1. LC13017A Sections L & M final 8-6-24.pdf

Architect of the Capitol Solicitation No.: AOCAC24R0025

JAB Sprinkler System Replacement for Collections

SECTION L – INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

L.1 INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING PROPOSALS

A. GENERAL

1. By submission of its offer in accordance with the instructions provided in this Section L, the offeror agrees to the terms and conditions in this solicitation document and in any attachments hereto.

Unless this solicitation document expressly authorizes alternate proposals with respect to specific terms or conditions of the solicitation, an objection to any of the terms and conditions of this solicitation document shall constitute a deficiency that will render the offer unacceptable.

2. The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in AOC Order 34-1, Section 9.1.11; therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should be clear and complete and contain the offeror's best terms from a technical and price standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later deemed necessary. The Government further reserves the right to reject any or all offers if such action is in the Government's best interest.

3. Offerors shall email their proposal to the Contracting Officer (John Lingamfelter) at john.lingamfelter@aoc.gov and Contracting Specialist (Charvey Smith) at charvey.smith@aoc.gov no later than the date and time specified in Block 13 of the Standard Form 1442.

4. Offerors should note that proposal preparation instructions set forth in paragraph C below may require submission of a critical path method (CPM) schedule or separate narrative for which no form or format is provided. Each offeror should carefully review the proposal preparation instructions below in formulating their proposal.

B. SUBMISSION OF OFFERS

1. Each offeror shall submit an offer that fully addresses the evaluation factors contained in Section M of this solicitation and complies with the preparation and submission instructions contained in Section L. Offerors should carefully review this section and its relationship to Section M prior to commencing proposal preparation.

2. Offers shall consist of two separate volumes: Vol I - Technical Proposal, and Vol II - Price Proposal.

Submit each volume in a separate and searchable Adobe Acrobat file. Contents of the proposals are set forth below. The proposal must clearly identify the solicitation number and the date and local time specified in the solicitation for receipt of proposals.

AOCACB24R0025 Vol I-Technical Proposal – [Contractor’s name] AOCACB24R0025 Vol II-Price Proposal – [Contractor’s name]

3. Number pages consecutively. There shall be no consideration of information incorporated by reference or reiteration of the RFP. Proposal presentation shall be in a manner which allows it to “STAND ALONE” without need for evaluators to reference other documents. It is allowable to combine arrangements, layout plans, and notes on single sheets to simplify presentation, so long as there is maintenance of clarity. Contents of files shall be appropriately bookmarked and labeled corresponding to the proposal table of contents, affording ease of identification.

mailto:john.lingamfelter@aoc.gov mailto:charvey.smith@aoc.gov

4. Offers are expected to examine the entire solicitation and all instructions. Failure to do so will be at the offeror’s risk. Each offeror shall furnish the information required by the solicitation. The offeror will be held responsible for full knowledge of all information contained therein. Offerors shall submit a price breakdown of the lump-sum pricing proposed for ALL contract line items (Refer to attached Bid Schedule Form in Section J, Attachment 4.

5. Proposals must set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by this RFP. Proposals submitted must reflect the Offeror’s interpretation of criteria contained in the RFP. Contents of files shall be appropriately bookmarked and labeled corresponding to the proposal table of contents, affording ease of identification.

6. Penalty for making false statements in proposals is prescribed in 18 U.S.C. 1001.

L.2 VOLUME I - TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

The Technical Proposal shall have a cover page that contains (1) Firm Name (2) SAM.gov, 12-digit Unique Identifier (3) CAGE code (4) Contact Info (email and phone) for two points of contact.

There will be an evaluation of technical proposals for conformance with the RFP criteria. Proposals must provide adequate detail for evaluators to determine how the Offeror’s proposal meets the RFP criteria. The evaluation of the offerors’ technical proposals will be conducted by a Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP).

The TEP will use Best Value Tradeoff standards described in the Instructions for preparing the Technical Proposal and Section M Technical Evaluation Criteria to perform their technical evaluation. The TEP’s duty is the assignment of a technical rating for each proposal based solely on the merits of the proposal. There will be no consideration of pricing data during the technical evaluation by the TEP. A rating of Unacceptable on any technical factor will render that proposal ineligible for award.

File size maximum of 20MB. If file is larger than 20MB break file into several smaller files.

Technical Proposal Format. At a minimum, the technical proposal(s) must follow the general format specified below. Number pages from beginning to end. Do not repeat numbering for new sections. The technical proposal must include 1) a cover letter and 2) the required technical data. A description of each is as follows:

1. Cover Letter: The technical proposal cover letter should be the first page of the technical proposal and must contain the following:

• Solicitation number.

