Attachment 8. Sections L (Instruction to Offerors) & M (Evaluation Factors).pdf

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

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

Part III ‐ Past Performance.

B. The Contracting Officer (CO) has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the CO will review this determination and if, in the CO’s opinion, adequate price competition exists, no additional cost information will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406‐2 will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition the CO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, Offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the CO to determine the reasonableness or realism of the price.

C. General Information

1. This section of the RFP provides general guidance for preparing proposals as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the required proposal volumes. Each proposal must include all data and information requested in the RFP to be considered responsive, award will not be made to a contractor determined non‐responsive.

2. Efforts shall be made to keep offers as concise as possible with an emphasis on providing information essential for proper evaluation. Proposals must contain adequate information to enable the evaluation team to fully ascertain whether an Offeror's proposal meets the requirements of the RFP, and must address the evaluation factors for award.

3. The Offeror must provide their CAGE/NCAGE Code and DUNS Number. The Offeror must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) database at the time the offer is submitted to be considered for evaluation. Registration in SAM is free and available at https://www.sam.gov/.

Offerors that are registered, but pending activation in the SAM system, shall provide documented proof of temporary non‐compliance SAM status. Nonetheless, no award shall be made to an Offeror who is not registered and active in SAM.

D. Formal Communications

1. All communications shall be submitted via email to all the following persons:

SSgt Joshua Largent: joshua.largent@us.af.mil

Ms. Christina Wolf: christina.wolf.4@us.af.mil

MSgt Richard Bush: richard.bush.3@us.af.mil

2. Questions: must be submitted via email to addresses noted in paragraph above. Please submit questions no later than 8 Septmeber 2021, noon (1200) Greenwich Mean Time. All questions and answers (Q&As) will be posted to https://www.sam.gov/.

3. A pre‐proposal site visit can be conducted as specified in 52.236‐27 Alternate 1 upon request.

E. Submission of Proposals

1. Only electronic proposals will be accepted in response to this solicitation. Offers must be emailed directly to each of the contacts in section D.1. No email submission shall exceed 20 megabytes (MB).

Offerors shall request approval from the contracting officer to submit via alternate method, prior to submission. Failure to request approval for an alternate method may result in a lost or non‐responsive proposal submission.

2. Offerors are cautioned to strictly comply with all instructions within this solicitation to ensure submission of a complete proposal. Failure to furnish a complete proposal at the time of proposal submission may result in the proposal being considered late to the Government, and eliminated from consideration for award. Late proposals will be processed in accordance with FAR 52.215‐1 "Instructions to Offerors ‐ Competitive Acquisition". The Government will retain the opened proposal. However, the proposal will not be evaluated or considered for award.

3. Disposition of Proposals. In compliance with FAR subpart 4.8, the Government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals. Extra copies of unsuccessful proposals will be destroyed. No destruction certificate will be provided.

F. Proposal Preparation Instructions

1. The following instructions prescribe the format for proposals, and describes the approach to be used for the development and presentation of the proposal volumes. The proposal shall include all of the information requested in Section L‐4, Proposal Preparation Instructions. Failure to include all information may render an offer ineligible for award. A proposal that merely reiterates or promises to accomplish the requirements of the Statement of Work will be considered unacceptable.

2. Proposal Volumes. Proposals shall be prepared in three separate and distinct volumes:

Volume I – Price

Volume II – Technical

Volume III – Past Performance

3. Electronic Proposals. All proposal information for each volume shall be submitted using Microsoft

Office 2010 or later, and/or Portable Document Format (PDF) using Adobe Acrobat 9.0 or later. Offerors shall not submit any documents in PDF that cannot be electronically searched e.g. pictures of text.

Offerors may use JPEG, PNG and BMP images for charts or screenshots. Offerors shall name files using standard naming conventions for each volume (e.g., Offeror name‐volume name.docx). Each volume shall be contained in its own single searchable file, with copy/paste capability, and stored in a folder that corresponds to the proposal volume it represents. Images (JPEG, PNG and BMP) and proprietary company information, such as plans and manuals, are excluded from the "searchable, with copy/paste capability" criterion. Offerors shall insert the file name in the header of each document.

4. Proposal Format. Type size for text shall not be smaller than 12 point font, single column, normal proportional spacing and one inch (1") margins (top, bottom, left and right). The text for charts, tables, graphs, and figures shall be no smaller than 8 point font. Text lines and table lines of text shall be single‐ spaced. Text color for each page of the proposal submission shall be black only. Text within table headings, graphics, images, screenshots headers/footers, etc. are excluded from the text color and size restrictions, however the color must distinctly contrast to the document and be otherwise readable.

