Addendum_FAR_52_212-2_Evaluation_Factors_-DATR.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 award as a result of this combined/solicitation. Offers received for less than the stated number of items listed in the Bid Schedule will be considered ineligible for award. As set forth in FAR 52.215-1 (f)(4), the Government intends to evaluate proposal s and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a), Clarifications and award without discussions). Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

c. Evaluation Criteria.

(1) Evaluation criteria consist of three (3) factors and elements. The proposals will be evaluated under three (3) evaluation factors and three (3) elements. Mission Capability, Past Performance, and Price. Factors and elements are to be evaluated on an “acceptable”: or “unacceptable” basis. In order to be considered for award, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every non-price factors and elements.

Factor 1: Mission Capability Element 1: Technical Capability Element 2: Quality Control Plan (QCP) Element 3: Personnel Staffing

(2) Factor 1 - Mission Capability. The Mission Capability will be evaluated on the offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s requirements. 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 reasonable and complete quotation shall reflect a lack of capability to perform the work requirements and will result in a determination that the offeror’s quotation is Unacceptable.

Element 1 - Technical Capability: The proposal shall fully document the offeror’s ability to develop, produce, and deliver Information Technology (IT)/Information Assurance (IA), and data web based services compliant with specifications, pamphlets, regulations, and other standards as found throughout the PWS.

1. an understanding of the requirements;

2. presents a sound technical solution;

3. identifies risks and a mitigation plan for these risks;

4. effectively demonstrates the processes and procedures necessary to ensure high quality services and deliverables are provided within cost and schedule.

B. Extent to which offeror demonstrates a sound performance measurement baseline expressed in scheduled labor hours (e.g., burn rate) aligned with the tasks, schedule and deliverables.

Element 2 - Quality Control Plan: The offeror’s proposal shall include a detailed summary description of a Quality Program including processes that addresses all aspects of performance. All deliverables shall be validated and tested by the contractor prior to delivery to the Government. The Quality Control Plan shall address all aspects of the validating and testing process prior to delivery of the Government.

Element 3 - Personnel Staffing: The offeror must demonstrate their ability to manage work efforts of this size. The offeror’s proposal must demonstrate management processes addressing selecting subcontractors, awarding contracts, subcontract administration, management and performance of services, scheduling and correction of defects prior to, and after Government review. Proposal must address offeror’s plan to provide a Program Manager and a Project Manager for requirement. The proposal must explain recruiting processes to demonstrate the ability to fill and backfill subject matter experts. Proposals must address complete organizational structure and qualifications of all contractors.

The Mission Capability Factor/Elements will receive one of the adjectival ratings defined below. Each element will receive one of the adjectival ratings defined below, and then there will be an overall roll up adjectival rating at the factor level. It will be the overall subjective conclusion of the Source Selection Evaluation Board as to how the proposals will be rated. Should one element be rated “Unacceptable”, the overall Mission Capability factor rating shall be “Unacceptable”.

Table 1 Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Acceptable

Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

(3) Factor 2 - Past Performance. The Past Performance evaluation will assess the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation’s requirements as indicated by that Offeror’s record of past performance. Past Performance is assessed at the factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance and focusing on performance that is relevant to the services being procured under this solicitation. Offerors are cautioned that in conducting the performance risk assessment, the Government may use data provided in the Offeror’s proposal 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:

- Services

- Quality of Service

- Schedule

- Cost Control

- Customer Satisfaction

(a) Each Offeror will receive a performance confidence assessment rating based on the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Contract requirements.

(b) 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 solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(c) 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/products being procured under this solicitation.

A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to what aspects of an Offeror’s contract history would give the most confidence that the Offeror will satisfy the current procurement. The past performance information provided in the proposal and obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance.

(d) The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

(e) Assigning Ratings. The Past Performance Factor will be assigned one of the ratings defined below.

Table 2 Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

(f) 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, 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 or Unacceptability, Unknown shall be considered Acceptable.

(4) Factor 4 – Price. Price will not be scored or rated. Evaluation of price will be performed using one or more of the price analysis techniques in FAR 15.404-1(b). Through these techniques the Government will determine whether prices are reasonable, complete and balanced.

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). As part of price evaluation, the government will evaluate its option to extend services (see FAR Clause 52.217-8) by adding one-half of the Offeror's final option period price to the Offeror's total price. Thus, the Offeror's total price for the purpose of evaluation will include the base period, 1st option, 2nd option, and 1/2 of the 2nd option. Offerors are not required to enter a price for the six-month period.

Unbalanced Pricing may be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), as applicable, to assess potential performance risk which could result in unreasonably high prices

Definitions.

Reasonableness. A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

Completeness/Accuracy. The Offeror’s proposal is in compliance with the Price Volume instructions in the solicitation.”