Attachment 0005 Instructions and Evaluation Factors FUELS.pdf

Addendum to 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Products and Commercial Services

1. SOLICITATION DOCUMENTS AND AMENDMENTS

All solicitation and amendment documents are available by INTERNET ACCESS ONLY and will be posted to the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) website at https://piee.eb.mil. It shall be the offeror's responsibility to check the website for any amendments in regard to this solicitation. The offeror shall submit in the proposal all requested information specified in the solicitation.

2. JOINT VENTURE/MENTOR-PROTEGE/TEAM ARRANGEMENT PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS.

When proposing as a joint venture, a copy of the joint venture agreement; along with the signed agreement designating one firm with the authority to bind the members of the joint venture, shall be submitted with the proposal in Administrative Documents. All Joint Venture agreements must be signed by both parties. Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements may eliminate the proposal from further consideration. If the Offeror is an 8(a), HUBZone, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned, or Women Owned Small Business joint venture, the Offeror shall ensure that it complies with the applicable requirements of 13 CFR Parts 121, 124, 125, 126, 127 and 128, respectively. The joint venture shall include a copy of its Small Business Administration (SBA) approval of the joint venture arrangement, if applicable. When proposing as part of a Mentor-Protege Agreement, include a copy of the agreement and the SBA approval of the agreement in "Administrative Documents".

A small business joint venture offeror must submit, with its offer, the representation required in FAR 52.219-1, Small Business Program Representations, in accordance with 52.204-8 for the following categories:

(a) Small business;

(b) Service-disabled veteran-owned small business;

(c) Women-owned small business (WOSB) under the WOSB Program;

(d) Economically disadvantaged women-owned small business under the WOSB Program; or

(e) Historically underutilized business

3. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.

The proposal shall be prepared clearly and concisely to demonstrate that the Offeror has a complete understanding of the requirements. Offerors shall prepare proposals on the presumption that the Government has no previous knowledge of the Offeror's capabilities. Proposals will be evaluated only on the information specifically presented in respective submittals, with the exception of Representations and Certifications and Past Performance evaluations. See Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.212-1 for rules concerning submission of offers and late proposals. When applicable, the Offeror shall cross reference to the solicitation by annotating solicitation reference in parenthesis, (e.g., Sec C, para 4.0). "Offeror" refers to the proposed prime Contractor and its proposed key subcontractors. Parroting the PWS (Attachment 0001) doesn't explain how the contractor will meet the requirements and is unacceptable for a best value tradeoff procurement.

4. POINTS OF CONTACT:

Contract Specialist - Primary POC Kijafa T Johnson-Cooper Email: kijafa.t.johnson-cooper@usace.army.mil

Phone: 256-895-1614

Contracting Officer - Secondary POC James (Monte) Long Email: james.m.long@usace.army.mil Phone: 256-895-1418

Emails or voicemails with questions and/or requests for meetings will not receive a response.

Offerors must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) at www.sam.gov with their Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) under the appropriate NAICS code for this acquisition. Contact the SAM helpdesk at https://www.fsd.gov or (866) 606-8220 for questions.

5. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

Offerors shall deliver all parts of the proposal electronically through the Solicitation Module of PIEE at https://piee.eb.mil. No other submissions, such as mail, hand- carried, facsimile, or other electronic system (e.g., DOD SAFE) will be accepted and evaluated, except in the event of a PIEE system outage preventing the Offeror from submitting a timely proposal, see paragraph (a) and (b) below.

For instructions on how to post an offer, please refer to the Posting Offer demo available at:

https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/sol/Posting_Offer.pdf.

a. In the event of a PIEE System outage within 24 hours of the proposal due date that prevents the Offeror from submitting a timely proposal, the Offeror shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer. This notification shall occur prior to the proposal submission deadline and shall be made in writing. The notification may be in conjunction with verbal notification, but verbal notification alone shall not be sufficient. The Offeror shall obtain written approval from the Contracting Officer to submit the proposal via an alternate method (see b below) approved by the Contracting Officer. The Offeror shall have 24 hours to provide their proposal upon Contracting Officer approval.

b. The Government cautions Offerors that electronic submissions are not instantaneous, and file uploads are subject to system connectivity. Submissions may take several minutes or hours, and Offerors should print confirmation information for their files.