5. Copies and Page Limits. Evaluators will only read up to the maximum number of pages specified. If the page limit is exceeded, excess pages will be removed from the proposal and destroyed. Copy requirements and page limitations are as follows:

Volume...Title......Original...Page Limit

I.......PRICE.........1........N/A

II........TECHNICAL.....1......10 (note)

Notes:

A summary shall be included in Volume II, Technical. The summary shall not exceed 3 pages. The table of contents, glossary and summary is not included in the 10‐page limit for Volume I.

Cross‐Referencing. Offerors shall not cross reference between Volumes I and II. Each Volume shall be written on a stand‐alone basis. Information required for proposal evaluation, which is not found in its designated Volume, will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal.

Eligibility For Award. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, and provide the necessary representations and certifications and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award.

F. Specific Instructions:

1. VOLUME I – PRICE PROPOSAL: Submit original and one (1) copy.

a. Offerors shall complete blocks 14 through 20C of the RFP Section A, SF 1442. In doing so, the Offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in RFP Sections A through K. These sections constitute the model contract. Offerors shall return a signed copy or will be deemed unacceptable. All prices SHALL be rounded to the whole pound (dollar) amount. In the event rounding is not accomplished, whole pound (dollar) amounts will be rounded down to the next lowest whole pound

(dollar) amount.

b. Complete the Construction Price Breakdown (Attachment 3). It shall be utilized for informational purposes only and shall not be a resultant part of the contract. Submit as a Microsoft Excel document.

c. Contact Information. In a Cover Letter, the Offeror shall provide names, titles, addresses, telephone and email addresses of persons authorized to negotiate on the Offeror's behalf with the Government, in connection with this solicitation.

d. Completed Standard Form 1442, Solicitation, Offer and Award, with acknowledgement of all amendments (block 19). Failure to acknowledge any amendments to the solicitation may result in the

Offeror being deemed nonresponsive.

e. Completed Section K, Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors, or indicate if information is contained in the under company Representations and Certifications located at https://www.sam.gov/.2.

2. VOLUME II – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: Limited to no more than 10 pages as defined in paragraph (D).

Technical Proposals will be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis by subfactor.

Subfactor 1 – Project Management Plan and Project Schedule

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed project management plan and project schedule

a. Offerors shall submit a Management Capabilities plan, to include the Offeror's approach for construction, environmental compliance, health and safety management, quality control, and issue resolution. This plan shall include the Offeror's overall management approach with regard to organization, coordination, development, monitoring and control of the construction process.

b. The Offeror's Schedule shall be evaluated to ensure that it demonstrates coordination of work activities, phasing, adverse weather considerations, and ensure the project will be delivered on time and on budget.

c. Using the provided Statement of Works, the Offeror must provide a project schedule and narrative supporting the schedule. The project schedule and supporting narrative shall capture the separate work elements of the project, the order of work elements to include project phasing, number of days for each work element, and the identification of long lead materials. Long lead materials such as major equipment, specialized flooring material, etc., must be specifically identified in the Technical proposal.

If there are no long lead materials, the proposal must state that there are no long lead materials.

d. The project schedule must include mobilization, demolition, major work elements, final inspection, demobilization, and close‐out documents. The schedule must be in the form of a progress chart of suitable scale to indicate appropriately the percentage of work scheduled for completion by any given date during the performance period.

e. The submitted schedule must be developed using project scheduling software such as MS Project, Primavera, or any other comparable form that can accurately describe construction performance. It is the Offeror's responsibility to identify all necessary work elements. The form must show major measurable line items of the construction project, percentage/value each line item represents in the total proposal cost and a timeline when each line item is scheduled to be completed. The project schedule itself shall visually depict and address each of the following elements:

i. An Order of work elements to include project phasing (including identification of critical periods).

ii. Number of days for each work element.

iii. Identification of Long Lead Materials and their anticipated arrival and install date(s).

3. VOLUME III– PAST PERFORMANCE: Will be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.

a. The Offeror shall provide the following past performance information: A list of three (3) construction projects that the Offeror has completed within the past five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation, or that is currently ongoing and substantially complete (at least 50% construction progress completed). These three (3) projects should also be similar in size, scope and complexity to the project contemplated for this solicitation. Projects that meet some but not all criteria in size, scope, or complexity can be submitted if, at least one (1) project meets all definitions in the below “Definitions” section, but all submitted project experience must meet the size requirement.

