A21 - General Proposal Submission Requirements.pdf

GENERAL PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

REQUIREMENTS

W912PM2RA012,

W. Kerr Scott Operation and Maintenance Support Services

1. General Instructions

In accordance with FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisitions, the Government reserves the right to make award without discussions. Offerors should submit their best technical and price terms with their initial offer, without assuming an opportunity for revisions. The Government may award a conforming proposal without discussions if deemed in its best interest. Consistent with FAR 15.306(c)(1) and FAR 52.215-1(f)(4), the Government may conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines them necessary. If the number of proposals within the competitive range exceeds a manageable level for efficient competition, the Contracting Officer may limit the competitive range to the highest-rated proposals.

1.1 Contractor Team Arrangements: The Government recognizes valid contractor teaming arrangements, provided they are fully disclosed in the offer, including company relationships. The evaluation will be limited to information submitted by the legal entity with whom the Government will contract, as registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) and identified by its CAGE Code (see Tab E).

1.2 Joint Ventures: For 8(a) set-aside procurements, prospective Joint Ventures must comply with Title 13

CFR Part 124.513. For HUBZone set-aside procurements and awards to HUBZone SBCs through full and open competition, Joint Ventures must comply with 13 CFR 126.616. Offerors should submit evidence from their SBA Servicing Agency confirming notification and discussion of the proposed joint venture.

1.3 Third-Party Information: Information regarding affiliated companies, subsidiaries, or subcontractors will not be evaluated. Successor entities must demonstrate, in Volume I, Tab A, the official legal means of transitioning from the predecessor company, including documentation such as Articles of Incorporation, Joint Venture Agreements, Novation Agreements, and Merger Documentation. Note: A “successor” is an entity acquiring a predecessor’s assets and continuing its operations under a new name; this does not include new offices/divisions of the same company or a simple name change.

1.4 Proposal Due Date: Proposals are due no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard

Form 1449.

1.5 Proposal Submission: Each offeror must submit separate volumes/files for the Price Proposal, Technical

Proposal, and Past Performance Questionnaires.

1.6 Proposal Receipt: The Price Proposal, Technical Proposal, and Past Performance Questionnaires must be received by the specified closing date and time.

1.7 Price/Technical Separation: No dollar amounts from the Price Proposal are to be included in the Technical

Proposal.

1.8 Technical Proposal Completeness: All information intended for technical evaluation must be submitted within the Technical Proposal; do not cross-reference material in the Price Proposal.

1.9 Exceptions to Terms: Do not include exceptions to the solicitation’s terms and conditions in either proposal. Inclusion of conflicting standard company terms may render the offer unacceptable. Questions regarding terms and conditions should be resolved prior to submission.

1.10 Technical Data: Submit all technical data criteria specified for each factor as part of the Technical

Proposal.

2. General Proposal Format

2.1 Cover Page: Include the solicitation title, solicitation number, offeror name, and submittal date.

2.2 Table of Contents: Each proposal volume must contain a detailed table of contents. If a volume consists of multiple PDF files, include the complete table of contents in each file. Supplemental materials (e.g., company brochures) should be placed in appendices.

2.3 Proposal Content & Separation: All information intended for evaluation must be included within the appropriate proposal volume (Technical or Price). Do not cross-reference between volumes, and do not include price information in the Technical Proposal.

2.4 Electronic Submission: Submit both the Price Proposal and Technical Proposal via email to troy.d.small@usace.army.mil (Troy D. Small, Contracting Officer) and benjamin.t.rickman@usace.army.mil (Benjamin Rickman, Contract Specialist). Hard copies will not be accepted. Proposals must be in Adobe PDF format, on 8.5” x 11” pages, using a minimum of 10-point font. Page limits, as specified in the RFP, are maximums. Compression utilities (e.g., WinZip, PKZip) may be used to reduce file size.

File Naming Convention:

W912PM2RA012_COMPANY NAME_VOLUME I

W912PM2RA012_COMPANY NAME_VOLUME II

Key Dates:

RFP Number: W912PM2RA012

Project Title: W912PM26RA0012, W. Ker Scott Operation and Maintenance Support Services

Proposals are due as specified in the solicitation document (including any amendments). Receipt time will be determined by the upload completion/delivery time recorded within FBO. Allow ample time for upload to avoid delays; submissions completed after the deadline will be considered late. Retain a copy of the upload confirmation for your records.

2.5 Proposal Detail: Offerors are responsible for providing sufficient detail to allow for a complete and accurate evaluation. Proposals should be clear and concise; the Government will not make assumptions.

