Attachment 1 - Instructions to Offerors and Evaluation Criteria.docx

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS (ITO) – COMMERCIAL SERVICE

NOTE: All proposal preparation costs will be the sole responsibility of the Offeror. The Government will not reimburse any firm for their proposal preparation.

Period for acceptance of offers: The Offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm until 180 days after proposal due date.

1. General Information

(a) This section of the Instructions to Offerors (ITO) provides general guidance for preparing proposals as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the proposal. The offeror’s proposal must include all data and information requested by the ITO and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Non-conformance with the instructions provided in this ITO may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

(b) Offer Detail: The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements but, rather, shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume that 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) Embellishments Not Desired: Elaborate brochures or documentation, detailed artwork, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

(d) Disposition of Offers: In accordance with FAR 4.803(a)(10) (Contents of Contract Files), the Government will retain a copy of all unsuccessful offers.

(e) Systems: The Government will access any systems as required by law and/or regulation (e.g., System for Award Management (SAM), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), etc.) to aid in the determination of responsibility.

2.1 General Information

2.1.1 Point of Contact

The Contracting Officer (CO) and the Contract Administrator (CA) are the sole points of contact for this acquisition. Address any questions or concerns you may have to the CO or CA. Contact information provided below:

Contracting Officer (CO) Rebecca Rash rebecca.rash@us.af.mil 937-522-4569 Contract Administrator (CA) Amanda Cafarella amanda.cafarella@us.af.mil 937-522-4589

Be advised that all correspondence sent via email shall contain a subject line that reads “FA8601-22-R-0012, CE Facility and Equipment Support.” Note that email filters at Wright-Patterson are designed to filter emails without subject lines or with suspicious subject lines or contents (i.e., .exe or .zip files). Therefore, if this subject line is not included, the email may not get through the email filters. Also be advised that .zip or .exe files are not allowable attachments and may be deleted by the email filters at Wright-Patterson. If sending attachments with email, ensure only .pdf, .docx, or .xlsx documents are sent. If submitting PDF documents, do NOT submit any documents that are copied as images. When creating PDF files, always create to enable textual search and copy functions. The email filter may delete any other form of attachments. Emails shall not exceed 15MB or the email may not make it through the filter.

2.1.2 Electronic Reference Documents

All reference documents for this solicitation are available on the https://sam.gov website. Potential offerors are encouraged to use the ”Follow” tool located in sam.gov to keep track of any updates and easily reference the solicitation in the future.

2.1.3 Communications

Exchanges of source selection information between the Government and offerors will be controlled by the Contracting Officer. Email will be used to transmit information. Please include “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104” in the subject line. If offerors require a secure site for transmission, offerors need to email both the CO and CA and request a drop off link be provided to DoD SAFE. Please note, this drop-off link (if needed) must be requested no less than three (3) days and no more than fourteen (14) days prior to the proposal due date. When requesting a drop-off link, please provide the company name, the name of the individual you would like to receive the drop-off link, and the email at which you want the drop-off link sent.

2.1.4 Discrepancies

Offers must conform to all of the requirements of the solicitation. If an Offeror believes that any part of the solicitation, including, but not limited to, the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the CO or Contract Administrator in writing. Contact information can be found in paragraph 2.1.1 of these instructions.

2.2 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits

The offer shall consist of three (3) separate volumes as specified in table 2.2 – Proposal Organization below. The volume numbers, titles, and contents shall be as specified in this table. The offeror shall submit one electronic copy, which shall be within the specified page limits per Table 2.2 below. Proposals shall be submitted, via email only, to the CA and the CO as identified in paragraph 2.1.1. If the offeror is submitting their proposal through a requested drop-off link to DoD SAFE, the offeror shall still email the CA and CO to inform them that the proposal drop-off has been completed. No hard copies are to be mailed.

Table 2.2 – Proposal Organization

*Does not include solicitation

2.2.1 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. 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.

