Attachment_2-_Addendum_52.212-2.pdf

ADDENDUM TO CLAUSE 52.212-2

EVALUATION-COMMERCIAL ITEMS

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Basis for Contract Award/Evaluation Criteria

a. Basis for Contract Award

(1) This is a best value source selection conducted utilizing FAR Part 12, “Acquisition of Commercial Items,” with procedures as delineated in FAR Part 15.3, “Source Selection” as authorized in FAR 12.203 and supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS).

Award will be made to a single contractor who is deemed responsible whose quote conforms to the Request for Quotation (RFQ) requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by FAR 52.212-1 and the Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Items of thisRFQ), and whose quotes represents the Lowest Priced, Technically Acceptable Offer.

(2) Trade-offs between cost/price and non-cost/price factors are not permitted. Unreasonably high/unrealistically low, unbalanced, inaccurate or incomplete price quotes, may be the grounds for eliminating a quote from competition. The Government will evaluate proposed prices for reasonableness using price analysis techniques. Proposed prices evaluated as unreasonable may be grounds for eliminating a quote from competition.

(3) Quotes will be evaluated for acceptability but not ranked using the non-cost/price factors.

b. Award for All of the Work. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of thisRFQ. Quotes received for less than the stated number of items listed in the Bid Schedule will be considered ineligible for award. The Contracting Officer may reject any or all quotations.

The Contracting Officer may issue a purchase order to other than the quoter with the lowest priced quotation. After the evaluation of quotations, the Contracting Officer may negotiate final terms with one or more quoters of the Government’s choice before issuing any purchase order.

The Contracting Officer will not negotiate with any quoters other than those of the Government’s choice and will not use the formal source selection procedures described in FAR Part 15. As set forth in FAR 52.215-1 (f)(4), the Government intends to evaluate quotes and award a contract without discussions (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a), Clarifications and award without discussions). Therefore, the offeror’s initial quotes should contain the quoter’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. In the event that discussions are held, a competitive range determination will be made. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of quotes that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of quotes in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated quotes.

c. Evaluation Criteria

(1) Evaluation criteria consist of factors and subfactors. The proposals will be evaluated under 3 evaluation factors:

Factor 1: Mission Capability Subfactor 1: Technical & Management Approach Subfactor 2: Staffing & Training Approach Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

(2) Factor 1 – Mission Capability Factor. The Mission Capability Factor evaluation provides an assessment of the quoters capability to satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. The evaluation will focus on the information submitted by the quoter that’s acceptable and unacceptable. The technical capability evaluation process will consider the following four subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Technical & Management Approach. The Contractor must demonstrate the capability to provide a technical approach as required by theRFQ. The technical approach response shall contain sufficient quantitative details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of the approach from strictly a technical viewpoint. To be acceptable the narrative must clearly describe, demonstrate, and address each of the following specified minimum requirements which include:

(1) A practical/functional and effective approach to organize, so as to successfully manage and accomplish the primary and supplemental tasks identified in the PWS and the experience to efficiently and effectively manage multiple locations and the processing numerous cards.

(2) A thorough understanding of USARC’s G1 program objectives, operating environment, and the demands and constraints in regards to the customers supported.

(3) A realistic and effective program management plan. Contractor’s program management plan will be evaluated to ensure the Contractor demonstrates a sound management approach for adapting to changing priorities, enhancing customer service, ensuring adequate levels of performance are maintained, and procedures for problem resolution are sound.

Contractors will be evaluated to ensure they demonstrate the ability to provide effective program management to meet USARC vision, goals, and objectives and to facilitate/accommodate USARC programs and initiatives.

(4) The ability to provide an effective management approach to include organizational structure and team structure. The ability to successfully execute the approach proposed and determine whether the team possesses the relevant management expertise in terms of nature, size, complexity and duration as required in the PWS. The proposed management roles, controls, and communications will be evaluated on likelihood of being successful, with minimal disruption and risk to the government.

Subfactor 2: Staffing & Training Approach. The Contractor must demonstrate the capability to provide an effective staffing approach to meet USARC’s vision, goals, and objectives and to facilitate/accommodate the programs and initiatives. To be acceptable, the quoter’s staffing and training approach must address in detail each of the following specified minimum requirements:

(1) A practical approach that clearly demonstrates a realistic and thorough approach and sound methodology for determining the labor categories and staffing mix proposed to accomplish each task area of the PWS, and provide a clear explanation on why the labor categories proposed are best qualified to accomplish the task. The Contractor’s staffing approach will be evaluated to access the proposed qualifications, certifications, knowledge, skills, security clearances, and education levels for each proposed labor category and key personnel. The proposed staffing for each functional service area of the PWS will be evaluated to assess, in terms of labor mix and staffing levels, the feasibility and likelihood of task order performance with minimal risk.

(2) A realistic and effective plan to establish and recruit and retain a qualified workforce from the first day of performance, accommodate fluctuating workloads, minimize turnover, and ensure all PWS requirements are performed.

(3) A realistic and efficient approach to manage, schedule, and integrate (transparency of operations) teaming partners and/or subcontractors into the prime contractor’s organization;

and the capability of providing corporate reach back capability to the contractor organization.

The Technical Factor and subfactors will receive one of the adjectival ratings defined below. The sub-factor ratings will be used to determine an overall rating for the factor. Any sub-factor that receives an unacceptable rating will result in an overall unacceptable rating for the factor and the quoter will be deemed ineligible for award.

Table A-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Rating Description Acceptable Quote clearly meets the minimum requirements of the RFQ.

Unacceptable Quote does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the RFQ.

(3) Factor 2 - Past Performance. Past Performance Information to be submitted is: 1) A simple explanation of what past work was completed, that is relevant to the PWS. 2) A contract/ reference number of past work. 3) A Point of Contact (POC) to verify past performance.

(f) Quoters 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 quoter may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the quoter shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/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 quotes 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 quote 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 quoter’s final option period price to the quoter’s total price. Thus, the quoter’s total price for the purpose of evaluation will include the base period, 1st option, 2nd option, and 1/2 of the 2nd option. Quoters 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 quote is in compliance with the Price Volume instructions in the RFQ.”

Evaluation Factors for Award