2.6 Completeness of Submission: Failure to submit all data required by the RFP and these instructions may result in the proposal being deemed incomplete and ineligible for award.

2.7 Exceptions to Terms: Do not include exceptions to the solicitation’s terms and conditions in either proposal. Conflicting standard company terms may render the offer unacceptable. Questions regarding terms and conditions should be resolved prior to submission.

2.8 Tab Organization: Proposals shall be organized and tabbed as follows:

2.8.1 Volume I: Price and Certifications. Submit one (1) electronic Adobe PDF file, tabbed according to the table below:

TAB Table of Contents Volume I

A The Proposal Cover Sheet

B Standard Form 1449

C Acknowledgement of Amendments (If Applicable)

D Factor 2: Price

E Representations and Certifications

F Teaming Arrangement (If Applicable)

G Financial Information

2.8.1.1 Tab A. Proposal Cover Sheet Requirements:

The Proposal Cover Sheet (FAR 52.215-1(c)(2)) must include:

1. Solicitation Number

2. Offeror Name, Address, Telephone, Facsimile, and Email Address

3. Statement of Agreement with Solicitation Terms

4. Names, Titles, and Contact Information for Authorized Negotiators

5. Name, Title, and Signature of Authorized Representative (with evidence of authority if applicable)

See Attachment 1 for the Proposal Cover Sheet format. Include UEID, CAGE Code, and Tax ID number. If a Joint Venture (J-V) is proposed, provide a UEID for the J-V and each member of the team.

2.8.1.2 TAB B - Standard Form 1449, completed and signed by authorized individual(s) of the offeror. Offers submitted in the name of a Joint Venture must be signed in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the joint venture agreement as evidenced in the proposal.

2.8.1.3 TAB C - If applicable - All amendments must be acknowledged by all offerors and duly executed with an original signature by an official authorized to bind the company in accordance with FAR 4.102.

2.8.1.4 TAB D – Factor 2 - Price. Proposed price schedule is to be completed in its entirety by all offerors to include the Subtotals and Totals section as found in Section B - Solicitation, Contract Line Item

Number (CLIN) Schedule.

2.8.1.5 TAB E - Representations and Certifications. Offerors shall include any narratives as it pertains to the requirement at 2.2 to document any teaming arrangement the offeror has or will enter.

2.8.1.6 TAB F - Teaming Agreement, if applicable. See paragraph 1.1 and 2.2 Note to 8(a)—SBA must approve a joint venture agreement prior to the award of an 8(a) contract on behalf of the joint venture.

2.8.1.7 TAB G - Financial Information: Provide the following financial information:

a. Financial statements for the past three years

b. Annual reports

c. Dun & Bradstreet Rating and/or Number

d. List of current contracts, including total dollar value, award date, and anticipated completion date.

2.8.2 Volume II: Technical Proposal & Past Performance: One (1) electronic copy Adobe PDF file as tabbed per the table below shall be submitted.

TAB Table of Contents of Volume II

A Factor 1: Technical

B Factor 3: Past Performance

3. Submission Requirements & Evaluation Standards Tab A Factor 1: Technical

3.1 Submission Requirements

3.1.1 The technical proposal must be presented in a practical, straightforward, specific, concise, and complete manner and organized into the following sections, with estimated page length for each section shown. These page limits are suggestions for each section and may be exceeded if necessary; however, the entire Tab A Factor 1: Technical page length cannot exceed the 75 maximum page allowance. The technical proposal shall be broken down by functional area (TP) as described in the table of contents of the

Performance Work Statement to Level 2, with the understanding that all levels below

Level 2 need to be acknowledged and incorporated into the discussion/presentation. For example, TP-3 includes elements down to level 4 of the WBS. The proposal does not need to include all the minute detail on how the offeror intends to physically remove trash can contents, insert a liner, or clean and disinfect a trash can (TP 3.5), but instead simply demonstrate the overall method, technique, and approach to completing TP-3.0 to clearly indicate how meeting each level will be accomplished.

3.1.2 The narrative must address all the minimum criteria specified in paragraph 3.1.2.1.

3.1.2.1 Minimum Criteria:

3.1.2.1.1 Workforce Organization (2 pages) - offerors will describe the proposed management structure for the team, describing how the performance process will be managed and the authorities and the delegations of authority within the team. Provide an organizational chart from corporate management down to hourly employees. The chart should identify all supervisors and foremen, clearly show the physical number of employees and identify part-time, seasonal, and full-time employees. Include the proposed quality control group(s) and key personnel in the organization chart.

