Attachment_4_Addenda_52.212-2,_Evaluation_--_Commercial_Items.docx

Attachment 4 - Addendum 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Items

1.0 The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers.

1.1 Technical

1.1.2 Factor 1 – Program Management, Track and Report on Deliverables

1.1.3 Factor 2 – Service Delivery, Plan and Provide Level I Preventative Maintenance Services

1.1.4 Factor 3 – Phase-in & Security uses two subfactors

1.1.4.1 Subfactor 3a – Phase-in Plan

1.1.4.2 Subfactor 3b – Personnel Security Clearances

1.2 Past Performance

1.3 Pricing

1.4 All evaluation factors and sub-factors other than price when combined are approximately equal to price.

1.5 Basis for Contract Award

1.5.1 This is a competitive 8(a) Low Price, Technically Acceptable (LPTA) best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3.

1.5.2 The Government will select the Lowest Priced, Technically Acceptable offer based on an assessment of Technical Acceptability, Past Performance, Price, and SBA eligibility determination. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented; whose proposal conforms to the solicitation's requirements (including all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 of this solicitation; and is judged as Acceptable based on the evaluation factors and sub factors. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an assessment of proposals against the source selection criteria described below. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.6 Proposals

1.6.1 Noncompliance with the RFP proposal requirements may raise serious questions regarding your technical acceptability and/or pricing. Failure to include all information requested may adversely affect your evaluation. A proposal that is orderly and sufficiently documented will be easy for the Government to understand and will enable the Government to perform a thorough and fair evaluation.

1.6.2 The Contracting Officer will begin the evaluation process by conducting a proposal compliance review for determination of basic proposal adequacy prior to providing the proposals to the evaluators. The Government also reserves the right to obtain additional information from the offeror solely for the purpose of making a responsibility determination after receipt of proposals. Requests for responsibility information do not constitute discussions. By submission of the offer, the offeror agrees that all items proposed will be utilized for the duration of the contract and any substitutions shall require prior Contracting Officer's approval.

1.6.2.1 The NGIC security will validate that an Offeror’s Facility Clearance is current at the Top Secret Level. If not current, the proposal is non-responsive and shall not be evaluated.

1.6.2.2 Proposals submitted by Offerors that did not attend the Site Visit are non-responsive and will not be evaluated.

1.6.2.3 Offerors and their subcontractors CAGE numbers will have a query processed in the System of Award Management application to determine if either have exception or delinquent federal debt. Delinquent federal debt makes a proposal non-responsive.

1.6.3 Prior to providing technical proposals to evaluation team, the procuring contracting officer will redact the following information in proposals: offeror’s identification information and personnel names in resumes.

1.7 5 Source Selection Process: Award will be made utilizing the source selection procedures found at FAR 15.101-2, Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Source Selection Process. All proposals will be evaluated for accuracy and completeness; then put in rank order by proposed price, from lowest price to highest in groups of three when more than three proposals are received for evaluation. An apparent successful offeror is an offeror that is technically acceptable under all technical factors and subfactors, with acceptable past performance, and has the lowest priced proposal whose pricing is determined to be fair and reasonable. The SBA will review the apparent successful offeror information and award data to determine if the offeror is eligible for the award. Should SBA find the apparent successful offeror firm eligible, an award is made; otherwise, the next offeror inline for award is evaluated by SBA until an eligible firm is approved by SBA and award made to that offeror under SBA’s competitive 8(a) procedures.

1.8 Evaluation Approach and Factors for Award.

1.8.1 Evaluation of Non-Price Factors

1.8.1.1 Technical Factors: The term "technical factors” refers to non-price factors other than past performance. The purpose of technical factors is to assess the offeror's ability to satisfy the Government's minimum requirements. Proposals will be evaluated against requirements to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in Tables 1.8a and 1.8b below.

1.8.1.2 The technical factors to be evaluated are: Program Management, Track and Report on Deliverables; Service Delivery, Plan and Provide Level I Preventative Maintenance Services; and Phase-in & Security based Subfactors Phase-in Plan and Personnel Security Clearances. All factors and sub-factors are of equal importance. An unacceptable rating in any factor or sub-factor will make the proposal ineligible for award.