• Name, address, telephone, and e-mail address of the Offeror.

2. Table of Contents:

The Table of Contents shall list all sections contained in the technical proposal. Provide a separate section for each evaluation criterion. Any additions or revisions to the proposal shall include an updated Table of Contents for each set. Number of total pages in the proposal shall not exceed 50.

The technical proposal shall be organized into the following four (4) parts:

I. Prime Offeror Corporate Experience and Expertise (FACTOR 1) II. Key Subcontractor Corporate Experience and Expertise (FACTOR 2) III. Prime Offeror Past Performance (FACTOR 3) IV. Key Subcontractor Past Performance (FACTOR 4) V. Technical Approach (FACTOR 5)

3. Page Count: Number of total pages shall not exceed 50. Any pages over this page limit will not be evaluated. The page limit includes the cover letter and all attachments, appendices, charts, graphs, diagrams, tables, photographs, resumes, and drawings. Page limit does not include CPARS, Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs), cover sheets for volumes, tables of contents, glossary of abbreviations and acronyms, indices, title pages, and section dividers/tabs if they are inserted solely to provide ease to the reader in locating parts/sections of the proposal. Pages marked "This page intentionally left blank" will not be counted. Number pages consecutively. There shall be no consideration of information incorporated by reference or reiteration of the RFP. Proposal presentation shall be in a manner which allows it to “Stand Alone” without need for evaluators to reference other documents.

The page format for each sheet will be the standard 8.5 x 11 inches, with single-spaced text, using not smaller than 12-point type font and with margins at the top, bottom, and sides of the paper no less than one inch. Large graphics, illustrations, and CPM Schedules pages may use 11 x 17 inches paper with not smaller than 10-point type font and margins at the top, bottom, and sides of the paper no less than one inch.

L.2.1 FACTOR 1: PRIME OFFEROR CORPORATE EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE

The Prime Offeror shall provide the information described below for at least two (2) projects but no more than four (4) projects of substantially comparable scope, size, magnitude, complexity, and dollar value that have been completed or are at least 50 percent (50%) complete within the last ten (10) years as of this proposal due date. For the purposes of this factor, completion is defined as actual physical construction progress; not the offeror’s total amount invoiced or paid under a respective project submitted for consideration. If the prime offeror is a joint venture, each firm shall provide information demonstrating experience relevant to their role on the project. In addition, individual firms that constitute a joint venture are permitted to submit at least two

(2) projects but no more than four (4) projects reflecting each firm’s individual experience and expertise for projects of substantially comparable scope, size, magnitude, complexity, and dollar value that have been completed or are at least 50 percent (50%) complete as of the proposal due date. The Government will not review or consider more than four (4) projects as requested above.

The Prime Offeror shall provide the following information for each project submitted in the proposal:

(i) Project name and location/address.

(ii) Owner or contracting agency name, address, telephone number and other pertinent contact information (i.e., email address) to allow for independent verification by the AOC.

(iii) Photograph of project.

(iii) Project award date and project completion date.

(iv) Original contract award amount and final contract amount with a brief explanation of the differences between the award and the final amount.

(v) Key personnel and, if any, subcontractors participating on the project including, at a minimum, the Project Manager and Project Superintendent, Project Executive (defined as executive level management personnel), and the subcontractors who have performed Fire Protection System installation and acceptance testing.

(vi) Brief description of the project explaining its relevancy to the project contemplated by this RFP.

L.2.2 FACTOR 2: KEY SUBCONTRACTOR CORPORATE EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE

Prime Offeror's Key Subcontractor(s), if any, performing the Fire Protection Systems (Sprinkler and Fire Alarm) installation and acceptance testing shall provide the information described below for at least two (2) projects but no more than four (4) projects of substantially comparable scope, size, magnitude, complexity, and dollar value that have been completed or are at least 50 percent (50%) complete within the last ten (10) years as of this proposal due date. For the purposes of this factor, completion is defined as actual physical construction progress; not the offeror’s total amount invoiced or paid under a respective project submitted for consideration. In the event the Prime Offeror intends to self-perform the Fire Protection Systems (Sprinkler and Fire Alarm) installation and acceptance testing scope of work, the Prime Offeror shall clearly denote such for this Factor in its proposal. The Government will not review or consider more than four (4) projects as requested above.