Clearly illustrate key positions, names of the personnel, their firm affiliations, job locations and their job/position title within the organization.

3.1.2.1.2 Productive Man-hours (1 page) - offerors will provide the number of productive man-hours and full-time equivalent (FTE) employees assigned to each employee classification by technical provision. These estimates are for productive man- hours only and should not include total man-hours. For cost purposes, all labor will be charged to TP-2, unless it is subcontracted and/or associated with after- hours call-out work under TPs 7-18, in which case it will be charged to the applicable technical provision. However, for the technical presentation of this section, offerors will estimate hours using the WBS for each technical provision in the Performance Work

Statement.

3.1.2.1.3 Key Personnel (5 pages) - For the superintendent and quality control positions, offerors will provide qualification statements indicating the knowledge, skills, and abilities required to hold these positions. If the individuals are known, resumes may also be submitted. A letter of commitment will be required as part of the key personnel submission if individuals are known. If the Offeror uses different key personnel during the performance of the contract than those specifically identified/submitted with its proposal, then those personnel must possess similar experience as the personnel proposed. If key personnel are replaced at any time during contract performance the replacement must be approved by the Contracting

Officer.

3.1.2.1.4 Required Licenses and Certifications List (1 page) - offerors will identify any positions that require professional licenses and certifications.

3.1.2.1.5 Subcontracted Work (2 pages) - offerors will identify all major work that will be subcontracted, referencing the appropriate technical provisions by number, down to the sub-element level if necessary. If possible and appropriate, proposed subcontractors should be identified by name.

3.1.2.1.6 Technical Approach (25 pages) - offerors should show their approach to continuing maintenance services without interruption, including during periods of contractor equipment breakdowns. However, if an offeror feels they have a unique or advantageous technical approach to performing a particular task, it should be presented here with the TP clearly identified, down to the sub-task level, if necessary.

3.1.2.1.7 Equipment, Materials, and Supplies List (16 pages) - offerors will provide a single comprehensive list of all vehicles, specialized tools, and equipment required for the contract. In addition, each technical provision should identify the specific vehicles/tools/equipment associated with that TP. Offerors will also provide a list of materials and supplies, including estimated quantities, specific to each technical provision.

3.1.2.1.8 Major Activity Schedule (6 pages) - offerors will provide a schedule, Gantt chart or similar format, showing your plan to complete all work based on an arbitrary estimated Project Schedule. The schedules shall be task oriented, indicating the number of calendar days, after notice to proceed, by which milestones are to be achieved. Offeror may use a critical path or other method of his/her choice;

however, schedules shall be graphically represented. The proposed project schedule shall reflect the proposed contract duration. Separately, for janitorial services, mowing, and any other recurring routine services, provide a specific schedule showing crew composition, tasks accomplished, and locations or routes.

3.1.2.1.9 Management Approach (12 pages) - offerors should describe the approach to managing the work, including prioritizing and assigning work and managing inventories. Offerors should describe how maintenance management (work orders) and inventory systems will be used and describe the cost tracking system and how costs will be tracked. Offerors should briefly explain what authorities each tier of the organization chart has. Management and documentation requirements from TP-

1 & 2 should be addressed here. Summary discussion of plans (other than

Mobilization Plan) should occur in the Management Approach Section (and included in the page count). The actual plans (other than Mobilization Plan) that the performance work statement requires may be attached as Appendices to the proposal and will not count against the overall page limit of the proposal but will be evaluated.

3.1.2.1.10 Mobilization Plan (5 pages) - The offeror will provide a schedule and plan for mobilizing and startup. The offeror should identify timelines for hiring employees, delivering equipment to the site, and when full performance is expected to begin after the notice to proceed is issued.

3.2 Evaluation Criteria

3.2.1 The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirement specified in the RFP. Furthermore, the proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

3.2.2 Failure to submit any of the individual minimum requirements for the Technical Criteria will be noted as a deficiency.

3.2.3 Failure to provide clear and comprehensive detail to any of the minimum requirement for the Technical Criteria may be noted as a significant weakness or weakness.

Technical Criteria that merely provided restatement of the solicitation or specification language will not fulfill the requirements of this source selection. The Technical Criteria must provide information that demonstrates the offeror understand the project requirements.