If any portion of a proposal received by the Contracting Officer electronically is unreadable, the Contracting Officer will notify the Offeror and permit the Offeror to resubmit the unreadable portion of the proposal. The method and time for resubmission shall be prescribed by the Contracting Officer after consultation with the Offeror and documented in the file. The resubmission shall be considered as if it were received at the date and time of the original unreadable submission for the purpose of determining timeliness, provided the Offeror complies with the time and format requirements for resubmission prescribed by the Contracting Officer.

The Government will not be responsible for proposals delivered to any location or to anyone other than those designated to receive proposals on its behalf. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that proposals are submitted and reach the designated recipient of proposals prior to proposal due date/time. Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the receipt of proposal in accordance with solicitation instructions.

All proposals received after the exact time specified for receipt shall be treated as late submissions.

6. PROPOSAL FORMAT

Files shall be separated by Factors and identified with Offeror's name, factor number and title, proposal date, and solicitation number. Spreadsheets, tables, charts, etc. may be 11" x 17" but will count as two pages. Smaller fonts are permitted on areas of the proposal that will not easily accommodate 11-point font and are limited to illustrations, organization charts, and supporting data exhibits. Files shall searchable Adobe PDF unless specified otherwise.

Legibility, clarity, coherence, and content are more important than appearance. Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed artwork, or other embellishments shall not be submitted.

NOTE: When filling out a form provided by the Government, the font size and type provided by the form will be acceptable.

The Offeror shall title the file(s) in the following format:

W912DY25RA016_COMPANY NAME_ADMIN

W912DY25RA016_COMPANY NAME_FACTOR 1

W912DY25RA016_COMPANY NAME_FACTOR 2

W912DY25RA016_COMPANY NAME_FACTOR 3

Note: The MS Excel Price worksheet may be the same title.

The Offeror shall not provide additional file names.

Files shall be set up using the following page setup parameters:

a. Each factor shall include the following coversheet information:

-Factor number -contractor name -business size -Total Number of pages -Table of contents -List of tables/figures -Factor number and page number at the bottom of each page (along with the proposal revision number for the amended page, if necessary).

b. Files shall use the following page setup parameters (unless specified otherwise):

Margins - Top, Bottom Left, Right - 1" Gutter - 0" From Edge - Header, Footer - 0.5" Page Size - 8.5" x 11" Page Size spreadsheets, table, charts, etc. may be 11" x 17" but shall counts as two pages.

c. The following additional restrictions apply:

Each paragraph shall be separated by at least one blank line.

Font type: New Times Roman; font size; 12, font size for headers and footers may be increased to 14 or reduced to 10.

Font size for spreadsheets, tables, charts, etc. may be reduced to font size 8.

NOTE: Offerors may only include narrative in the chart, table, etc. that explains the chart, table etc.

Information in the chart, table, etc. that goes beyond this may be deemed to count as regular text subject to the page restriction.

The use of external hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited.

d. Page limitation - Only pages within the respective page limits as follows will be evaluated. If an offer exceeds a page limit, the pages that exceed the limit counting from the front will not be considered.

Factor 1 - Technical and Management Approach

- Coversheet (not included in page count)

- Technical Evaluation Form (12 total pages maximum, Sections 2-11)

Factor 2 - Past Performance (no page count)

- Coversheet

Factor 3 - Small Business Participation (no page count)

Factor 4 - Price

-Coversheet (not included in page count) -Price worksheet (not included in page count) -Basis of Estimate (7 total pages maximum)

Note: The following items are excluded from the page counts:

Organization Chart/Teaming Arrangement Graphs Certificates Acronym list Administrative documents Assumptions made while creating proposal response Coversheets

7. PROPOSAL CONTENT

ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS

1. Offerors must submit the signed SF1449 and any/all signed SF30's as backup documentation. The acknowledgement letters shall list the following:

-Company Name associated with Cage Code -Company's Address, -UEI number associated with Company Name, -CAGE code associated with Company Name, -UEI number associated with current and previous subcontractors -Business Size based on the NAICS, -TWO Company POC's name, title, phone number and email address -Expiration date of proposal -Expiration of SAM

Acknowledgement Letter and Cover Sheet are not used interchangeably.

2. Representations and Certifications

Representations and Certifications and other Statements of Offerors are not considered for evaluation but are required as part of the Offeror's proposal of this solicitation. The Offeror shall provide a completed "Representations and Certifications" from System for Award Management (SAM) per FAR 52.204-8 and DFARS 252.204-7007, Annual Representations and Certifications. The submitted information will be reviewed for completeness.