The Prime Offeror’s Key Subcontractor shall provide the following information for each project submitted in the proposal:

(i) Project name and location/address.

(ii) Owner or contracting agency name, address, telephone number and other pertinent contact information to allow for independent verification by the AOC.

(iii) Photograph of project.

(iii) Project award date and project completion date.

(iv) Original contract award amount and final contract amount with a brief explanation of the differences between the award and the final amount.

(v) Key personnel participating on the project including, at a minimum, the Project Manager and Project Superintendent, Project Executive (defined as executive level management personnel) and the subcontractor(s) who performed Fire Protection Systems (Sprinkler and Fire Alarm) installation and acceptance testing.

(vi) Brief description of the project explaining its relevancy to the project contemplated by this RFP.

L.2.3 FACTOR 3: PRIME OFFEROR PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government reserves the right to use any source of information available on the Prime Offeror's past performance, to include any of its subcontractors, to either evaluate past performance or verify information provided. The information shall demonstrate the past performance by the Prime Offeror. The enclosed "AOC PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PRIME OFFEROR" shall be provided by the Prime Offeror to each of the companies unless a CPARS is available and submitted with the proposal.

Interim CPARS are acceptable if the project has not been completed. CPARS evaluations included in the proposal will not count against the page count. Questionnaire(s) must be e-mailed by the companies/agencies to the attention of Contracting Officer (John Lingamfelter) at john.lingamfelter@aoc.gov and Contracting Specialist (Charvey Smith) at charvey.smith@aoc.gov by the date and time established for receipt of offers to be considered in the evaluation process.

Identify each project for which a Past Performance questionnaire was requested and the point of contact, name, and number of the company or agency. The offeror shall not directly return the questionnaires; they must be forwarded directly by the references to the Government point of contact identified above. The Government will not release the questionnaire forms to the offeror at any time for the Government to solicit candid, unbiased responses and comments.

The offeror shall briefly discuss its past performance on each project identified in Factor 1 above to explain any ratings that may impact its overall rating for this factor (positively or negatively). The Government reserves the right to use any source of information available on the offeror’s past performance to either evaluate past performance or verify information provided by the offeror.

Additionally, the offeror is permitted to submit past performance evaluations for the projects listed in Factor 1 from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). In lieu of a Past Performance Questionnaire, a final CPARS evaluation for projects submitted in response to Factor 1 may be submitted for Factor 3 Past Performance. If Offerors elect to submit final CPARS Evaluations in lieu of questionnaires, Offerors shall include a copy of the final CPARS in their proposal.

L.2.4 FACTOR 4: KEY SUBCONTRACTOR PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government reserves the right to use any source of information available on the Key Subcontractor Past Performance, to include any of its subcontractors, to either evaluate past performance or verify information provided. The Government has identified “Key Subcontractors” as those performing the Fire Protection Systems (Sprinkler and Fire Alarm) installation and acceptance testing. In the event the Prime Offeror intends to self-perform the Fire Protection Systems (fire alarm and sprinkler) installation and acceptance testing, the Prime Offeror shall clearly denote such for this Factor in its proposal.

The information shall demonstrate the past performance of the Key Subcontractor. The enclosed "AOC PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR KEY SUBCONTACTORS" shall be provided to each of the companies unless a CPARS is available and submitted with the proposal. CPARS evaluations included in the proposal will not count against the page count. Questionnaire(s) must be e-mailed by the companies/ agencies to the attention of Contracting Officer (John Lingamfelter) at john.lingamfelter@aoc.gov and Contracting Specialist (Charvey Smith) at charvey.smith@aoc.gov by the date and time established for receipt of offers to be considered in the evaluation process. Identify each project for which a Past Performance questionnaire was requested and the point of contact, name, and number of the company or agency. In order for the Government to solicit candid, unabised responses and comments the PPQ shall be submitted to the Government point of contact(s) identified above. The offeror shall not directly return the questionnaires. The Government will not release the questionnaire forms to the offeror at any time.

The offeror shall briefly discuss past performance on each project identified above to explain any ratings that may impact its overall rating for this factor (positively or negatively). The Government reserves the right to use any source of information available on the offeror’s past performance to either evaluate past performance or verify information provided by the offeror.

Additionally, the offeror is permitted to submit past performance evaluations for the projects listed in Factor 2 from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). In lieu of a Past Performance Questionnaire, a final CPARS evaluation for projects submitted in response to Factor 2 may be submitted for Factor 4 Past Performance. If Offerors elect to submit final CPARS Evaluations in lieu of questionnaires, Offerors shall include a copy of the final CPARS in their proposal.

