5_Section L and M.pdf

ATTACHMENT 5

FA4626-26-R-0014

DSN/CSN Bldg. 882 Roof Repair Project No. NZAS 23-0038

SECTION L

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR RESPONDENTS

1) Information to Offerors (ITO) and Instructions for Proposal Preparation: The offeror’s proposal must include all data and information requested by this information to offerors and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Solicitation and all attachments in Section J. Non-conformance with the instructions provided in this information to offerors may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation. The response shall consist of three (3) sections: Section I – Technical, Section II – Past Performance, Section III – Price/Required Documentation. The listed parts and subparts MUST be submitted electronically via the Department of Defense Secure Access File Exchange (DoD SAFE) system (https://safe.apps.mil) or email to the points of contact (POCs) identified in paragraph 3(A). Proposals shall be submitted via electronic means in accordance with the submission instructions provided in this solicitation.

No paper copies, fax, or CD submissions will be accepted by this Contracting Office. Failure to meet this requirement may result in an offer being determined non-responsive.

A. Electronic Submission via DoD SAFE: Offerors are responsible for ensuring successful upload and delivery of proposal files prior to the solicitation closing date and time identified in Section A. The Government will not accept paper copy, CD, or facsimile submissions. The date/time stamp generated by the DoD SAFE system shall serve as the official time of receipt. Late submissions will be handled in accordance with Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation Overhaul (RFO) 15.107.

B. DoD SAFE Access Instructions: Offerors shall contact the Contracting Officer (CO) and the Contracting Administrator (CA) identified in Section A no later than three (3) business days prior to the proposal due date to request a DoD SAFE drop-off link.

Upon request, the Government will generate and transmit a DoD SAFE link to the Offeror for proposal submission. Once transmitted, the DoD SAFE link is valid for a single us (i.e., multiple upload sessions or revisions are not permitted). DoD SAFE links remain valid for fourteen (14) calendar days from issuance. Failure to request a link in sufficient time does not constitute Government fault and will not serve as a basis for accepting a late proposal.

C. Late Proposals: Proposals received after the exact time specified for receipt will be handled in accordance with RFO 15.107. A proposal will be considered “received” when the complete proposal submission is time-stamped by the DoD SAFE system prior to the solicitation closing date and time identified in Section A.

Any proposal received after the established deadline will not be considered unless it meets one of the exceptions stated in RFO 15.107(b). The Offeror is solely responsible for ensuring timely submission. Delays caused by file size limitations, transmission errors, system outages, or other technical issues do not excuse late submission unless the conditions of RFO 15.107(b) are met. Offerors are strongly encouraged to submit proposals well in advance of the closing time to allow for resolution of any transmission issues.

2) General Instructions

A. The offeror’s proposal must include all data and information requested by this information to offerors and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Solicitation and all attachments in Section J of the solicitation. Non-conformance with the instructions provided in this information to offerors may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

B. The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal will not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements but shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror’s proposal.

C. Elaborate brochures or documentation, detailed artwork, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired. However, if used, elaborate brochures or documentation, detailed artwork, or other embellishments must be incorporated within the page limitation set forth by this ITO.

D. The proposal acceptance period is specified in Section A of the solicitation. The Offeror shall make a clear statement in Section A of the proposal documentation subpart that the proposal is valid through this date.

E. In accordance with RFO Subpart 4.8 (Government Contract Files), the Government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals.

3) General Information

A. Point of Contact: Please address written requests for clarification regarding this acquisition to the points of contact (POCs) identified below. Note: Questions must be submitted no later than 16 June 2026 at 2:00 p.m. Mountain Daylight Time (MDT).

Primary POCs: A1C Kyler Henderson, 406-731-4018, kyler.henderson@us.af.mil

Secondary POC: Cody Babinecz, (406) 731-4608, cody.babinecz@us.af.mil

B. Site Visit: The Government will conduct one (1) site visit for this solicitation. The site visit will occur as follows:

Date: 09 June 2026

Time: 01:30 PM MDT

Location: 7809 Goddard Drive, Bldg. 882, Malmstrom AFB, MT.

This will be the only opportunity for offerors to access the site prior to proposal submission. The Government will not accommodate additional, individual, or alternate site visits outside of the existing conditions scheduled. Failure to attend the site visit does not relieve the contractor from responsibility of fully understanding the requirements of the solicitation and all site conditions that may impact performance.

