24Q1009 COMBO Giant Voice Maintenance CO Signed.pdf

Combined Synopsis/Solicitation

This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in Subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; quotes are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued.

The Request for Quotation (RFQ) number FA462524Q1009 shall be used to reference any written quote provided under this RFQ.

The RFQ document and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through Federal Acquisition Circular 2024-05; Effective 05/22/2024.

This RFQ is solicited as a 100% small business set aside.

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this project is 541513 with a size standard of $37M.

The purpose of this combined synopsis and solicitations for the purchase of Giant Voice Maintenance Services, in accordance with the Performance Work Statement. Per section 4.1.2.1 of the Performance Work Statement, this service requires all contract employees provide proof of being properly trained and certified to perform the required maintenance tasks on ATI BAWS systems (Acoustic Technology Inc. systems).

“Notice to Offeror(s)/Supplier(s): Funds are not presently available for this effort. No award will be made under this solicitation until funds are available. The Government reserves the right to cancel this solicitation, either before or after the closing date. In the event the Government cancels this solicitation, the Government has no obligation to reimburse an offeror for any costs."

The Government's anticipated Period of Performance (PoP):

Base Year: 1 October 2024 - 30 September 2025 Option Year One: 1 October 2025 - 30 September 2026 Option Year Two: 1 October 2026 - 30 September 2027 Option Year Three: 1 October 2027 - 30 September 2028 Option Year Four: 1 October 2028 - 30 September 2029

Delivery Address: 470 Vandenberg Ave, Bldg 157

Whiteman Air Force Base, MO 65305

FAR Provision 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items (Jan 2017) applies to this acquisition and the following addendum applies:

The following words stating “offer”, “offeror”, and “proposal” are replaced with “quotation”, “vendor”, and “quote”.

Paragraph (a) first sentence revised as follows: “The NAICS code and small business size standard for this acquisition appear above.”

Paragraph (c) first sentence revised as follows: “The vendor agrees to hold the prices in its quote firm for 60 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of quotes, unless another time period is specified in an addendum to the quote.”

RFQ due date: 9 Aug 2024 RFQ due time: 01:00 PM CDT Please submit proposals electronically via email to amanda.fragoso@us.af.mil & brandan.palma@us.af.mil

THIS MUST BE SENT TO THE EMAIL ADDRESSES AS STATED ABOVE. ANYTHING

OTHERWISE CAN AND WILL BE CONSIDERED NONRESPONSIVE. YOU MAY WISH

TO PLACE A READ/DELIVERY RECEIPT.

All companies must be registered in the System for Award Management at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/ to be considered for award. The Government will not provide contract financing for this acquisition. Invoice instruction shall be provided at time of award.

Pursuant to FAR 12.602 contract award will be made using Simplified Acquisition Procedures in accordance with FAR 13.106. Vendor’s submissions will be evaluated based upon the following.

Note: .zip files are not an acceptable format for the Air Force Network and will not go through our email system.

Please provide the following information with your quote:

Company Name Address City, St, Zip

POC

Email Telephone CAGE Code

SAM UEI

Socioeconomic Status Number of Employees or Total Yearly Revenue

Estimated Delivery Payment Terms Warranty Terms

Questions:

All questions regarding this RFQ must be emailed to amanda.fragoso@us.af.mil & brandan.palma@us.af.mil by 26 July 2024 1:00 PM CDT.

Site Visit:

A site visit will be held at 9:00 AM CDT, 23 July 2024 at the project site, which is highly encouraged. Attendees must meet at the Spirit Gate Visitors Center (101 Spirit Blvd, Whiteman Air mailto:amanda.fragoso@us.af.mil mailto:brandan.palma@us.af.mil http://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/ mailto:amanda.fragoso@us.af.mil mailto:brandan.palma@us.af.mil

Force Base, MO 65305) no later than 8:30 AM CDT on the day of the site visit. Attendees will go straight from the Visitors Center to the project Site.

Due to base security requirements, vendor representatives who plan to attend must be a US citizen, be able to pass a background check, and bring at least one valid form of photo ID and know SSN.

Instructions to Offerors:

Evaluation Methodology. The Government will award a firm fixed price contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government. The Government will award based on best value, to the contractor whose offer is technically acceptable, with satisfactory past performance and the lowest price.

1. General Preparation Instructions

a. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, Offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The response shall consist of three (3) separate parts, Part I - Technical Capability, Part II – Past Performance, and Part III – Price.

b. There is a relationship between the Solicitation’s Instructions to Offerors and Evaluation

Criteria. Your attention is directed to the functional relationship between Instructions to Offerors and Evaluation Criteria of this solicitation. The Instructions to Offerors provides information for the purpose of organizing the proposal and is not intended to be all-inclusive. The Evaluation Criteria describes the evaluation factors for award, to include the evaluation procedures for the Technical Capability acceptability and the ranking of the Price Proposals. Proposals that do not contain the information required risk rejection.

c. Alternate proposals will not be accepted. The offeror’s proposal and any subsequent negotiated changes thereto shall be binding upon that offeror, and the pricing shall be binding for 120 calendar days. The Government shall make a final determination regarding acceptability solely on the basis of the proposal as submitted without requesting any further information. However, if deemed necessary, and at its sole discretion, the Government may request additional information from Offerors clarifying, but not substantially changing any proposal as submitted for that purpose; the Government may clarify or hold discussions regarding any such proposal with the Offeror(s).

2. Part I – Technical Capability

Provide the specific and actual methodology you will use to accomplish/satisfy the requirements of the Performance Work Statement and the below sub-factors. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation. If an Offeror is subcontracting/ teaming with another vendor who will perform more than ten percent of the work or if other than the prime contractor will be performing switch maintenance, the prime shall clearly identify work to be performed by each specific subcontractor within the appropriate factors in the prime's proposal. The proposals shall provide a clear distinction of functions to be performed by the prime and subcontractor to include the following: the nature of work, criticality of the work, and the percentage of overall effort performed by each subcontractor in each area of service provided.

Failure to provide the information on each vendor in a subcontracting/teaming arrangement shall render submitted proposal non-responsive and unacceptable. The offeror shall provide their technical information addressing the following sub-factors:

Sub-Factor 1 – Certification.

Criteria: Offeror shall provide proof of technicians’ certification/authorization to perform maintenance on Acoustic Technology Inc. (also known as ATI Systems) equipment.

Sub-Factor 2 – Maintenance and Workload Practices. Limited to no more than 10 pages.

Criteria: Offeror shall provide a detailed plan that demonstrates the Offeror’s understanding and capability to perform O&M of the equipment specified in the PWS.

Sub-Factor 3 – Company Resources and Structure. Limited to no more than 5 pages.

Criteria: Offeror shall provide a detailed discussion that demonstrates an understanding to meet or exceed all contractual requirements and identify the individuals (management and supervisors) associated with this requirement.

Sub-Factor 4 – Work Order Accomplishment. Limited to no more than 5 pages.

Criteria: Offeror shall provide a detailed plan that demonstrates an understanding and capability for ensuring adequate and timely completion of various types of work orders.

Sub-Factor 5 – Safety and Security. Limited to no more than 5 pages.

Criteria: Offeror shall provide a detailed discussion that demonstrates an understanding of safety and security.

3. Part II – Past Performance

a. Offerors must provide references of their choice of similar contracts in size and scope.

b. Quality and satisfaction rating for contracts completed within the past five years from the date of issuance of the solicitation: Provide any information currently available (letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc.) which demonstrates customer satisfaction with overall job performance and quality of completed Giant Voice Maintenance Services. In addition, explain corrective actions taken in the past, if any, for substandard performance and any current performance problems.

