Section_M-_Evaluation_Factor_Attachment_FAR_PART_12-13_rev_2.pdf

Attachment M

W91QF5-19-R-0014

ADDENDUM 52.212-2 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. The Government will use FAR Part 12.602 Streamlined Evaluation of Offers. Pass Performance shall be evaluated IAW the procedures in FAR Part 13.106-2 Evaluation of quotations or offers vs FAR 15.3 Source Selection to evaluate offers submitted in response to the solicitation. The factors that shall be used to evaluate proposals are Technical Capability, Past Performance and Price, as expounded below. All evaluation factors are equal in importance; however, a proposal is unawardable at any price if, after final evaluation, the any factor or sub-factor receives a rating of “Unacceptable.” The evaluation does not permit tradeoffs between price and non-price factors. Award shall be made to the responsible offeror who submits a proposal that (1) conforms to the requirements of the solicitation; (2) that receives a rating of “Acceptable” on all evaluation factors; and (3) that submits the proposal with the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP), provided that the TEP is not unbalanced and is fair and reasonable; (4) The Government will only evaluate the three (3) lowest priced, responsive offers. Should any of these offers be found unacceptable, the next lowest priced offers will be evaluated.

The Government reserves the right to award no contract at all depending upon (1) the quality of proposals received and (2) the fair and reasonableness of the pricing of quotes received

Table 1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2. FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY:

a. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s Technical Capability Proposal shall be made. Each proposal will be assigned a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable.

b. Each offeror must show evidence of a capability to provide the mandatory requirements set forth in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and elsewhere in this solicitation. A technical review team composed of key Government personnel shall use their technical skills, knowledge and experience to thoroughly review the adequacy of the proposals.

In evaluating the Mission Capability Proposal, the Government shall use the following evaluation criteria:

(1) Compliance with the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and this entire solicitation.

(2) Understanding of the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and this entire solicitation.

(3) Compliance and understanding of the requirements of the PWS as applied specifically to each factor/subfactor listed below.

DoD Admin Magno, I sent you the Section M from the refuse requirement. Add the evaluation rating tables (they’re straight from the DOD Source Selection Guide) Also mention that we will only evaluate the lowest priced proposal, or lowest 3, and then go up if they’re found unacceptable. I don’t want us to have to look at 30 proposals if we get that many. Other offerors we’ll just tell they were

Please see rev 1 magno

c. The following specific factors and subfactors shall be evaluated in the Technical Capability Proposal. Any factor or subfactor determined unacceptable shall render the entire Technical Capability Proposal as unacceptable. Upon final determination that a proposal is unacceptable, the Contracting Officer (KO) shall promptly notify the firm submitting the proposal that it shall not be considered for award and shall indicate in general terms the basis for the determination.

d. Technical Capability Evaluation Factors and Sub Factors are as follows:

(1) SUBFACTOR 1: Quality Control Plan (QCP) (PWS 1.6.1)

Description: This element will evaluate the offeror’s approach for ensuring performance will be in accordance with (IAW) the standards in the PWS throughout the life of the contract.

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror provides a detailed QCP that is likely to ensure that performance will be in accordance with (IAW) the standards in the PWS throughout the life of the contract to include:

1. Identification of personnel responsible for quality control;

2. A description of the offeror’s inspection system with types and frequencies of inspection to be conducted and personnel responsible for conducting inspections;

3. A system for preventing the occurrence of deficiencies; and

4. A description of how inspections will be documented with sample inspection records for each type of inspection to be conducted.

(2) SUBFACTOR 2: Key Control (PWS Para. 1.6.7.2 )

Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s ability to maintain control of Government issued keys/combinations/entry cards IAW the terms and conditions of the contract.

Measure of Merit: This subfactor is met when the offeror provides an effective plan, which is likely to ensure that keys/combinations/entry cards will be used only by authorized personnel, will not be lost, misused or duplicated without authorization, and will be returned by the contractor to the government upon termination of employment/contract as applicable. The offeror must also provide a sample key control log that identifies the following:

1. Key Number/Identification

2. Printed name and signature of employee.

3. Date and time key was signed out and signed back in.

4. Annotation if a key/entry card number/identification was lost/stolen/possible duplication and the CO (Contracting Officer) and COR (Contracting Officer Representative) will be notified within 24 hours of occurrence, in writing.

(3) SUBFACTOR 3: Special Qualifications (PWS Para 1.6.8)

Description: The Contractor shall furnish in writing to the Contracting Officer evidence of qualifications for each of his maintenance and service employees prior to commencing work under this contract. All employees assigned by the Contractor to perform the work under this contract shall be physically able to do the assigned work and have a minimum of one (1) year of experience.

3. FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

Description: This factor will evaluate the offeror’s prior experience, based on prior experience, relevancy, and size. Contractor to perform the work under this contract shall be physically able to do the assigned work. Past performance ratings likely to ensure the contractor’s capability to successfully meet the requirements of the PWS.

Measure of Merit: This factor is met when the offeror provides acceptable prior experience IAW the description above, and includes (in at least one of their three references). However if the 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/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable

3. PRICE: Price proposals shall be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) unbalanced pricing, (3) fair and reasonableness, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

(1) Completeness: The Government shall review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with solicitation clause FAR 52.212-1 and Appendix 1—Additional Instructions to Offerors.

(2) Unbalanced Pricing: The Government shall analyze each proposal to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices proposed on different Contract Line Items Numbers (CLIN) for the same or similar services and/or supplies in the same or similar quantities and with respect to option pricing. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer (CO) determines that the option prices are significantly unbalanced or that otherwise unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

DoD Admin This seems like it should be under Technical? This one was the sub- factor 3 for technical

DoD Admin This sounds like past performance not special qualifications. In LPTA we can’t require past performance. No past performance = acceptable. Also, make sure to have a section talking about it being recent and relevant – See Section M I sent as an example.

Please see rev 1. See measure of merit .magno

(3) Fair and Reasonableness: The offeror’s Price proposal shall be evaluated using price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) or DFARS 215.371-3 if only one offer is received.

(4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The Government shall add the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement to arrive at a total evaluated price (TEP). The TEP will be calculated as:

4. EVALUATION PROCESS

(a) The Government shall initiate concurrent evaluation of all evaluation factors on all proposals. The Government shall consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of a proposal including whether any proposal deficiency can be rectified and whether any uncertainty can be resolved. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government.

(a) The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct negotiations if they are deemed necessary.

(b) If deemed necessary, the Contracting Officer (CO) may open discussions and may continue discussions as long as, in the Government’s judgment, the deficiency is rectifiable or the uncertainty is resolvable.

(c) For the purpose of conducting discussions, if the Government rates the

Technical factor as “Unacceptable” or if the Government determines that there is some other deficiency or uncertainty relative to an offeror’s proposal, the entire proposal shall be rated “Unacceptable.” At the conclusion of discussions, if the Technical factor is rated “Unacceptable” or if any deficiency or uncertainty relative to the proposal has not been unresolved, evaluation of that proposal shall be considered final. The entire proposal shall be rated “Unacceptable” and no further consideration shall be given to that proposal for award.

(d) For the purpose of award without discussions, if pursuant to initial evaluation, the Government rates the Technical factor as “Unacceptable” or if the Government determines that there is some other deficiency or uncertainty relative to an offeror’s proposal, notwithstanding that any deficiency may be rectifiable or any uncertainty may be resolvable, the entire proposal shall be rated “Unacceptable,” the initial evaluation will be the final evaluation, and no further consideration will be given to that proposal for award.

A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, emailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

ADDENDUM 52.212-2 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD