.

Option Years. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options years 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).

Evaluation of Option to Extend Services under 52.217-8. For the purposes of the award of this Contract, the Government intends to evaluate the option to extend services, provided under FAR 52.217-8, as follows: by adding one-half of the Offeror's final 12 month period prices to the total proposed price. Thus, the Offeror's total price for the purpose of evaluation will include the 36- month contract term plus an additional six-month period. Offerors will not propose a price for this additional six-month period. The evaluation will consider the possibility that the option can be exercised at any time during any contract performance period and can be exercised in increments of one to six months, but for no more than a total of six months during the life of the contract.

5. List of Attachments.

1) Performance Work Statement

2) Pricing Worksheet

3) Clauses Incorporated by Reference and by Full Text