c. With the Performance Questionnaire, in addition to paragraph b. above, the government will evaluate the quality and extent of offeror's performance deemed relevant to the requirements of this RFQ. The government will use information submitted by the offeror and other sources such as other Federal Government offices and commercial sources, to assess performance. Provide a list of no more than ten (10) of the most relevant contracts performed for Federal agencies and commercial customers within the last five (5) years of issuance of the solicitation. Relevant past performance is defined as completed Giant Voice Maintenance Services contracts of similar scope magnitude as provided in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) contained in this solicitation and performed within the last five (5) years. Recent past performance is defined as contracts performed within the last five (5) years from date of issuance of solicitation but limited to the most recent 10 contracts. Offerors with no past performance in Giant Voice Maintenance Services shall state so. Past performance information shall include information on corporate experience and past performance which clearly demonstrates that the offeror is capable of conforming to contractual requirements. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be considered as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. Past performance regarding minor members of joint ventures or teaming arrangements will be considered as highly as the majority member of those arrangements. A minimum of one past performance must be provided by the prime contractor to not solely rely on the sub-contractor's past performance. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history or the offeror's performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating "Neutral Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

d. Offerors shall submit a consecutive list of past and present performance for the last five years from the date of the solicitation. The list shall include no more than 10 of the most recent contracts. Offerors shall submit the list no later than the proposal due date and time indicated in the RFQ, via e-mail, Attn: Amanda Fragoso and Brandan Palma at amanda.fragoso@us.af.mil and brandan.palma@us.af.mil. For all listed contracts, provide the following information:

1. Company/Division name

2. Contracting agency

3. Contract number

4. Brief description of contract effort.

5. Period of performance

6. Total contract value, including all modifications and options

7. Contracting Officer's name, address, and telephone number

8. Comments regarding compliance with contract terms and conditions

9. Comments regarding any known performance deemed unacceptable to the customer, or not in accordance with the contract terms and conditions.

If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent past/present performance information on previous teaming arrangements with same partner. If this is a first-time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of past and present relevant contract.

e. Each Offeror is responsible for sending the attached Past Performance Questionnaire to its references. Completed questionnaires must be submitted, directly from the reference, no later than the proposal due date and time indicated on the RFQ, via e-mail, Attn:

Amanda Fragoso and Brandan Palma at amanda.fragoso@us.af.mil and brandan.palma@us.af.mil. This requirement for the submission of questionnaires is in addition to the requirement for a list of consecutive contracts specified in paragraph 3(d) above.

f. Offerors are cautioned that the Government will use information provided by the Offerors and information obtained by other sources in the development of the performance confidence assessment.

g. Subcontractor Consent: Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime contractor without the subcontractor's consent. Provide with the proposal a letter from all subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor.

4. Part III – Price

a. Price Reasonableness, Completeness, Balance, and Affordability. This part is to assist the Offeror in submitting sufficient pricing information that demonstrates reasonableness, completeness, balance, and affordability of the proposed price. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in rejection of Offeror's proposal.

Unreasonable proposed prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition. Additionally, unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an Offeror's proposal. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed prices rests with the Offeror at the time of proposal or during subsequent discussions (if any are held).

b. Price Information. The price proposal shall not include information beyond that required by this instruction unless the Offeror considers it essential to document or support Offeror's price position. All information relating to the proposed price, including all required supporting documentation must be included in this part.

c. Adequate Price Competition. The contracting officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the contracting officer will review this determination and if, in the contracting officer’s opinion, adequate price competition exists no additional cost information will be requested. However, if at any time during this evaluation the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine the reasonableness.

d. Price Information. Submit the Pricing for all CLINS as provided in the Bid Schedule

(Attachment 2). In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contractor terms, and conditions as written in the RFQ, with attachments.

Evaluation of Offers:

1. The Government will award a firm fixed price contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government. This acquisition will utilize the Past Performance Tradeoff with Technical Acceptability process to make a best value award decision. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

Part I – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY Part II – PAST PERFORMANCE Part III – PRICE

Past Performance and Technical, when combined, will be evaluated as being approximately equal to Price.

a. 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 significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). As part of the price evaluation, the Government will evaluate the Option to Extend Services under FAR Clause 52.217-8 by adding an additional 6-months of potential extension based on the offeror's final option period prices to the offeror's total price. Thus, the offeror's total price for the purpose of evaluation will include the base period and all option periods including the potential six-month extension of services period. Offerors are required only to price the base and option CLINs. Offerors shall not submit a price for the potential six-month extension of services period.

b. A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed 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.

c. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in the

Instructions to Offerors. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal.

Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the Contracting Officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

d. The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective Offerors.

Therefore, the Offeror’s initial offer should contain that Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. Prior to discussions, a competitive range may be established and the Offerors within the competitive range will be part of the discussions.

The Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

2. Basis for Contract Award. This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing Offerors' proposals will be evaluated using the Price Performance Tradeoff with Technical Acceptability process. Past Performance and Technical, when combined, will be evaluated as being approximately equal to Price. By submission of its offer, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined unacceptable. The Government intends to award one contract. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirements. All such offers shall be treated equally except for their technical capability and prices. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

a. Evaluation Process:

i. Initially offers shall be ranked according to price, including option prices.

ii. A technical assessment will be conducted on the three lowest priced offers. The offers will be evaluated and shall receive a technical acceptability or technical unacceptability rating.

iii. A performance confidence assessment will be conducted on the three lowest priced technically acceptable offers. The offers will be evaluated and shall receive a performance confidence rating IAW the evaluation criteria in paragraph 4, Past Performance.

iv. If none of the three lowest priced, technically acceptable offerors is judged to have a

Satisfactory Confidence performance assessment, the next lowest priced technically acceptable offeror will be evaluated, and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror is judged to have a Satisfactory Confidence performance assessment and be technically acceptable or until all offerors are evaluated.

v. Prior to award, a responsibility determination will be made as described in FAR Part 9.

3. Part I, Technical Capability:

a. Each offer shall receive a rating of ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE based on the requirements stated below. Proposals will be evaluated to determine the Offeror’s compliance with the technical requirement of this solicitation. The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability but will not rank the proposals by non-priced sub-factors. All sub-factors will be rated ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE. Technical Capability sub-factors of Maintenance and Workload Practices, Company Resources, Work Order Accomplishment, Quality Control, Safety and Security, Mission Essential Services Plan, and Security Requirements will be evaluated individually and weighted equally, and all areas must have an ACCEPTABLE rating. An overall Technical Capability rating of ACCEPTABLE will be required in order to be considered for award.

Those offers not meeting measure of merit/minimum standard for acceptability will not be considered for award.

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical sub-factors, the minimum standard of acceptability is met when the offeror adequately provides the following:

Sub-Factor 1 – Certification.

Criteria: Offeror shall provide proof of technicians’ certification/authorization to perform maintenance on Acoustic Technology Inc. (also known as ATI Systems) equipment.

Sub-Factor 2 – Maintenance and Workload Practices. Limited to no more than 10 pages.

Criteria: Offeror shall provide a detailed plan that demonstrates the Offeror’s understanding and capability to perform O&M of the equipment specified in the

PWS.

Sub-Factor 3 – Company Resources and Structure. Limited to no more than 5 pages.

Criteria: Offeror shall provide a detailed discussion that demonstrates an understanding to meet or exceed all contractual requirements and identify the individuals (management and supervisors) associated with this requirement.

Sub-Factor 4 – Work Order Accomplishment. Limited to no more than 5 pages.

Criteria: Offeror shall provide a detailed plan that demonstrates an understanding and capability for ensuring adequate and timely completion of various types of work orders.

Sub-Factor 5 – Safety and Security. Limited to no more than 5 pages.

Criteria: Offeror shall provide a detailed discussion that demonstrates an understanding of safety and security.

4. Part II, Past Performance

a. Past Performance evaluation will be conducted on the three lowest priced offerors. Past Performance evaluations will primarily rely on information provided by Offeror's completed Past Performance Questionnaires and/or from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). However, the Government may use information previously obtained from Past Performance Questionnaires or data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources in the evaluation process. In the event an Offeror submits a Past Performance Questionnaire, and it is subsequently determined that the referenced project was formally evaluated in the CPARS, CPARS ratings shall take precedence.

b. Each past performance reference shall undergo a recency determination. In order to be determined recent, the contract effort shall be ongoing or shall have been performed within the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Offerors who do not meet the recency determination will not be evaluated further for relevancy.

c. Next, each recent past performance reference shall undergo a relevancy determination. In order to be determined relevant, the recent performance under other contracts shall be of a similar size and scope as those required by this solicitation.

d. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, joint ventures, subcontractors and/or teaming partners whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated.