2.2.1.1 Page Size and Format

(a) Page size shall be 8.5x11 inches. Pages shall be single spaced. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be no less than the equivalent of Times New Roman, font size 10. Use at least one (1) inch margins on all four sides of the page. Pages in each volume shall be numbered sequentially by volume, e.g., I-1, I-2, etc.

(b) Legible tables, charts, graphs, and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed 8.5 x 11 inches in size.

2.2.2 Cross-Referencing

To the greatest extent possible, each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with a minimum of cross-referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation which is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal. Cross-referencing within a proposal volume is permitted where its use would conserve space without impairing clarity.

2.2.3 Indexing

Each volume shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections. Table of contents and tab indexes do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

2.2.4 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

Each volume 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 volumes.

3.0 Volume I – Technical Volume

3.1 General

The Technical Volume should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. Your responses will be evaluated against the Technical Subfactors defined in Section 6.0 Evaluation Criteria – Commercial. Using the instructions provided below, provide as specifically as possible the actual approach you would use for accomplishing/satisfying these Subfactors. 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.

3.2 Format and Specific Content

3.2.1 Technical

In the Technical volume, address your proposed approach to meeting the performance or capability requirements of each technical Subfactor:

Subfactor 1: Management Approach Offeror must provide their approach to managing the contract and ensuring performance in accordance with (IAW) the standards in the performance work statement (PWS) throughout the life of the contract. At a minimum, the proposed approach shall thoroughly address all of the elements below:

· Element 1: Management approach/tools used in scheduling appropriate staff for timely and quality completion of maintenance, repair/replace, and operations requirements.

· Element 2: Staffing plan to include organizational chart/matrix of all management and non-management employees. Include experience/duty description of each management and non-management employee included in the organization chart/matrix. Include clear description and/or depiction of lines of authority. Include labor hours designated per labor category, correlated to hours in bid schedule.

· Element 3: Management practices for recruiting, hiring, and retaining qualified employees at beginning of and throughout life of the contract. Include a description of compensation package(s) used to attract and retain employees as well as overall retention rate of employees in your company’s division or business segment that will support these requirements.

· Element 4: Approach to training new and/or replacement employees at beginning of and throughout life of contract.

· Element 5: A transition plan detailing how the Offeror plans to minimize disruption of maintenance/repair activities and ensure the Offeror is fully staffed and performing efficiently within 30 days of contract award.

Subfactor 2: Procurement Approach Offeror must provide their approach to procuring proper and timely materials and services in support of preventative maintenance, repair/replacement, and operations requirements. At a minimum, the proposed approach shall thoroughly address all of the elements below:

· Element 1: A plan describing how the offeror intends to procure recurring preventative maintenance parts/materials as well as parts/materials for repair and replacement activities. This plan shall include the timeframe(s) to solicit and obtain quotes from various outside vendors for approval by the Government.

· Element 2: A description of any maintenance, repair/replace, and/or operations requirements that will be subcontracted out and process for ensuring services will be performed to Government PWS standards.

The offeror’s technical information as requested in Technical Subfactors 1-2 of Evaluation Criteria para 6.0 below shall be organized and submitted in an orderly fashion by Subfactor and Element. No Pricing information shall be addressed in this volume. The Technical Volume shall be clear and concise with sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The offer should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but instead provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to fulfill the requirements.

4.0 Volume II – Past Performance

4.1 General Instructions

Each offeror shall submit a past performance volume with its proposal containing past performance information in accordance with the information contained in this section and paragraph 6.0 Evaluation Criteria. Offerors are cautioned that the Government will use data provided by each offeror in this volume and data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance.

Along with the information required in this paragraph, the offeror shall submit a consent letter executed by each significant 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.

See attachment 14 to the solicitation for example consent letter.

4.2 Early Proposal Information

Upon receipt of the solicitation, offerors must send the Past Performance Questionnaire, Attachment 13 to the solicitation, directly to customer points of contact for all recent contracts you provide information on in this volume. The Past Performance Questionnaires completed by the Offeror’s reference sources are not considered part of the Past Performance Volume page limitation.