4. Submission Requirements & Evaluation Standards Tab B Factor 3 Past Performance

4.1 Submission Requirements

4.1.1 Past performance refers to the quality of recent, relevant project experience from the owner’s perspective. The offeror should complete and provide a NAVFAC/USACE Past

Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), see Attachment 3, on no fewer than two (2) and no more than three (3) projects. Projects submitted under this factor must first be deemed relevant in accordance with the minimum criteria specified in paragraph 3.1.2.1 before being evaluated for quality in accordance with the criteria specified in paragraph 4.2 and the evaluation standards set forth in paragraph 5.

The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 3 – Past Performance for the Prime Contractor. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact.

Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment 3), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Benjamin Rickman (Contract

Specialist) and Troy Small (Contracting Officer) via email at benjamin.t.rickman@usace.army.mil and troy.d.small@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

Also include performance recognition documents received within the last 6 years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

The offeror shall provide clear and adequate information in response to the past performance elements identified on Attachment 3. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division, unit or team member submitting the offer. To the extent necessary to conduct a meaningful evaluation, the Government will call and confirm with the points of contact, information provided by the offeror on the NAVFAC/USACE PPQ. The Government reserves the right to interview other individuals if the point of contact is not available.

4.1.2 Other Sources. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Contractor Performance

Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/UEI numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System

(FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

4.1.3 The past performance of individuals will not be considered under this factor.

4.2 Evaluation Criteria

4.2.1 The Government will evaluate the offeror's past performance using the sources available to it including but not limited to: the example projects identified by the offeror and submitted on the NAVFAC/USACE PPQs and any additional information received from references, CPARS or other sources. Offerors may be provided an opportunity to address any negative past performance information about which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond if such information is determined to present an impact on the rating to be assessed.

4.2.2 The Government will consider past performance of the prime construction contractor. If a firm has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate the past performance of the unit or division submitting the offer. Where the Government views mailto:benjamin.t.rickman@usace.army.mil mailto:troy.d.small@usace.army.mil an offeror’s role, or that of its team members, if any, as not significant or as not clearly defined, the Government reserves the right to view this lack of involvement, or clarity, as a risk which may impact an offeror’s rating for this factor despite the quality of recent, relevant past performance information.

4.2.3 The Government will consider recent, relevant projects that are successfully completed and/or substantially completed (fully designed and at least 50% progress completed) within six (6) years preceding the date of the solicitation. To be deemed relevant, projects must comply with minimum criteria in paragraph 3.1.2.1. The Government will consider the recency and relevancy of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance. The Government places higher value on projects for which successful performance can be validated by means other than the offeror’s self-assessment such as through independent telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the proposal, CPARS or other agency performance databases, offeror furnished references or personal knowledge. The

Government places a higher value on projects which provided particularly difficult or unique challenges and the innovative methods the offeror used to resolve problems successfully.

4.2.4 Offerors are cautioned that the submission of each NAVFAC/USACE PPQ shall not exceed Seven (7) pages and that Government evaluators will review and evaluate only the information contained on the first seven pages. Offerors need not include the instruction pages but, if included, will be counted against the limit.

4.2.5 The Government will evaluate recent, relevant past performance (as set forth in paragraph 5.2) based on the elements listed below to assign a confidence rating in accordance with paragraph 5.3.

4.2.6 Timeliness of Performance. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the completion of projects within the scheduled completion times.

4.2.7 Customer Satisfaction. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to customer satisfaction, cooperation with customers, and interaction on past projects.

4.2.8 Management. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to effective management of subcontractors, suppliers and labor on past projects.

4.2.9 The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the contractor’s ability to perform within the contractually agreed price.

4.2.10 The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the contractor’s safety program or efforts.

4.2.11 The Government will evaluate all general information and comments provided by previous clients with respect to the contractor’s efforts.

4.2.12 In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.”

Although the Government may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the Government may determine, that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating.

5. Evaluation Standards

Evaluation factors will be rated using the following adjectival descriptions. Evaluators will apply the appropriate adjective to each factor rated. The evaluator’s narrative explanation must clearly establish that the offeror’s submittal meets the definitions established below.

5.1 Factor 1 – Technical. In evaluating Technical, each of the Minimum Criteria outlined in section 3 of this enclosure will be assessed to determine the appropriate overall rating for the proposal’s Factor 1 Technical. The overall rating for Factor 1 – Technical will be assigned using the adjectival descriptions in the table below. The following table provides Ratings and Definitions that will be used in the Technical evaluation.

Technical Ratings:

Color Rating Adjectival Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

5.2 Factor 3 - Past Performance. The proposal’s Past Performance rating will be assigned as a combination of the proposal’s Confidence Rating and Relevancy Rating. Both Confidence

Rating and Relevancy Rating will be determined and assigned using the adjectival descriptions contained herein. Upon assessment of each individual factor the appropriate overall rating for the proposal will be assigned using these same adjectival descriptions.