3. All Signed Letters of Commitments, Joint Venture/Mentor Protege/Team Agreements, and approvals (if applicable).

The Offeror must provide any/all applicable Key Subcontractors' Letters of Commitments, Joint Venture/Mentor Protege/Team Agreements, and approvals as applicable.

Any/all Team Agreements must identify who will be acting as a potential prime contractor and who will be acting as its subcontractor(s). The letter/agreement must be signed by all parties. The letter/agreement shall clearly identify the prime contractor's NAICS and the size standard.

Throughout the Solicitation, "Key Subcontractor" is defined as a subcontractor who will perform at least 20% of the total contract effort or a subcontractor who the Offeror considers a key member of their team to provide essential specialized functions for which the Offeror may rely on the subcontractor to technically perform. The Offeror shall provide a signed key subcontractor letter of commitment.

4. The Offeror shall describe any/all legal or administrative proceedings currently pending or concluded, which were conducted against your firm within the past five years that relate to procurement or performance of any public or private contracts. Disclose whether your firm (or its predecessors, if any) has been insolvent or filed for bankruptcy within the past five years. Pursuant to FAR 9.104-1(a), contractors may be required to provide additional information upon request of the Contracting Officer.

5. Offeror is to provide a list of any additional clauses that were manually filled-in in response to the solicitation for the Government's review (i.e. 52.212-3, 52.223-3, 252.211-7003, etc.).

Any individual elements discussed below will be evaluated within each Factor but will NOT be separately rated.

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT APPROACH

The offeror shall provide information as outlined in Attachment 0003, Technical Evaluation Form. The types of information presented shall include such information as to the scope of work (including project size, complexity, and any distinctive and/or unique features of the project); project location;

contract type (i.e., whether performance-based and whether FFP or CPFF); period of performance;

estimated project percent complete, contract dollar value; team members and their roles, the approach to the field work; how the project was managed (i.e., oversight of performance, schedule, cost, quality, and safety); and how challenges were handled (i.e., security, logistics, transportation, disposal requirements, etc.).

Provided the Offeror does not exceed the overall total page count for the proposal, the Offeror is free to include more information as deemed necessary to communicate the team's technical capability recognizing that a reading of Factor 1 shall demonstrate the areas to be evaluated under this solicitation and leave an evaluator with a complete understanding of all aspects of the team's capability and experience to meet the terms and conditions of this solicitation throughout the contract term and recognizing that ambiguity or gaps in demonstrated capability may result in a different rating. The previously stated page limitations still apply. All materials to be evaluated shall be in the applicable section. Proposals shall not include references directing the evaluator to a different factor.

Offeror shall clearly describe its own technical capabilities and those specialized services or capabilities that will be provided by any team members. The Offeror is to demonstrate clearly that it can self- perform or perform through its teaming arrangements any of the required services covered under this contract.

FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)/Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ): An offeror must provide past performance information to demonstrate their ability to successfully perform the requirements of this solicitation. An offeror's past performance information shall include the following three aspects: recency, relevancy, and quality of products or services:

Recency. In order to be considered recent, the projects must have started or completed within three years from the closing date of this solicitation.

Relevancy. The relevancy must be a project that is similar and logically connected to the context of this solicitation in terms of scope (dollar value, size, project type, contract type) and magnitude of effort and complexities as the work outlined in this solicitation.

Quality. Review of the quality of the completed work will be based on CPARS ratings or PPQ submission. CPARS ratings should be used for projects with a CPARS evaluation. For projects without a complete CPARS evaluation, a completed PPQ is required.

The Offeror shall submit a maximum of five projects. Submissions must clearly align with the criteria for recency, relevancy, and quality. Only the first required number of project submissions will be reviewed. A "project" refers to a single discrete or undertaking job (i.e. a project would be a single task order under a MATOC, not the entire MATOC).

A project is defined as:

(a) Work performed pursuant to one specific performance-based task order of a MATOC or SATOC IDIQ type contract at one or multiple sites; or

(b) Work performed at one site or multiple sites pursuant to a single stand-alone performance-based contract.

Do not list an IDIQ contract as an example of a single completed project. Instead, list relevant completed TOs that fit within the definition above. A group of TOs at one installation is acceptable as an example of a completed project. A modification to a TO is NOT acceptable as an example of a completed project. If the Offeror provides a specific TO as its "project," it shall provide the base contract number and the TO number for reference purposes. If the Offeror provides a site-specific/stand-alone "C-Type" contract as its "project," it shall provide the contract number for reference purposes. Completed projects that may be submitted are defined as work performed under a "project" as defined above where all CLINs/Tasks during implementation are 100% completed and the work has been accepted by the customer. The project does not have to be contractually or administratively closed out.