L.2.5 FACTOR 5: TECHNICAL APPROACH

A. Plan of Accomplishment:

Offerors shall demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of the work described in this solicitation by developing a work plan that will ensure high quality and timely completion of the work. The offeror shall provide a work plan with a description of the offeror’s proposed plans, methods, and procedures to be used, including materials and equipment in providing the complex coordination of their services required to perform this project.

B. Duration and Summary of the Milestone Schedule:

The Prime Offeror shall provide a "Duration and Summary of the Milestone Schedule" for the completion of all work, complete mobilization and demobilization from the site, and a complete system installation and testing that shall not exceed the maximum contract duration of Nine Hundred and Ninety-Seven (997) calendar days from the issuance of the Notice To Proceed (NTP). Provide a sequenced plan with phasing as indicated in the contract documents, listing all the activities/durations/phasing milestones the Offeror deems necessary to complete the project; including but not limited to procurement, protection, abatement, demolition, installation, acceptance testing, finishes, substantial completion, and final completion. The Prime Offeror shall provide a work schedule, methodology of work to be completed, and written acknowledgement of the requirements set forth in the construction drawings and project specifications for work to be completed within the time specified in the solicitation.

C. Key Personnel:

The Prime Offeror and Key Subcontractor shall identify key personnel who will be responsible for performing the work on this project. The Prime Offeror shall document recent and relevant construction experience on related projects for the following Prime Offeror and Key Subcontractor’(s) (if any) key personnel: 1. Project Manager, 2. Project Superintendent, 3. Project Scheduler, 4. Quality Control Manager, or any other key personnel, responsible for overseeing the performance of the work.

For each person above provide:

i) At least 10 years of experience managing construction projects of similar size and scope. Description of past projects/contracts and project responsibility roles relevant to the work to be performed on this project.

ii) Three (3) references, with current telephone and email addresses, who can provide appropriate feedback relative to their professional capabilities and work experience.

iii) Position and years with the current employer, and, if less than five (5) years with the current employer, position and years with previous employer.

iv) Beginning and ending month and year for each position held within each firm.

v)Education, training, certifications, licenses, and awards/recognitions.

vi) Provide an organizational chart identifying all Key Personnel, their role and firm name.

L.3 VOLUME II - PRICE PROPOSAL

L.3.1 A firm-fixed-price shall be entered by each Offeror on the Schedules (pricing pages) for each line item which represent the total price for performing the work required by this Request for Proposal (RFP). The AOC reserves the right to request from each Offeror information regarding the breakdown of all costs that are included in the lump sum prices to include copies of all work sheets used in forming the proposed pricing.

L.3.2 The Price Proposal shall be submitted with the following required completed documents in the order shown below:

(a) STANDARD FORM 1442 -- “SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD” form (original signature required in Block 20B); and

(b) The “BID SCHEDULE” Pricing Page(s) and Schedule of Unit Prices; and

(c) the “REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS”; and

(d) the “BID GUARANTEE”.

SECTION M – SOURCE SLECTION PROCEDURES

M.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA

M.1.1 General Requirements. The evaluation criteria to be used by the Contracting Officer for the selection of a contractor to perform the work specified herein are defined below. The criteria are divided into Technical and Price categories. The Technical Evaluation Criteria, when combined, are significantly more important than price. However, as the difference in technical merit between the proposals becomes less significant, the relative importance of the proposed prices will increase.

M.1.2 Offerors are advised that the competitive range can be limited for purposes of efficiency (see AOC Manual, Section 9.1.11(d)(2)), such that the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range (if established by the Contracting Officer) to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

M.1.3 The AOC uses an adjectival rating system to evaluate proposals. Each factor will be assigned a rating from the Technical Evaluation. Any factor assigned an “Unacceptable” rating will render the entire proposal unacceptable and will be ineligible for award. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The definitions are listed below:

Technical Adjectival Rating Definitions Rating Definition Outstanding The proposal provides a very clear, comprehensive and detailed response which meets all requirements and may include significant strengths with no deficiencies or significant weaknesses. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very low as the proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements and can be expected to result in outstanding performance.

Good The proposal provides a sound response which meets all requirements and may include strengths with no deficiencies and few weaknesses. The risk of unsuccessful performance is low as the proposal demonstrates an understanding of the requirements and can be expected to result in satisfactory performance.

