L5_-_Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52.212-2.docx

ADDENDUM TO FAR PROVISION 52.212-2, EVALUATION - COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

(Note: Provision has been tailored to reflect Agency requirements, as prescribed by 12.301(c))

For the purposes of award, offers will be evaluated based on the following criteria:

I. Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA)

(a) Source selection will be conducted using the modified procedures (as specified herein) from the revised Air Force Source Selection policies and procedures contained in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Part 15, DOD FAR Sup, and Air Force FAR Sup. Award will be made to the single (1) Offeror who is deemed responsible, whose proposal conforms to the Request For Proposal (RFP) requirements and is judged to represent the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) proposal to the Government. To be eligible for award, a proposal must meet all past performance and technical requirements, conform to all required terms and conditions, and include all information required in the solicitation. Therefore, the proposal shall contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. This will result in award being made to lowest-priced offer that the Contracting Officer has determined as acceptable in both past performance and technical areas.

(b) While the Government and the Contracting Officer will strive for maximum objectivity, the evaluation process, by its nature, is subjective and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire evaluation process.

(c) The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a cost or price, past performance, and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

(d) The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated and determined to be unacceptable, fails to comply with the contract terms and conditions, or is excessively high or low in cost/price.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

I. Price Evaluation:

(a) A Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) price for each CLIN will be determined by multiplying the CLIN Unit Price by the CLIN Quantity. The CLIN prices for each period of performance, including the basic period and each option period, will be added together to determine a price for each period of performance. CLINs designated as optional work within each period of performance may be executed at any point during the applicable period of performance at government discretion and will be included in the calculation of the price for that period of performance. These annual prices will then be added to arrive at a total proposed price

(b) 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 mathematically and materially unbalanced

(c) 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 period, 2nd option period, 3rd option period, 4th option period, and one-half (1/2) of the 4th option period. Offerors are not required to enter a price for the six-month period.

(d) The total evaluated price will be evaluated to determine whether it is reasonable through price analysis. A reasonable price/cost represents a price/cost that provides best value to the government, taking into account market prices, the technical and functional capabilities of the offeror, and risk. The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Other price analysis techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) may be used to further validate price reasonableness.

(e) Balanced Pricing. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items (including Basic and Option Years) is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected, if the lack of balance poses a significant risk to the Government.

(f) The government reserves the right to, but is not required to, conduct a price realism analysis on offers that appear to be exceptionally low and not supported by the offeror’s technical approach. In instances where an offeror’s proposed price(s) appear exceptionally low, offerors may be requested to address this disparity by providing evidence of their capability and/or performance at similar price(s). The burden of proof as to price credibility rests with the offeror. An exceptionally or unrealistically low offer that’s left unexplained may pose an unacceptable risk to the government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal.

II. Technical Evaluation

(a) The technical rating provides for an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” rating as indicated in the table below based on the information received and verified by the government on the contractor’s technical approach and other required documentation.

TECHNICAL CAPABILITY RATINGS

(b) A Technically Acceptable proposal will provide the following:

(1) A Technical Approach demonstrating a clear understanding of the requirements. This includes the following:

i. Demonstrates the prospective project manager has at least three years of supervisory experience on projects of similar type and magnitude of the work within the last five (5) years. Also demonstrates has experience in at least 70% of the tasks described in RFP Attachment C2, PWS – Attachment 01, and the project manager has handled similar projects of this magnitude. Documentation clearly indicates the project manager’s previous experience in day to day operational procedures and clearly articulates the project manager’s development and application of a successful quality control plan.

ii. A Staffing and Equipment Plan that demonstrates a general knowledge of the effort and equipment needed to successfully execute the contract requirements;

iii. A Sample Quality Control Plan that demonstrates the offeror’s technical knowledge of PWS paragraphs 2.2.1 Mowing; 2.2.4 Fertilizing; 2.2.5.1 Seeding; 2.2.6 Maintaining Flower Beds; 2.2.9.1 Perform Mechanical Tree Spading and Transplanting; and 2.2.11.2 Maintenance of Irrigation Systems and innovative approaches to quality control for each area.; and

iv. Submission of a copy its Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA) commercial pesticide applicator license, for category 3-A Plan (Pest & Weed Control). Also submission of its irrigators licenses for Texas and New Mexico or submission of documentation that demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to obtain these licenses by the 15th day of phase in.

III. Past/Present Performance Evaluation

(a) There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to consider the recency of the past performance data provided. The second is to evaluate whether the Offeror’s past performance is relevant to the effort to be acquired. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

(1) 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 for at least one (1) year during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Additionally, the Government will not consider any contract where performance began within six (6) months prior to the release date of this RFP. Past performance information that fails these conditions will not be evaluated.

(2) Relevancy Assessment. The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. For the past performance evaluation to be an effective predictor of future success, the past performance history being evaluated must be relevant to this proposal’s requirement. Relevance is defined as the effort must meet the recency requirement above and be the same or similar in nature of work, size, scope and complexity between the Offeror’s past performance and the requirement. For the purpose of this evaluation, the term “Offeror” includes the prime Offeror and/or teaming members and major subcontractors. Relevance of an effort in which the Offeror participated under a joint venture or subcontracting arrangement will be determined based on the work performed by the Offeror. If a third party or customer cannot discern what work the Offeror performed, this effort will not be considered relevant.

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

(b) Past Performance is rated as follows:

PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS

NOTE: 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 IAW FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. Unknown past performance is considered Acceptable per DoD Source Selection Procedures.

(c) Offerors must be evaluated as Acceptable in Past Performance to be considered awardable. If a proposal receives an Unacceptable rating, the offeror will not be considered for award. Although only recent, relevant past performance will be evaluated for award, poor performance ratings or other negative information regarding non- recent and/or non-relevant past performance will be evaluated for contractor responsibility IAW FAR 9.104-1(c) and FAR 9.104-3(b) and may still result in disqualification from award.

(d) The government reserves the right to obtain and evaluate past performance information from any sources it deems appropriate.

(e) An offeror may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposals, such as, the relevance of an offeror’s past performance information (as related to this acquisition), and adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond or to resolve minor clerical errors.

(End of addendum)