For projects with CPARS ratings: (1) Provide the CPARS evaluation directly; and (2) Do NOT submit a PPQ for these projects.

For projects without CPARS ratings: (1) Complete and submit the PPQ provided in the solicitation (Attachment 0004, PPQ Form); (2) Ensure the PPQ includes the correct name, title, phone number, and email of the client point of contact (Note. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before the solicitation closing date, the offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, 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 at CEHNC-PMCMNADAF@usace.army.mil prior to the solicitation closing date. The solicitation number and offeror's name shall be clearly indicated on the PPQ. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other solicitations. However, this does not preclude the Government from using previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. This factor is for CPARS or PPQs, no separate narratives will be evaluated.

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 https://www.sam.gov, using all CAGE/UEI number 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.

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.

FACTOR 3: Small Business Participation

The Offeror, including small businesses offerors, shall submit a Small Business Participation Plan IAW DFARS 215.304. The Small Business Participation Plan shall describe the Offeror’s commitment to utilizing Small Businesses and shall, at a minimum, complying with requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan; the extent of participation of such firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition; the extent to which the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan meets the identified Minimum Quantitative Requirements (MQR).

The small business Minimum Quantitative Requirements (MQRs) for this procurement are listed below. The Offeror (regardless of small businesses status) will be required to propose on the extent of their anticipated inclusion of Small Businesses, including Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Women-Owned Small Business, HUBZone Business, Veteran-Owned Small Business, and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business in the overall performance of the contract. In order to receive a rating of Acceptable, the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan must demonstrate an adequate approach and meet the following percentage requirements.

Small Business Participation MQRs SB SDB WOSB HUBZone VOSB SDVOSB

Small Business Participation

20% 5.0% 2.5% 3.0% 4.0% 3.0%

The Small Business Participation Plan template (Attachment 0008) is designed to streamline and bring uniformity to responses and evaluations for small business commitment (FAR 15.304). Other than small business Offerors may achieve the small business commitments through subcontracting to recognized small businesses. Small business Offerors may achieve small business commitments through their own performance/participation as a prime contractor, a joint venture, or teaming arrangement, and by subcontracting to other recognized small businesses.

The Total Contract Value should be used for the SB Participation Plan to establish the percentages proposed for evaluation. The SB Subcontracting Plan uses the total subcontracting dollars planned to establish the proposed percentages to be subcontracted.

FACTOR 4: PRICE

A. The pricing shall be provided using the provided Pricing Worksheet (workbook) of the solicitation. Only the rates and values listed in the price worksheet will be evaluated for this factor.

• The offeror must complete each section of the pricing worksheet in accordance with pricing worksheet instructions.

• The Government will not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the formulas in the worksheet.

• Formulas are ultimately the Contractor's responsibility to verify, correct, and/or create.

• Any formula changes shall be annotated for ease of identification by the Government within the basis of estimate.

• ALL pricing in the pricing worksheet (Attachment 0007) shall be rounded to the nearest whole cent and not exceed 2 decimal places. The format should remain unchanged, size (11x17) and margins should be .25 on all sides.

• The price worksheet shall include all pricing information and result in a FFP proposal.

• Contractors shall submit only one rate per discipline. It is each contractor's responsibility to make a business judgment about their strategic position for the submission of binding rates.

B. The total pricing for each CLIN shall be within the solicitation document.

C. Direct Labor: The Contractor must propose labor rates for all direct labor categories.

D. Basis of Estimate: A written BoE narrative shall accompany the price proposal identifying all assumptions, elements, justifications, and rationale explaining the major price considerations used to prepare the price proposal. These considerations shall address, but not be limited to, any assumptions made, estimating methodology, and any constraints related to pricing data.

Any deviations shall be explained in the basis of estimate.

E. Crosswalk- ALL crosswalk categories under the Contractor's pricing worksheet must meet and comply with the pricing worksheet labor category description's requirements and the PWS including job duties and experience. If categories proposed do not meet the requirements of the pricing worksheet crosswalk descriptions, the proposal will be rendered deficient and may be removed from further consideration.

The price proposal must be sufficiently detailed to allow the Government to verify the pricing to be fair and reasonable.