A cover letter sent by the Offeror with the Past Performance Questionnaire should request the reference to complete the questionnaire and email it to amanda.cafarella@us.af.mil and rebecca.rash@us.af.mil. Offerors are responsible for ensuring their reference sources receive the questionnaires in time to complete and return the questionnaire to the above emails and be received no later than the proposal due date and time.

4.3 Recent Contracts

Submit Past Performance Information on a minimum of three (3) but not to exceed five (5) of your recent contracts that demonstrate your ability to perform the proposed effort. Recent past performance is defined as any work completed within the past five (5) years (to include on-going contracts) from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Include past performance information on recent contracts performed by teaming partners and significant subcontractors (those performing 10% or more of effort). However, past performance submissions that demonstrate services performed as prime contractor should be prioritized by the offeror.

4.4 Relevant Contracts

For each citation, include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance. For a description of the characteristics or aspects the Government will consider in determining relevancy see Evaluation Criteria (paragraph 6.4). However, relevancy assessments made by the Government are not limited to the elements described in the Evaluation Criteria.

4.5 Specific Content

Offerors are required to explain what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate. At a minimum, the contractor shall furnish the following information for each contract listed:

(a) Contracting Agency/Customer

(b) Location of work performed

(c) Contract Number

(d) Contract Type

(e) Project title and brief description of contract effort

(f) Period of performance

(g) Contract value at time of award

(h) Current value, including all changes and exercised options

(i) Types and quantities of equipment (real property, lab equipment, etc) maintained and repaired

(j) Frequency of maintenance and repairs/replacement

(k) Types and quantities of material/equipment purchased

Additionally, the contractor may include a discussion of efforts accomplished by the offeror to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risk. Likewise, any information currently available (letters, metrics, customer surveys, etc.) which demonstrates customer satisfaction and overall job performance and quality of completed services for relevant past efforts/contracts (similar in scope, magnitude, and complexities that this solicitation requires).

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 clearly demonstrate 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 that an offeror has overcome past problems is required.

The Government will consider this information as well as information obtained from any other sources when evaluating the Offeror’s past performance information.

5.0 Volume III – Price Proposal

5.1 General Information

5.1.1 Pricing Data

This section is to assist you in submitting information that is required to evaluate the reasonableness, completeness, and balance of your proposed price. Compliance with these requirements as well as the Evaluation Criteria in Section 6.0 is mandatory and failure to comply may result in rejection of your proposal. Data beyond what is required by this instruction shall not be submitted, unless the Offeror considers it essential to document or support its price position.

No pricing data or information shall be included in any other volume, including cover letters, unless specifically requested by the Government in the respective volume. If price information is included elsewhere in the documentation, the proposal may be deemed unacceptable and the proposal may not be evaluated. The Offeror shall comply with the intent of the pricing instructions in supplying information that is current, timely, and in full support of the proposal. Exceptions or deviations will not be accepted.

5.1.2 Format and Specific Content

In the price/contracts proposal volume, the offeror shall provide the following information:

(a) Provide a cover letter with Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code, Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number, and Tax Identification Number. In the cover letter, provide the name(s), title(s), telephone number(s), email address(es), and fax number(s) of the individual(s) authorized to: make decisions on behalf of the offeror regarding the offer submitted, negotiate with the Government, and who can obligate the offeror contractually. Provide in the cover letter a statement that the offer and prices will remain in effect for 180 days after the proposal due date.

(b) Provide signed 1449 cover sheet. Fill in blocks 17a, 30a, 30b, and 30c.

(c) In the Solicitation, the offeror need not fill out the CLIN prices. Offeror shall fully complete the Bid Schedule. See instructions inside Bid Schedule for completing

(d) Acknowledge any and all amendments to the solicitation.

Provide completed Provisions, Representations, Certifications, Acknowledgements, and Other Statements of Offerors. If you are registered in System for Award Management (SAM), please annotate your “Representations and Certifications” can be found at that site. Please note that FAR 52.212-1(e), Multiple Offerors, is deleted from the solicitation and marked as RESERVED.