Acceptable The proposal provides a response which is capable of meeting all requirements but may include both strengths and weaknesses with no deficiencies. Strengths are not outweighed by the weaknesses. The risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate as the proposal demonstrates a general understanding of the requirements and can be expected to result in satisfactory performance.

Marginal The proposal provides a response which does not meet all requirements and may include strengths, weaknesses, and/or deficiencies. Strengths are outweighed by the weaknesses and/or deficiencies. The risk of unsuccessful performance is high as the proposal does not demonstrate an understanding of the requirements and can be expected to result in unsatisfactory performance.

Unacceptable The proposal provides a response that does not meet all requirements and may include significant weaknesses and/or deficiencies which far outweigh any strengths. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very high as the proposal does not demonstrate an understanding of the requirements and will result in unsatisfactory performance.

M.2 TECHNICAL EVLUATION CRITERIA

The criteria to be used in assessing the quality of each technical proposal are listed below and are EQUALLY RATED in terms of their level of relative importance:

Factor 1. Prime Offeror Corporate Experience and Expertise

Factor 2. Key Subcontractor Corporate Experience and Expertise

Factor 3. Prime Offeror Past Performance

Factor 4. Key Subcontractor Past Performance

Factor 5. Technical Approach

M.2.1 Factor 1: Prime Offeror Corporate Experience and Expertise

A) The Government will evaluate the corporate experience and expertise of the prime offeror to determine the extent of their respective experience performing work on relevant projects. Relevant projects are those which are similar in size, scope, complexity, and dollar value to the work contemplated by this solicitation and involve at least one of the characteristics in i.-v. below. Projects with multiple or all the characteristics may be rated more favorably.

i) Experience performing work under heightened security requirements (defined as working in occupied and secure buildings that require background checks for all on-site personnel, vehicle and delivery inspections, personnel identification badging, security-controlled entry/exits).

ii) Experience performing multi-phase projects which clearly demonstrate experience in extended phased construction. Each typical phase will have a phase start-finish-acceptance testing/punchlist- Owner occupy-start next phase relationship.

iii) Experience performing delegated design projects, starting from base design as a guideline to create the detailed design documents that will be used to perform the work and coordinate with existing conditions and challenges.

iv) Experience performing on a project where forecasting future work is essential and required to coordinate with the library’s occupants/clientele, it’s maintenance crew, for access to sensitive areas, to shut down utilities, to perform demolition/abatement activity etc.

v)Experience performing all work between the hours of 5:00PM through 7:00AM.

B) Additional consideration may be given to offerors whose corporate experience demonstrates any of the following:

i) Experience performing work as a prime contractor with the subcontractors proposed on this project on previous projects similar in scope, size, magnitude, and complexity.

ii) Experience performing work in an occupied building, working around stored collections and furnishings.

iii) Projects completed within 5 years from the due date of this proposal.

iv) Experience performing work on Government projects.

M.2.2 Factor 2: Key Subcontractor Corporate Experience and Expertise

A) The Government will evaluate the corporate experience and expertise of the Key Subcontractor, if any, to determine the extent of their respective experience performing work on relevant projects. In the event the Prime Offeror intends to self-perform the Fire Protection System installation and acceptance testingscope, the Government will evaluate/rate Prime Offeror’s proposal response equal to Factor 1 for this Factor. Relevant projects are those which are similar in size, scope, complexity, and dollar value to the work contemplated by this solicitation, and which involve one or more of the following characteristics:

i) Experience performing work under heightened security requirements (defined as working in occupied and secure buildings that require background checks for all on-site personnel, vehicle and delivery inspections, personnel identification badging, security-controlled entry/exits).

ii) Experience performing multi-phase projects which clearly demonstrate coordinating/resolving design challenges and bridging between phases.

B) Additional consideration may be given to offerors whose Key Subcontractors’ corporate experience demonstrates any of the following:

i) Experience performing work as a subcontractor with the Prime Offeror (to this RFP) on previous projects similar in scope, size, magnitude, and complexity.

ii) Experience performing work in an occupied building working around stored collections and furnishings.

iii) Projects completed within 5 years from the due date of this proposal.

iv) Experience performing work on Government projects.