The rates proposed will be binding and will become the maximum allowable rates on the awarded contract.

Addendum to Evaluation - Commercial product and Commercial Services

BASIS OF AWARD

Using the Source Selection process described in FAR 15.101-1, Tradeoff Process, the Government intends to select the responsible Offeror(s) whose proposal conforms to the solicitation and is considered to provide the best value to the Government.

The Government intends to make award without discussions; however, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions if necessary IAW FAR 15.306. A competitive range is a subjective determination of Offerors' submissions and will be established in the event there are discussions with Offerors. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001. Any proposal that fails to conform to the material terms and conditions of the solicitation shall be rejected.

CEHNC will evaluate each proposal using the proposed evaluation factors listed below in descending order of importance. The non-price factors (Factors 1, 2, and 3) when combined are significantly more important than price (Factor 4). Any elements of a factor have equal importance and will be evaluated but will not be given a separate adjectival rating.

Evaluations Factors Factor Description Importance of Factor

Factor 1 Technical and Management Approach

Most Important

Factor 2 Past Performance Less important than Factor 1 More important than Factor 3-4

Factor 3 Small Business Participation Less important than Factor 1 and 2 More important than Factor 4

Factor 4 Price Least important

To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than "Acceptable" must be achieved for Factor 1, Technical and Management Approach and Factor 3, Small Business Participation. Offerors must achieve no less than "Satisfactory Confidence" or "Neutral Confidence" for Factor 2, Past Performance. Factor 4, Price, is not rated, but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer, or to reject all offers.

Proposal information shall be in the appropriate factor.

Pursuant to FAR Subpart 9.1, no award will be made unless the contracting officer makes an affirmative determination of contractor responsibility. As a result, offerors may be required to furnish additional information in order for the Government to make a determination regarding the Offeror's responsibility.

DEFINITIONS:

Breadth: the Offeror's experience in performing the full range/all of the tasks required.

Depth: the magnitude, significance, and applicability/relevance of the Offeror's experience in performing the range of services.

Risk: the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror's proposal may involve risk of disruption of schedule or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Team (Offeror's Team members): the prime contractor consisting of a company or corporation, prime contractor with key subcontractor(s) identified with a signed letter of commitment from the key subcontractor(s), or legally-binding partnering companies or corporations (e.g. partnership or joint venture).

Rating: The evaluation ratings assigned by the evaluators to the non-price Factors. It represents their conclusions as to the quality of the proposal, supported by narrative write-ups.

Strength – is an aspect of an offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance

Weakness – a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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

Uncertainty - any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake)

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT APPROACH

The Government will evaluate this factor for Adequacy of Response and Feasibility of Approach as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror's methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the solicitation. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement of the solicitation has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the solicitation.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror's method and approach to meeting the solicitation requirements provide the Government with an acceptable level of confidence of successful completion within the required schedule. Any technical approach enhancements (innovation and creativity) proposed will be evaluated to determine whether the approach is feasible and will result in an end product/service that fully meets or exceeds the RFP requirements. Breadth and depth of presented knowledge, experience, and capability with the disciplines and technologies will be evaluated with respect to projects.

Furthermore, the Government will evaluate the various elements as follows:

- the quality and approach associated with the Contractor's Management Plan.

- the approach to quality management and control.

- the approach to meeting safety requirements and ensuring work is completed in a safe manner.

- the approach to performing the Initial Site Visit and completing the required Equipment Inventory, Facility Maintenance Plan, Essential Mission Plan composition of the proposed maintenance team, response times and the approach to meeting maintenance requirements.

- the approach to performing, documenting, and reporting recurring maintenance.

- the approach to understanding and performing Service Orders at a fair and reasonable price.

Form will also be evaluated for completeness.

- the approach to developing and using maintenance and repair teams.

Factor 1 will be evaluated using the following rating methodology of color and adjectival rating description:

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)/Past Performance Questionnaires

(PPQ)

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevance and quality of products or services. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's likelihood of success in performing the solicitation's requirements and delivering high quality products and services as indicated by that Offeror's recent and relevant record of past performance.

In this context, "Offeror" refers to the proposed prime Contractor and its proposed key subcontractors.

A letter of commitment must be provided from all key subcontractors.

Provide the list of key subcontractors as indicated in Factor 1 Technical and Management Approach.