C. Base Entry Information: A blank Contractor Entry Authorization List (CEAL) is provided as Attachment 7. Offerors requiring base access for the site visit shall complete the CEAL by filling in the required information for the individuals requiring base access, convert the CEAL to PDF format (not Excel), sign the CEAL where is says “Project Manager” and email the CEAL to the primary POC no later than 03 June 2026 at 2:00

PM MDT.

Please Note: Effective 7 May 2025, all contractors requiring unescorted access to Malmstrom Air Force Base must present Real ID-compliant identification in accordance with the REAL ID Act of 2005. Real ID-compliant forms of identification include state-issued driver’s licenses or identification cards that meet the security standards outlined in the REAL ID Act. REAL ID-compliant forms of identification can be found at the following site: https://www.dhs.gov/real-id.

D. Notices and Debriefings: The CO will promptly notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range or otherwise exclude them from competition before award. Offerors excluded from the competitive range may request a pre-award debriefing in accordance with RFO 15.206-2.

Upon contract award, the CO will notify unsuccessful offerors. Upon such notification, unsuccessful offerors may request a post-award debriefing in accordance with RFO 15.301.

Please note, offerors excluded from the competitive range may request a pre-award debriefing or may elect to delay the debriefing until after award. However, offerors are entitled to no more than one debriefing for each proposal.

E. Discrepancies: If an offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the CO in writing with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the offeror is asking the CO to consider as related to the omission or error. The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion. This reservation includes matters of additional or substitute pages of the initial proposal.

F. Electronic Reference Documents: All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on the System for Award Management website (SAM) at http://www.sam.gov.

Potential offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real-time e-mail notifications when information has been posted to the website for this solicitation.

G. Communications: Source selection information between Government and offerors will be controlled by the CO. Email may be used to transmit such information to offerors only if the email can be sent and received encrypted and includes “Source Selection Information – See RFO 2.101 & 3.104” in the Subject line.

H. Clarifications and Negotiations: The Government may conduct clarifications at any time after receipt of proposals. Clarifications are limited to exchanges with offerors that may occur when award without negotiations is contemplated and are used to resolve minor or clerical errors or to clarify certain aspects of a proposal. Clarifications will not provide an opportunity for proposal revision.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make contract award without conducting negotiations. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct negotiations if determined to be in the best interest of the Government. If negotiations are conducted, offerors may be provided with an opportunity to submit proposal revisions.

I. Organization (Electronic Submission): The offeror shall prepare the proposal in accordance with the Proposal Organization Table below. Each section (Section I – Technical, Section II – Past Performance, Section III – Price/Required Documentation) shall be submitted as separate electronic files unless otherwise specified in Section A.

Files shall be clearly labeled to identify the Offeror’s name, solicitation number, and applicable section. Electronic files shall be searchable and organized using bookmarks and/or a table of contents. The Government is not responsible for unreadable, corrupted, or improperly submitted electronic files.

Section ITO Paragraph

Number Title

Electronic Copy

Page Limit

I 4 Technical 1 30 Pages II 5 Past Performance 1 50 Pages

III 6

Price/Required Documentation

1 Unlimited

i. Page Limitations: Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal and excess copies will be returned to the offeror as soon as practicable. Page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs). The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the offerors.

Each page shall be counted except the following: Cover pages, Tables of Contents, Tabs, Glossaries or Resumes.

ii. Page Size and Format (Electronic Submission): All proposals shall be formatted for electronic submission. All proposal files must be submitted in Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). Files shall not be password protected, encrypted, or contain active hyperlinks to external sources. Hyperlinks to external websites, cloud storage locations, (e.g., Google Drive, SharePoint, OneDrive), or other external repositories shall not be used to provide proposal information required for evaluation. All proposal content must be contained with the submitted files.

Standard narrative pages shall be formatted for 8.5 x 11-inch page size. The use of 11 x 17-inch page size (landscape orientation) is permitted. Legible tables, charts, graphs, and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc.; however, these displays must remain clear and readable when viewed electronically and shall not exceed 11 x 17-inches. Tables, charts, graphs, figures shall be no smaller than 8-point font. All pages must be readable when viewed electronically at 100% zoom.