6.0 Evaluation Criteria – Commercial Service

6.1 Basis for Contract Award

This is a FAR Part 12 competitive best-value source selection with tradeoffs. There are three (3) Evaluation Factors – Technical, Price, and Past Performance. Evaluation of the Technical Factor consists of a technical acceptability rating and technical risk rating at the Subfactor level. Evaluation of the Price Factor consists of evaluating the Total Evaluated Price (TEP), price reasonableness, completeness, and balance of the offeror’s TEP.

Evaluation of the Past Performance Factor consists of a recency determination relevancy rating, and performance quality rating rolled up into an overall Performance Confidence Assessment rating at the Factor level.

The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government. Offerors’ technical acceptability, technical risk, and past performance, when combined, will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price. However, price will contribute substantially to the source selection decision.

6.1.1 If the lowest priced offer with the highest acceptability rating is evaluated as low technical risk for both Subfactors and judged to have Substantial confidence under the Past Performance Factor, that offer represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops at this point.

6.1.2 In the event that the Government does not make an award pursuant to paragraph 6.1.1, the Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offer based on an integrated assessment of Technical, Past Performance, and Price Factors made by the Source Selection Authority.

6.1.3 By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation Factors or Subfactors.

6.1.4 All offers that have above an Acceptable or higher technical acceptability rating will be considered. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows paragraphs below. Though the process below is step-by-step, the Government reserves the right to perform evaluation steps concurrently when it is in the best interest of the Government to do so.

6.2 Technical Factor Evaluation

The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate all proposals for technical acceptability and technical risk and assign a rating for each at the Subfactor level. Each Subfactor will receive a technical acceptability rating of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal or Unacceptable (in accordance with Table A-1 below) and a technical risk rating of Low, Moderate, High, or Unacceptable (in accordance with Table A-2 below).

Proposals that have a Technical Acceptability Rating of “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” at the Subfactor level and/or a Technical Risk Rating of “High” or “Unacceptable” at the Subfactor level are unawardable, unless further information is requested during discussions that positively changes the rating.

Strengths and Weaknesses A “strength” is an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance. Should the offeror selected for award have proposed strengths, those strengths will become part of the contractual requirement upon award.

A “weakness” means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001. Assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance

Table A-1 – Technical Acceptability Rating

the requirements and contains at least one strength.

the requirements.

understanding of the requirements.

thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

Table A-2 – Technical Risk Rating

6.2.1 Subfactors being evaluated for technical acceptability and technical risk are as follows:

6.2.1.1 SUBFACTOR 1: Management Approach (PWS 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 4.1, 4.2, 4.4, 4.5, 5.1, 6, 7, 8, 9, SS-1, SS-2, SS-5, SS-6, SS-7, SS-8, SS-9)

Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s approach to managing the contract and ensuring performance in accordance with (IAW) the standards in the performance work statement (PWS) throughout the life of the contract.

Measure of Merit: The measure of merit is met when the offeror provides a sound approach to managing the contract. At a minimum, the proposed approach shall thoroughly address all of the elements below:

Element 1: Management approach/tools used in scheduling appropriate staff for timely and quality completion of maintenance, repair/replace and operations requirements.

Element 2: Staffing plan to include organizational chart/matrix of all management and non-management employees. Include experience/duty description of each management and non-management employee included in the organization chart/matrix. Include clear description and/or depiction of lines of authority. Include labor hours designated per labor category, correlated to hours in bid schedule

Element 3: Management practices for recruiting, hiring and retaining qualified employees at beginning of and throughout life of contract. Include a description of compensation package(s) used to attract and retain employees as well as overall retention rate of employees in your company’s division or business segment that will support these requirements.

Element 4: Approach to training new and/or replacement employees at beginning of and throughout life of contract.

Element 5: A transition plan detailing how the Offeror plans to minimize disruption of maintenance/repair activities and ensure the Offeror is fully staffed and performing efficiently within 30 days of contract award.