Table 1.8a Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating

Table 1.8b Technical Factors and Subfactors Rating Factor 1: Program Management – Track and Report Deliverables The Offeror submission provides their approach to capture and stratify data to create and publish each deliverable as set forth in the PWS and DD Forms 1423.

For purposes of evaluation, the Government is evaluating Offerors approach and examples for the following four deliverables: In Progress Review (IPR), PWS 1.6.1; Level-I Preventive Maintenance After Action Reports, PWS 5.1.5.1.2; Food Service Equipment Familiarization, 5.3.1.5; and Contractor’s Quality Control Plan, PWS 6.1.2.1.

Offerors are to provide a single page summary describing their approach to develop the following three reports: Progress Review (IPR), PWS 1.6.1; Level-I Preventive Maintenance After Action Reports, PWS 5.1.5.1.2; Food Service Equipment Familiarization, PWS 5.3.1.5. Provide an example of each proposed report or equipment training session outline.

Offerors may either provide a Quality Control Plan, PWS 6.1.2.1 or can provide an example of Quality Control Plan from a previous contract of similar size and scope to this requirement.

Factor 1 Evaluation: The Government will evaluate Offeror’s approach to providing complete and timely deliverables.

To be determined acceptable, Offerors shall demonstrate an approach to provide reports that are factual, relevant and timely for the Government to manage Facility Maintenance at Rivanna Station.

Factor 2 – Service Delivery – Plan and Provide Level I Preventive Maintenance Services.

The Offeror submission provides and describes how prime employees and or subcontractors are utilized to deliver Level 1 Preventive Maintenance for the following PWS sections: 5.3, Food Services Equipment; 5.4, Physical Fitness Equipment Maintenance; 5.5, Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) System Services; 5.6, Security Systems Maintenance: Nicholson & ULC 1 Buildings; 5.7, General Mission Maintenance Support Services; 5.8, Mission Equipment Maintenance Support; 5.9, Custodial Services, Nicholson And ULC1 Buildings (NGIC) and Warehouse ; and 5.10, Data Center Custodial (Nicholson Building).

Offerors are to provide a separate one-week typical daily work schedule for custodial and Level I Preventive Maintenance. The schedules shall list by occupation staff assignments and work hours.

Factor 2 Evaluation: The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s approach to determine if offeror’s labor allocation for Level 1 Preventive Maintenance requirements provides a proper balance between custodial and the non-custodial systems.

To be determined acceptable, Offerors shall demonstrate it can keep facilities clean, systems operating on a daily basis, and complete service orders.

Factor 3 – Phase-In and Security Subfactor 3a – Phase-in Plan The Offeror submission provides and describes how it will staff, establish a supply chain, and equip to be at full performance after the 30-day phase-in period ends, as set forth in PWS sections 5.12 Offerors shall provide a resume and a signed letter of intent for each of the three employees to be onsite to conduct all coordination and preparation to deliver contracted services at the completion of the phase-in period.

Note: If Offeror plans to use Key Personnel called out in PWS Section 1.7.9.1 for phase-in; then, those personnel shall meet PWS experience requirements.

Subfactor 3a Evaluation: Government will evaluate each Offeror’s approach to determine if it can staff effort through a combination of recruitment, retention or subcontracting, can establish supplier agreements to provide custodial and preventive maintenance supplies, and provide equipment the offeror needs to fulfill contractual obligations.

To be determined acceptable:1) each phase-in employee resume must have a minimum of three years recent experience performing the tasks stated in the Offeror’s phase-in plan or meet experience for Project Manager and or alternate Project Manager. 2) The Offeror can provide phase-in personnel with a current (active) DoD TOP SECRET Security Clearance (TS/SCI) with SCI eligibility prior to beginning contract performance.

Factor 3 – Phase-In and Security Subfactor 3b – Personnel Security Clearances The Offeror submission provides and describes how the offeror will provide for personnel security clearances as set forth in PWS sections 1.7.7.