For purposes of page limitation calculations, a page is defined as each surface containing information. Each 8.5 x 11-inch surface will be counted as one (1) page toward any applicable page limitation. Each 8.5 x 11-inch surface on an 11 x 17-inch page will be counted as a separate page; therefore, one (1) 11 x 17-inch page will be counted as two (2) pages. Pages shall be no less than single-spaced. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be no less than 11-point font. Tracking, kerning, and leading values shall not be altered from the default values of the word processing or page layout software. Margins shall be at least one (1) inch on the top and bottom and three-quarters (3/4) inch on the sides.

Pages shall be numbered sequentially by section or subpart. The same page size and format restrictions shall apply to responses to Evaluation Notices (Ens).

iii. Cross-Referencing: To the greatest extent possible, each section and subpart shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with minimal cross-referencing to other sections of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation, which is not found in its designated section/subpart, will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal. Cross-referencing within a proposal section/subpart is permitted where its use would conserve space without impairing clarity. If required, the Offeror shall provide a Solicitation Cross Reference Matrix indicating by ITO, SOW/SOO/PWS, and/or specification paragraph number, the corresponding proposal paragraph in that section which addresses the referenced item.

iv. Indexing: Each section and subpart shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that section/subpart. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections.

v. Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms: Each section/subpart shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, and with an explanation for each.

Glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective section/subpart.

vi. Binding and Labeling (Electronic Submission): Each proposal section shall be submitted as a separate electronic file unless otherwise specified. Files shall be clearly labeled using the following format: Offeror’s name, Solicitation number (FA462626R0014), and the applicable section title (e.g., “Section I – Technical”).

Electronic files shall be organized using bookmarks or an internal table of contents to clearly identify major sections and subsections. All files shall be searchable, printable, and free of security restrictions such as passwords or encryption that would prevent Government review.

The Government is not responsible for unreadable, corrupt, improperly labeled, or otherwise inaccessible electronic files. Be sure to apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed in accordance with RFO 52.215-1(e), Restriction on disclosure and use of data, and RFO 3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information.

J. Distribution: Section I (Technical), Section II (Past Performance), and Section III (Price/Required Documentation) must be submitted electronically via the DoD SAFE system (https://safe.apps.mil) or email to the POCs identified below.

All proposals must be received no later than 30 June 2026 at 2:00 p.m. Mountain Daylight Time (MDT)

Primary POCs: A1C Kyler Henderson, 406-731-4018, kyler.henderson@us.af.mil

Secondary POC: Cody Babinecz, (406) 731-4608, cody.babinecz@us.af.mil

Contracting Squadron Front Office – (406) 731-3744

4) Section I – Technical

A. General Instructions:

i. Volume Organization: The Technical volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

1) Table of Contents

2) List of Tables and Drawings

3) Glossary

4) Cross Reference Matrix (if required)

5) Factor 1 – Technical

a. Architecture-Engineering (A-E) Firm & Team Arrangement

B. Specific Instructions:

i. General: The purpose of the technical evaluation is to assess whether the offeror’s proposal will satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. The technical volume should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important.

Your responses will be evaluated against the criteria defined in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory.

By your proposal submission, you are representing that your firm will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation. It is not necessary or desirable for you to tell us so in your proposal.

ii. Format and Specific Content:

1) A-E Firm & Team Arrangement: The offeror shall provide written documentation of the A-E Firm partner name or certified roof designer employed by the manufacturer of the roof system to be installed, key personnel, and resumes for all designers/engineers projected to work on the DSN/CSN Bldg. 882 Roof Repair project.

a. To be determined technically acceptable, resumes must be provided for the architect, structural engineer(s), or a certified roof designer employed by the manufacturer of the roof system to be installed and include professional qualifications, technical expertise, and proof of licensure in the state of Montana.

b. The technical volume must be in accordance with the page limitations and page size restrictions set forth in paragraph 3(I).

5) Section II – Past Performance

A. General Instructions: Each offeror shall submit a past performance section with its proposal, containing between three (3) and five (5) recent and relevant past performance references in accordance with the format contained in Attachment 6 – Past Performance Reference Sheet.

B. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the requirements of this solicitation, including meeting the solicitation requirements based on the recency and relevancy of the offeror’s performance history. Past performance references may include but are not limited to 1) federal contracts/task orders or 2) non-federal contracts/task orders similar to the requirements of the solicitation. Offerors are cautioned that the Government will use data provided by each offeror and may use data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance.

This information is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners who are proposed to perform 25% percent or more of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price or perform aspects of the effort the offeror considers critical to overall successful performance. Offerors are cautioned that the Government will use data provided by each offeror in this section and data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance.

The offeror shall also submit a consent letter executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the offeror so the offeror can respond to such information (Attachment 8).

For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the offeror shall also submit a client authorization letter, authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the offeror's performance.

The Government will use past performance information submitted by the offeror’s references and may use other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, other federal government offices, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; the Defense Contract Management agency, interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials and private and commercial sources. The submission of past performance references that may be found from any of these sources will not increase the overall assessment of an offeror’s past performance rating. As such, offerors are highly encouraged to submit past performance references for consideration of the Government not already archived within these databases.

**Failure to submit the required number of past performance information will not result in offeror disqualification.**

C. Specific Instructions:

i. Section Organization: The Past Performance section shall be organized according to the following general outline:

1) Table of Contents

2) List of Tables and Drawings

3) Glossary

4) Cross Reference Matrix (if required)

5) Factor 2 – Past Performance

a. Past Performance Reference 1

b. Past Performance Reference 2

c. Past Performance Reference 3

d. Past Performance Reference 4

e. Past Performance Reference 5

ii. Recent and Relevant Contracts:

1) For this evaluation, “recent” is defined as “completed projects within the last five

(5) years from the date of the release of this solicitation.”

2) For this evaluation, “relevant” is defined as “a project similar in scope, size, and complexity to the requirements of this solicitation and valued more than $350,000.00”. Include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance.

iii. Required Information: Offerors are required to submit each past performance reference in accordance with the format contained in Attachment 6 – Past Performance Reference Sheet.

In the event the Government identifies issues or has questions during the assessment of a past performance reference, a conversation of efforts may be accomplished with the offeror to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risk. Merely having problems does not automatically equate to a limited or no confidence rating, since the problems encountered may have been on a more complex program, or an offeror may have subsequently demonstrated the ability to overcome the problems encountered. The offeror is required to demonstrate clear management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. This may allow the offeror to be considered a higher confidence candidate. For example, submittal of quality performance indicators or other management indicators that clearly support an offeror has overcoming past problems is required.

iv. Organizational Structure Change History: Many companies have acquired, been acquired by, or otherwise merged with other companies, and/or reorganized their divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc. In many cases, these changes have taken place during the performance of relevant past efforts or between conclusion of recent past efforts and this source selection. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to determine what past performance is relevant to this acquisition. To facilitate this relevancy determination, include in this proposal subpart a “roadmap” describing all such changes in the organization of your company. A pamphlet or other commercial document describing such reorganizations may suffice. As part of this explanation, show how these changes affect the relevance of any efforts you identify for past performance evaluation or performance confidence assessment. Since the Government intends to consider past performance information provided by other sources as well as that provided by the offeror(s), your “roadmap” should be both specifically applicable to the efforts you identify and general enough to apply to efforts on which the Government receives information from other sources.

6) Section III – Price/Required Documentation

A. General Instructions:

i. Cost/Price Reasonableness: This section is to assist you in submitting data other than certified cost or pricing data if it is required to evaluate the reasonableness.

Compliance with these requirements is mandatory and failure to comply may result in rejection of your proposal.

ii. Price Information. The CO has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition for this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the CO will review this determination and if, in the CO’s opinion, adequate price competition exists, no additional cost information will be requested and certification under RFO 15.403-4 will not be required. If, however, at any time during this acquisition the CO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, Offerors may be required to submit information necessary for the CO to determine the price fair and reasonable in accordance with RFO 15.403-1. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed costs/prices rests with the offeror.

B. Specific Instructions:

i. Section Organization: The Price/Required Documentation section shall be organized according to the following general outline:

1) Table of Contents

2) List of Tables and Drawings

3) Glossary

4) Cross Reference Matrix (if required)

5) Factor 3: Price/Required Documentation

a. Solicitation Representations and Certifications

b. Acknowledgement of All Amendments

c. Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements

d. Other Information

e. Bid Bonds

ii. Format and Content:

1) Solicitation Representations and Certifications: The purpose of this section is to provide information to the Government for preparing the contract document and supporting file. The offeror’s proposal shall include a signed copy of the solicitation and Sections A through K.

a. Section A – Solicitation/Contract Form: Completion of blocks 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 and signature and date for blocks 20A, 20B and 20C of the SF 1442.