5.3 Factor 3 - Past Performance, Relevancy Rating. Past Performance Relevancy rating relates to the assessment of the magnitude, scope, and complexity of an offeror's present work, past work, and accomplishments in relation to the magnitude, scope, and complexity of the requirement outlined in the solicitation. The Government will assign a relevancy rating to

Factor 3 – Past Performance, in order to establish an overall rating for this factor. The government will apply the following relevance levels to assess the relevance of the prior contract effort(s) of offerors in accordance with the Army Source Selection Supplement utilizing the following tables:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

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.

5.4 Factor 3 – Past Performance, Confidence Rating. Past Performance confidence rating relates to the assessment of an offeror's present work, past work, accomplishments to determine the offeror's ability to successfully perform as required. The Government will assign a confidence level to Factor 3 – Past Performance, in order to establish an overall rating for this factor. The Confidence levels are defined as:

Past Performance Confidence Ratings

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 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.

5.5 Factor 3 - Past Performance, Applicability. In assessing Past Performance, the ratings for

Relevancy and Confidence, and the Evaluation Criteria as established at 4.2, will be considered for the Prime contractor only, regardless of whether the offeror is a joint venture, partnership or if the Prime Contractor is part of informal teaming arrangement, as defined in paragraph 1.1 the government will only evaluate this factor for the legal entity whom the government would enter into a contract.

5.6 Definitions

5.6.1 Deficiency. A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

5.6.2 Strength. An aspect of an offerors’ proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the

Government during contract performance.

5.6.3 Significant Strength. An aspect of an offerors’ proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

5.6.4 Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

5.6.5 Significant Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

6. Relative Importance of Factors

6.1 NON-COST FACTORS:

FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL: This factor is significantly more important than Factor 2 and

Factor 3.

FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE: This factor is equal in importance to Factor 2.

6.2 COST FACTORS:

FACTOR 2 – PRICE: This factor is equal in importance Factor 3.

7. Exception

7.1 Exceptions to the contractual terms and conditions of the solicitation (e.g., standard company terms and conditions) may result in a determination to reject a proposal.

8. Restrictions

8.1 Failure to submit all the data in the format indicated may be cause for determining a proposal incomplete and, therefore, not considered for evaluation or for subsequent award.

9. Price

9.1 Price will not be rated but will be a factor in establishing the competitive range prior to discussions (if held) and in making the best value decision for award of any resultant contract. Pricing for the contract shall be completed and submitted on the Pricing Schedule shown on the solicitation, Continuation of Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs.

9.2 The Government will perform a price analysis on all proposals received for the contract.

Price analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, to determine fairness and reasonableness as well as to assure an understanding of the work and ability to execute the contract at price proposed. The evaluation will determine the extent to which the price proposal is consistent with the requirements of the RFP. Historical price information, competitive price information, the Independent Government Estimate (IGE), or any other pricing tool, as necessary, will be utilized in making this determination. Offerors are advised that any offer wherein pricing is deemed unfair or unreasonable will be rendered ineligible for award.

9.3 In accordance with FAR 52.217-5 – Evaluations of Options (Jul 1990), the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

9.4 This total contract price including the price for optional line items is the evaluated price for making the best value decision.

10. Basis for Award

10.1 Proposals must meet the criteria stated in the RFP in order to be eligible for award, to include acceptability and responsibility.

10.2 The contract will be awarded to that successful offeror whose proposal offers the best overall value.

10.3 As technical ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages become less distinct, differences in price between proposals are of increased importance in determining the most advantageous proposal. Conversely, as differences in price become less distinct, differences in scoring and relative advantages and disadvantages between proposals are of increased importance to the determination.

10.4 The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer(s) or the most highly rated offeror(s). The right is also reserved to reject any and all offers.

10.5 Offerors are reminded to include their best overall value terms in their initial offer and not automatically assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer.

10.6 Pages that exceed the required page limitations will not be evaluated. Additional pages over the maximum allowed will be removed or not read and will not be evaluated by the

Government. Tables of content, proposal cover letters, and tabs between proposal information do not count toward any page limitations in the proposal. The total number of

Pages for Volume I – Price and Certifications shall not exceed 25 Pages and Volume II –

Technical & Past Performance shall not exceed 82 Pages. The offerors submission for

Solicitation W912PM2RA012 shall not exceed 107 pages in total.