6.2.1.2. SUBFACTOR 2: Procurement Approach (PWS 3.1, SS-4)

Description: Subfactor 2 will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to procuring proper and timely materials and services in support of preventative maintenance, repair/replacement and operations requirements and ensuring performance IAW the standards in the PWS throughout the life of the contract.

Measure of Merit: The measure of merit is met when the offeror provides a sound approach to include (at a minimum) all of the elements outlined below:

Element 1: A plan describing how the offeror intends to procure recurring preventative maintenance parts/materials as well as parts/materials for repair and replacement activities. This plan shall include the timeframe(s) to solicit and obtain quotes from various outside vendors for approval by the Government.

Element 2: A description of any maintenance, repair/replace, and/or operations requirements that will be subcontracted out and the process for ensuring services will be performed to Government PWS standards.

6.3 Price Factor Evaluation

Offerors rated acceptable or higher in technical acceptability for both Subfactors and rated either low or a combination of low and moderate for technical risk for both Subfactors shall be ranked according to total evaluated price from lowest to highest.

The Government will evaluate the Price proposal for (1) completeness, (2) reasonableness (3) unbalanced pricing and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable will not be considered for award. Proposals that are determined to be incomplete may be ineligible for award. Additionally, an offer may be rejected if the CO determines unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

6.3.1 Completeness

The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Instructions to Offerors. If not complete and in compliance, the proposal may make the Offeror’s proposal ineligible for award.

6.3.2 Reasonableness

The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 in order to determine if it is reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

6.3.3 Unbalanced Pricing

The Government will conduct an analysis for unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, a proposed line item is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. The burden of proof for demonstrating balance pricing rests with the Offeror.

6.3.4 Total Evaluated Price

The TEP will be calculated as follows:

(i) The sum of the prices for CLINs 0001 through 0003 for the 60-month ordering period; and

(ii) To account for the maximum six (6) month extension possible under the clause at FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, the Government will use the sum of the proposed prices for the final twelve months of the ordering period, prorate it to a six (6) month value, and add that amount to the sum of the Base ordering period.

The resulting amount will be the TEP. The TEP will be utilized to evaluate Offerors and make tradeoffs when necessary. Offerors should follow the instructions in the Bid Schedule spreadsheet for inputting prices in each tab.

6.4 Past Performance Factor Evaluation

The Government team will seek recent and relevant performance information on the lowest priced, low risk offeror’s past performance based on (1) the past efforts provided by the Offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. The Past Performance evaluation consists of a recency determination (see paragraph 6.4.1), relevancy rating (see paragraph 6.4.2), and performance quality rating (see para 6.4.3) for each contract under review. The evaluation will result in an overall Performance Confidence Assessment Rating for each offeror. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance Factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical Subfactors and Price Factor. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; Past Performance questionnaires, interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, etc.

The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, or No Confidence as defined in Table C-1 below.

Table C-1 – Performance Confidence Assessment

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.

6.4.1 Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated. The Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed more recent.

6.4.2 Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to this acquisition. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts that are similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity, including, but not limited to, the items listed in paragraph 4.5 (a-k).

A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance, including joint ventures, significant subcontractors, and/or teaming partners will be made. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, joint venture, or teaming partner whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government will use table C-2 below of relevancy definitions in assigning relevancy ratings. In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation.

Table C-2 – Relevancy Rating

requires.

6.4.3 Performance Quality Assessment The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical Subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). In assessing performance quality the order of importance is as follows: Subfactor one, Management Approach is considered more important than Subfactor two, Procurement Approach. Subfactor two, Procurement Approach is considered more important than Price. This will result in an overall performance quality rating at the individual contract level. The quality assessment consists of an in- depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of the source. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received

TABLE C-3 – Performance Quality Rating

corrective action.

took timely and effective corrective action.

Customer involvement was required.

6.5 Discussions and Clarifications

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in the Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Service. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the Contracting Officer reserves the right to award a contract without discussions. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the Offeror’s proposal has been evaluated with an Acceptable or above rating and Low or Moderate risk at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal ratings be changed to Unacceptable and/or High or Unacceptable technical risk, making the offeror ineligible for award.

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