C) 2.3 Factor 3: Prime Offeror Past Performance

A) The Government will evaluate the Prime Offeror’s Past Performance Questionnaires and/or CPARS received to determine whether and to the extent which, the offeror has demonstrated a satisfactory record of past performance in those areas identified in the Past Performance Questionnaires and/or CPARS. The Past Performance reviews will also be evaluated on the offeror’s ability to maintain schedule, forecasting/ controlling costs, quality control, handling unusual or unexpected situations, meeting client needs, and the overall customer satisfaction of past projects per the statement of work and project intent. The Government places higher value on projects which document successful outcomes and are supported by outside source confirmation, such as telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the proposal, past performance questionnaires, CPARS, and firm furnished references. The government may consider the relevancy and currency of the information, the source of the information, and trends in contract performance. Additional consideration may be given for higher performance ratings on more recent and relevant projects.

B) The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent projects submitted. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria applies and will be assigned to each effort identified in the Past Performance section of the offeror’s proposal:

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires and was performed within the past 5 years.

Relevant Past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires and was performed within the past 5 years.

Somewhat Relevant Past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

C) As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one confidence assessment rating will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The performance confidence assessment ratings are below:

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

M.2.4 Factor 4: Key Subcontractor Past Performance

A) The Government will evaluate the Key Subcontractor’s Past Performance Questionnaires received from customer references to determine whether and to the extent which, the offeror has demonstrated a satisfactory record of past performance in those areas identified in the Past Performance Questionnaires.

The Past Performance reviews will also be evaluated on the offeror’s ability to maintain schedule, forecasting/controlling costs, quality control, handling unusual or unexpected situations, meeting client needs, and the overall customer satisfaction of past projects per the statement of work and project intent.

The Government places higher value on projects which documents successful outcomes and are supported by outside source confirmation, such as telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the proposal, past performance questionnaires, CPARS, and firm furnished references. The government may consider the relevancy and currency of the information, the source of the information, and trends in contract performance.

i) Additional consideration may be given for higher performance ratings on more recent and relevant projects.

B) In the event the Prime Offeror intends to self-perform the Fire Alarm System installation and programming scope, the Government will evaluate/rate Prime Offeror’s proposal response equal to Factor 3 for this Factor.

M.2.5 Factor 5: Technical Approach

A) The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in the offeror's technical approach, to include any of its subcontractors. The Government will further evaluate the prime offeror's (and any subcontractor's) plan to accomplish the fire protection installation and acceptance testing, and associated work.

B) The Government will evaluate Prime Offeror and Key Subcontractor’s key personnel to determine if they meet the minimum years of experience and the extent of their recent and relevant experience on related projects.

i) Additional consideration may be given to an Offeror who proposes Key Personnel that performed the same role for projects submitted for Factor’s 1 and 2.

C) The offeror’s Plan of Accomplishment and overall technical approach will be evaluated to determine level of constructability, reasonableness, proven methodology, and potential to complete the work within the contract period of performance. The offeror will be evaluated on the management strategies used in the resolution of prime contractor and subcontractor performance problems, resolution of schedule issues, on-site construction quality issues, and change order and contract modification resolution.

i) Offeror shall demonstrate an increased likelihood of timely completion and successful performance of the project as a result of their proposed approach.

D) The Prime Offeror will be evaluated on the "Duration and Summary of the Milestone Schedule" and how well it demonstrates a clear understanding of the project and the work to be accomplished. The schedule will also be evaluated to determine that it is feasible/realistic, shows a logical path which includes all contract tasks to complete all work, demobilize from the project site, and restore the project site within One Thousand Sixteen (1,016) calendar days from the issuance of the Notice To Proceed.

i) Additional consideration will be given to offerors that provide a schedule that demonstrates a reasonable and realistic ability to successfully complete the work required per the contract documents on an accelerated schedule in less than the required One Thousand Sixteen (1,016) calendar days.

M.3.1 The Government will evaluate the price proposals of all firms found technically qualified. Offerors are required to propose pricing on ALL line items listed in the Bid Schedule Forms provided. The Government reserves the right to reject any/all Offerors who fail to propose a price for each line item on The Bid Schedule. (See THE BID SCHEDULE).

M.3.2 Pricing will not be rated or scored but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of price analysis. The price criterion analyzes the reasonableness of the Offeror’s proposed price using the various analysis methods available in AOC Order 34-1 Contracting Manual. The price evaluators will also check for the appearance of unbalanced pricing. The evaluation of the Bid Schedule’s unit price rates and total price of the project will collectively be evaluated in determining the overall reasonableness of each offeror’s price proposal. The degree of importance of price as a factor shall become more important when technical proposals are of relatively equal merit. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price. There may be an award to a higher priced, higher rated offeror if the offer is sufficiently more advantageous than a lower priced, lower rated offeror to justify the payment of a higher price.

M.3 PRICE EVALUATION