Signature by the offeror on SF 1442 block 20B constitutes an offer, which the Government may accept.

b. Section B – Supplies or Services & Prices or Costs: Insert proposed unit and extended prices in Section B for each Contract Line-Item Number (CLIN) or sub-CLIN (SLIN), even if it is $0.00 to be considered for award. The extended amount must equal the whole dollar unit price multiplied by the number of units. ALL CLINS/SLINS on the SF 1442 will count towards the total evaluated cost.

(1) Rounding: All dollar amounts for all CLINs/SLINs should be proposed in whole dollar amounts rounded to two decimal points, for example:

$1,423.78.

c. Section I through K – Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of Offerors: Complete the necessary fill-ins and certifications in Section I through K. Section K shall be returned in its entirety.

2) Acknowledgement of All Amendments: Each offeror must sign and return one copy of the Standard Form (SF) 30 by the date specified on the form.

3) Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements: Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Each exception shall be specifically related to each paragraph and/or specific part of the solicitation to which the exception is taken. Provide rationale in support of the exception and fully explain its impact, if any, on the performance, schedule, cost, and specific requirements of the solicitation. This information shall be provided in the format of the table below.

Solicitation Exceptions Solicitation Document

Page/Paragraph Requirement/Portion Rationale

SOO, SOW,

Specs, Model

Contract, ITO, etc.

Applicable Page and Paragraph Numbers

Identify the requirement or portion to which the exception is taken

Describe why the requirement can/will not be met

4) Other Information Required: Offerors shall provide the following information in Section III of their proposal:

a. Authorized Offeror Personnel: Provide the name, title, and telephone number of the company/division point of contact regarding decisions made with respect to your proposal, and who can obligate your company contractually and those individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government.

b. Company Division/Address, Identifying Codes, and Applicable Designations: Provide company/division’s street address, county, and facility code; UEI number (can be found on SAM.gov); size of business (large or small); and labor surplus area designation. This same information must be provided if the work for this contract will be performed at any other location(s). List all locations where work is to be performed and indicate whether such facility is a division, affiliate, or subcontractor, and the percentage of work to be performed at each location.

c. Teaming Arrangement: If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement and relationship and copies of any teaming or joint venture agreements.

5) Bid Bonds: The offeror shall submit the bid bond or guarantee in this section of the proposal. The bid guarantee shall be submitted on an SF 24 and be in the amount of 20% the bid price or $1,000,000.00, whichever is less.

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1) Basis for Contract Award

A. Basis for Award: This is a competitive acquisition utilizing a best value tradeoff approach in accordance with RFO 15.103-1. The Government will select the responsible offeror whose proposal represents the best overall value, considering technical, past performance, and price. Past performance will be evaluated as significantly more important than price. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation criteria. Award will be given to the Offeror whose proposal provides the greatest overall confidence to successfully fulfil the requirements at a fair and reasonable price. If proposals become more equal in past performance, price may become a more important consideration in the award decision.

The Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with the evaluation factors identified in this solicitation and will exercise sound business judgement in making an integrated assessment best value decision. By submission of a proposal, the offeror agrees to comply with all terms and conditions of the solicitation, including representations, certifications, and requirements. Failure to meet solicitation requirements may result in the proposal being determined unacceptable.

The Government intends to award one (1) Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) contract to the offeror whose proposal represents the best overall value to the Government.

B. Evaluation Process: The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

Step 1 – Each Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for responsiveness to the requirements set forth in the solicitation. Offerors deemed responsive to the requirements of the solicitation will be evaluated utilizing the criteria in step 2. Offerors deemed non-responsive will not be evaluated further.

Step 2 – Each responsive Offeror’s technical volume will be assessed for acceptability in accordance with the evaluation criteria described in TABLE 1. Offerors deemed technically acceptable to the requirements of the solicitation will be evaluated utilizing the criteria in steps 3 through 7. Offerors deemed technically unacceptable will not be evaluated further.

Step 3 – Proposals will be ranked from lowest to highest price, with evaluations starting with the lowest priced proposal. Each responsive Offeror’s total proposed price will be evaluated IAW RFO 15.404-1. ALL CLINS/SLINS on the SF 1442 will count towards the total evaluated price.