A "Contractor team arrangement" is an arrangement in which (1) two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime Contractor or (2) a potential prime Contractor agrees with one or more other companies to have them act as its subcontractors under a specified Government contract or acquisition program (see FAR 9.6). In either case the prime Contractor and proposed key subcontractors will be assessed individually on their Past Performance. Past performance of prime Contractors or key subcontractors whose firms are divided into severable segments (i.e. division, group, unit, etc.) will only be evaluated as it relates to those segments of the firm(s) that will actually perform the work.

When evaluating capabilities, past performance, experience, business systems (as applicable) and certifications of an entity submitting an offer as a joint venture, the contracting officer will consider work done and qualifications held individually by each partner in the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself. For this purpose, the partners to the joint venture in aggregate must demonstrate the past performance, experience, business systems and certifications necessary to perform the contract.

Past Performance references will first be reviewed to determine the relevancy of the past performance information. More relevant past performance will be treated as a stronger predictor of future success and will therefore have more influence on the overall performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. Recency is defined as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant. Relevancy is defined as contracts similar in size, scope and complexity. Quality is defined as the overall quality of the past performance.

Factor 2 "Past Performance" will be evaluated for relevancy using the following rating methodology description:

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY

Rating Description

Based on the recency, relevancy, and quality of the Offeror's past performance, Factor 3 will be assigned a performance confidence rating using the following adjectival rating methodology shown in the table below:

PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Definition

*NOTE: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). In this case, the Offeror's past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of "Neutral."

When determining the overall Performance Confidence Assessment for an Offeror, the Government may also use information obtained from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), including CPARS ratings for projects other than those identified in the proposal. For projects with no CPARS rating, the Government may use the Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs). The Government may also consider information from other sources in the following areas:

demonstrated record of successful performance in comparable projects; demonstrated ability to select, retain, support and, when necessary, replace subcontractors; demonstrated implementation of corrective measures that have been implemented to resolve performance issues; demonstrated record of reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction;

demonstrated record of cost and schedule management; and the degree of relevancy of all of the considered efforts.

The Offeror is cautioned that in conducting the performance risk assessment, the Government may use data obtained from other sources in addition to data provided in the Offeror's proposal. The Government may not contact all of the identified Points of Contact (POCs) provided by the Offeror. As such, it is incumbent upon the Offeror to ensure the accuracy and relevance of the data provided and the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

In the event that adverse past performance information is obtained from other sources, and the contractor has not previously had an opportunity to respond to negative information, the Government may give the contractor an opportunity to do so as clarifications IAW FAR 15.306(a)(2). If negative past performance information will make a difference whether or not the contractor will be included in the competitive range and the contractor has not previously had an opportunity to respond to the negative past performance information, the Government shall allow the contractor an opportunity to respond IAW FAR 15.306(b)(1).

When evaluating capabilities, past performance, experience, business systems (as applicable) and certifications of an entity submitting an offer as a joint venture, the contracting officer will consider work done and qualifications held individually by each partner in the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself. For this purpose, the partners to the joint venture in aggregate must demonstrate the past performance, experience, business systems and certifications necessary to perform the contract.

FACTOR 3: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

The Government will evaluate the level of the Offeror’s commitment to Small Business demonstrated in the proposed acquisition and the use of Small Businesses in the performance of prior contracts relevant to the PWS. In order to receive a rating of Acceptable or above, the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan must demonstrate an adequate approach and meet the MQR percentages.

Factor 3 will be evaluated using the following adjectival rating methodology.

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

Small Business Subcontracting Plan (for Other Than Small Business ONLY):

Separate from the Small Business Participation Plan, pursuant DFARS 219.705-4(d)(ii) and DFARS PGI 219.705-4 (DoD Checklist), the Government will review independent of the evaluation board but before awarding, the Small Business Subcontracting Plan for acceptability to determine:

a. Does the Subcontracting Plan adequately respond to each of the required elements of FAR 52.219-9(c) and (d) paragraphs (1) through (15), and

b. If the commitment dollars in Subcontracting Plan are consistent with the commitment dollars in the Small Business Participation Plan

FACTOR 4: PRICE

Pricing will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness IAW FAR 15.404. Pricing shall be fair and reasonable to be considered for award.

Price is not an adjectivally rated criterion but is evaluated for providing the best value to the Government, IAW FAR 15.404. The Government may consider offers found unreasonably high unacceptable and may reject on that basis. For award purposes, the total proposed price for all CLINs will be added together into a total sum (contract value).