Subfactor 3b Evaluation: Government will evaluate each Offeror’s approach to determine if it understands all contractual personnel security requirements.

To be determined acceptable, Offerors shall demonstrate it is in compliance with having sufficient non phase-in employees with a valid security clearance at the Top Secret Level to begin delivering full services at contract services start date.

1.9 Past Performance. The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation’s performance requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s historical record of relevant and recent past performance performing services similar to those outlined in the solicitation requirements. A proposal must receive an acceptable rating under recency and relevancy to be eligible for award. Past performance will be rated on an "acceptable" or "unacceptable" basis using the rating in Table 1.9.

Table 1.9 Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

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 (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). 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.”

1.9.1 Past Performance Evaluation Process. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), and other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers; Past Performance Questionnaires; and commercial sources.

1.9.2 Past Performance must be recent, relevant and of an acceptable quality in order for Past Performance to be considered acceptable. If the actual performance (quality of service rendered) under the contract being evaluated is Unacceptable, the Past Performance Factor will be found Unacceptable even though it is recent and relevant.

1.9.3 The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS.

1.9.3.1 The Government will conduct a past performance assessment based on the relevancy, recency, and overall rating of the Offeror’s past performance. If an Offeror has no record of recent relevant performance or for whom information on performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated past performance. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

1.9.3.2 If the Contracting Officer determines the lowest priced 8(a) offeror is not eligible for award based on poor past performance; the matter will be referred to the Small Business Administration for a Certificate of Competency determination in accordance with FAR SubPart 19.6.

1.9.4 Recency Assessment. Recency refers to work occurring within the past 3 years. 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 performed within 3 years from the date this solicitation was issued. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated. Table 1.9.4 provides recency acceptable criteria Table 1.9.4 Recency Rating

1.9.5 Relevancy Assessment. Areas of relevancy include past performance under contracts with similar cost, schedule, and performance requirements for Facilities Maintenance Support Services. The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent past performance focusing on that which is relevant to the RSFMS Performance Work Statement. Consideration will be given to the scope and complexity of past contracts.

Table 1.9.5 Relevant Rating

1.10 Evaluation of the Price Factor

1.10.1 All Price proposals will be evaluated for completeness and accuracy. The lowest priced proposal will be further evaluated to determine fairness, reasonableness and realism. This evaluation will include one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404. The Government will evaluate your offer for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. 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). If the proposed price for option to extend service is not equal to one-half of your final option period prices to the total price, it will adjusted for evaluation purposes. Thus, your total price for the purpose of evaluation will include the base period, first, second, third, fourth, and one-half of the fourth option.

1.10.2 Completeness. The proposals will be reviewed to determine the extent to which all the price elements of the offer have been addressed. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to ensure continuity and traceability of prices to the technical proposal and between the initial proposal and any revisions thereto. The review will determine the adequacy of the contractor’s proposal in addressing and fulfilling the solicitation requirements.

1.10.3 Reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. As stated above, price reasonableness is established through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1 (b). The purpose of a price reasonableness review is to determine if proposed prices are too high.

1.10.4 Realism. Price realism means the price proposed is unrealistically low for the magnitude of work to be performed. The purpose of a price realism review is to determine if proposed prices are too low; such that there is an unacceptable risk of poor performance from a contractor who is performing mission essential functions. An unrealistically low price may indicate a lack of understanding of the requirement. A proposed price that is not consistent with the offeror's technical proposal may also be found unrealistically low. An unrealistically low price is not a reasonable price to one or both of the parties.

1.10.5 Evaluation and Award. When more than three proposals are received for evaluation. The Government will evaluate the three lowest priced proposals for acceptability first. An apparent successful offeror is an offeror that is technically acceptable under all technical factors and subfactors, with acceptable past performance, and has the lowest priced proposal whose pricing is determined to be fair and reasonable. The SBA will review the apparent successful offeror information and award data to determine if the offeror is eligible for the award. Should SBA find the apparent successful offeror eligible, an award is made; otherwise, the next offeror inline for award is evaluated by SBA until an eligible firm is approved by SBA and award made to that offeror under SBA’s competitive 8(a) procedures.