Step 4 – Evaluate the past performance of the lowest priced offeror.

i. If the offeror receives less than a “Satisfactory Confidence”, the proposal will be eliminated from further consideration.

ii. If the offeror receives a “Satisfactory Confidence”, the Government will evaluate the next lowest-priced offeror.

Step 5 – The Government will continue evaluations in ascending order of price until an offeror is assessed a “Substantial Confidence” rating.

i. At this point, the Government may conclude evaluations, and a trade-off may be considered.

Step 6 – If no offeror is assigned a rating of “Substantial Confidence”, the Government intends to make award to the lowest-priced offeror with a rating of “Satisfactory Confidence”. Should there be no offerors rated with a “Satisfactory Confidence” rating, the Government may award to the lowest priced offeror who received a “Neutral Confidence” rating or otherwise cancel the solicitation and resolicit.

Step 7– The Source Selection Authority will perform an integrated comparative assessment of proposals and determine best value. An offeror’s determination of responsibility will be made as described in RFO Part 9. The Source Selection Authority shall then award one (1) FFP contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal is determined to be most advantageous to the Government based on the comparative assessment of proposals.

i. The identification of an offeror with a “Substantial Confidence” rating does not obligate the Government to make award to that offeror. The Government is not required to award to the lowest-priced or highest-rated offeror.

ii. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and, in the format specified in Section L, Instructions to Offerors. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Clarifications conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute negotiations. The Government reserves the right to award a contract without conducting negotiations and without providing an opportunity for proposal revision.

2) Evaluation Factors for Award

Three (3) evaluation factors will be used to evaluate proposals. Factor 1 – Technical, Factor 2

– Past Performance, and Factor 3 – Price.

A. Factor 1 – Technical

i. A technical evaluation of each Offeror’s proposal shall be made using the technical acceptability method. The technical acceptability method will evaluate whether the offeror’s proposal will satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. This rating will be based on the Government’s technical knowledge and historical data. Each Offeror will be assessed an adjectival rating as described below:

TABLE 1

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

ii. To be determined technically acceptable, resumes must be provided for the architect, structural engineer(s), or a certified roof designer employed by the manufacturer of the roof system to be installed and include professional qualifications, technical expertise, and proof of licensure in the state of Montana.

B. Factor 2 – Past Performance

i. Past performance will be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the requirement based on previous and current contract efforts. The past performance evaluation focuses on three (3) elements: Recent, Relevant, and Quality.

1) For this evaluation, “recent” is defined as “completed projects within the last five

(5) years from the date of the release of this solicitation.”

2) For this evaluation, “relevant” is defined as “a project similar in scope, size, and complexity to the requirements of this solicitation and valued at more than $350,000.00”. Include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance.

ii. A level of relevancy will be assessed to each past performance reference as described in TABLE 2.

TABLE 2 - RELEVENCY

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the 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.

iii. The Government will use past performance information submitted by the offeror’s references and may use other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, other federal government offices, Contractor Performance Assessment

Reports (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; the Defense Contract Management agency, interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials and private and commercial sources.

The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. Relevancy is defined above. More relevant past performance will be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

iv. Where the relevant past and present performance record indicates performance problems, the Government may 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. If the offeror clearly demonstrates management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions, in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified, this may allow the offeror to be rated higher than what might otherwise be indicated. The Government will evaluate/assess all past performance information, positive and negative. Offerors may be offered the opportunity to respond to negative past performance reports if they had not had the opportunity to do so previously. An offeror without a record of relevant past performance will receive a past performance rating of “Neutral Confidence.”

v. Each past performance reference submitted by an offeror will receive a Performance Confidence Rating as described in TABLE 3 based on the recency, relevancy, and quality of the offeror’s performance.

TABLE 3 - PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE

Adjectival Rating Description

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 low expectations 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.

C. Factor 3 – Price

i. An offeror’s proposed price will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in Section B by the proposed unit price for each CLIN to confirm extended amount for each. Offerors whose total evaluated price is unreasonable (in accordance with RFO 15.404 and RFO 31.201-3) may not be considered for award.

ii. All extensions of the unit prices shown will be subject to verification by the Government. In case of variation between the unit price and the extension, the unit prices will be considered the offer.

iii. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to RFO 15.404. For additional information, see RFO 31.201-3.

iv. All offerors are required to submit offers on all items listed on Section B.

D. Contractor Responsibility:

i. Prior to award, a responsibility determination will be made as described in RFO Part

9.

ii. 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 there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.