The following relevancy definitions apply:

Relevant Present/Past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires

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

e. The Past Performance Evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing aspects of an

Offerors recent and relevant past performance.

f. As a result of an analysis of those positive and negative aspects indicators identified, each Offeror will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment, which is the rating for the Past Performance factor. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Mission Capability Sub factors (Past Performance Questionnaire) and price, the resulting Performance Confidence Assessment is made at the Past Performance factor level and represents an overall evaluation of Offeror performance. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the Offerors ability to perform the effort described in the solicitation, based on the Offerors demonstrated past performance.

g. When relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness.

h. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Neutral Confidence. The three Offerors that have the lowest pricing and are considered acceptable will receive one of the ratings described below for the Past Performance factor.

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 Confidence 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.

i. The Government reserves the right to seek information on higher priced Offerors if none of the lower priced Offerors receive a "Substantial Confidence" performance assessment rating. Past performance regarding minor members of joint ventures or teaming arrangements will be considered as highly as the majority member of those arrangements.

A minimum of one past performance must be provided by the prime contractor to not solely rely on the sub-contractor's past performance. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history or the Offerors performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating "Neutral Confidence", meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

j. If none of the three lowest priced Offerors is judged to have a "Substantial Confidence" performance assessment rating, the next lowest priced Offeror will be evaluated, and the process will continue (in order by price) until an Offeror is judged to have a "Substantial Confidence" performance assessment rating or until all acceptable Offerors are evaluated.

Then, the Government will perform an integrated assessment of the Offerors to determine the best value to the Government. The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced Offeror if the lowest priced Offeror is judged to have a performance confidence assessment of other than "Substantial Confidence". In that event, the Source Selection Authority shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

5. Part III, Price Proposal

a. For award purposes, the Government will evaluate offers by the “Total Evaluated Price

(TEP)”. TEP consists of the total base year, the total for all four option years, and six-month extension of services (FAR Clause 52.217-8). The six-month extension of services will be calculated by taking the Option Year 4 total price and dividing it by 2.

b. Offerors shall insert proposed prices in the Bid Schedule (Attachment 2) for the base year along with all four option years. NOTE: Failure to include pricing in CLINS X001, X002 and X003 shall deem the proposal unresponsive and the proposal will not be considered for award. The extended amounts for the base period, to include, all option periods and extension of services, will be added together for a total evaluated price and will be used for the ranking of Offerors. Unit prices shall prevail in the event the extended price is calculated incorrectly. Each Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness. Unrealistically low proposed costs/prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition on the basis that either the Offeror does not understand the requirement or the Offeror has made an unrealistic proposal.

Proposed unit prices of all priced CLINs will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items or sub-line item(s) appear to be significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques.

c. Proposed prices will become fixed prices on the contract. In the event the Government extends services under the authority of FAR 52.217-8, “Option to Extend Services”, unit pricing for the last option period exercised preceding the extension shall remain in effect.

d. These prices are already determined to have been evaluated at time of contract award.

Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

e. The techniques and procedures described under FAR 16.505 will be the primary means of assessing price submission reasonableness.

f. The Contracting Officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the Contracting Officer will review this determination and if, in the Contracting Officer’s opinion, adequate price competition exists, no additional cost/price information will be requested.

However, if at any time during this evaluation the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, Offeror’s may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the Contracting Officer to determine the reasonableness of price.

g. An Offeror’s proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines any portion of an Offeror’s price proposal to be unbalanced or not reasonable.

Attachments:

1. Performance Work Statement (PWS)

2. Bid Schedule

3. Wage Determination

4. Past Performance Questionnaire

5. Provisions and Clauses

Approved by the Contracting Officer

Signature of the Contracting Officer