Definitions:

Size ‐ a "FENCING" project with a contract value of at least $700,000, and similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to the effort required by this solicitation.

Scope ‐ a project in which structures designed and constructed are similar to the structures included in this solicitation's project in accordance with the attached statement of works‐ i.e., fencing demolition, fencing replacement, and/or anti‐vehicle cabling installation.

Complexity ‐ a project which required a level of activities (labor, subcontracting, equipment, materials, management, supervision, etc.) in design and construction efforts that are similar to the level of activities required for this solicitation project. The Offeror's submitted projects should demonstrate similarity in the interrelated work features required in executing multiple construction activities involving fencing installation, "deadman" anchor installation and/or removable bollards installation.

Recent and Relevant is defined in the subparagraph below:

c. Recency Assessment: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the Offeror’s submitted projects must have been completed within the past five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation, or is currently ongoing and substantially complete (at least 50% construction progress completed). Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

d. Relevant Assessment: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is relevant. To be relevent, the three (3) projects should also be similar in size, scope and complexity to the project contemplated for this solicitation. Projects that meet some but not all criteria in size, scope, or complexity can be submitted if, at least one (1) project meets all definitions within section

3.a., but all submitted project experience must meet the size requirement. Past performance information that fails to meet the relevancy requirements will not be evaluated.

e. The following information must be provided per construction project being submitted for evaluation.

i. Contract and/or Task Order Number

ii. Title, Location, Completion Date and U.S. Dollar or U.K. Pound Value of Project

iii. Contracting Agency or Project Owner

iv. Contracting Agency or Project Owner Name, Email Address and Phone Number

v. Whether the Offeror was the Prime, Subcontractor or Part of a Joint Venture and Percentage of Work

Performed by the Offeror

vi. Description of the project's scope of work and the Offeror's specific roles and responsibilities in the project, if applicable, provide the names of any major subcontractor(s) used (a major subcontractor performed more than 40% of project work requirements).

f. The Offeror shall complete the Contractor Qualification Questionnaire (Attachment 6) in its entirety.

It shall be utilized for informational purposes only and shall not be a resultant part of the contract.

Submit as a Portable Document Format (PDF) using Adobe Acrobat 9.0 or later.

If any information requested above is missing per project submitted for evaluation, the Offeror will not receive an Acceptable rating for this submittal requirement.

g. Return completed Past Performance Information Forms NLT the offeror due date and time specified in block 13 of the solicitation SF1442.

h. The proposal must be completed and returned NLT the offeror due date and time specified in block

13 of the solicitation SF1442. Have sent to:

SSgt Joshua Largent: joshua.largent@us.af.mil

Ms. Christina Wolf: christina.wolf.4@us.af.mil

MSgt Richard Bush: richard.bush.3@us.af.mil

EVALUATION FACTORS

1. Basis for Contract Award: This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted IAW Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures, Appendix C, 01 April 2016 and Air

Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 03 October 2015. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the proposal with the lowest evaluated price from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non‐price factors. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW the FAR Part 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government intends to award one (1) contract to provide

Installation Anti‐Vehicle Barrier Fencing at RAF Molesworth, UK.

3. Discussions: The Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions or opportunity for proposal revisions. 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. Offerors may be required to respond with their FPR within 24 hours. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to re‐evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal will be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

4. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions: Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

5. Proposal Evaluation Approach:

(a) Step 1: Evaluate all timely proposals for responsiveness.

(b) Step 2: Evaluate all responsive proposals for technical acceptability.

(c) Step 3: Assess past performance for each offeror.

(d) Step 4: Evaluate all proposals to determine whether the price is fair and reasonable (IAW FAR 15.404

& FAR 31.201‐3), realistic, and balanced (in accordance with FAR 15.404‐1), then rank by total evaluated price.

(e) Step 5: The Government may request clarifications, communications, or discussions for proposals through Evaluation Notice(s).

(f) Step 6: In accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.101‐2, the Government will use a lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) source selection process. The Government will award one Firm‐Fixed Price contract resulting from the solicitation to the responsible Offeror, whose offer conforms to the solicitation, is the lowest evaluated price of proposals, and meets or exceeds the acceptability standards for non‐cost factors. Acceptable‐Unacceptable ratings will be utilized for the evaluation of Technical and Past Performance Factors.

Responsibility: In addition to the evaluation factors noted above, the offeror must be determined responsible according to the standards in FAR Subpart 9.1 Responsible Prospective Contractors.

B. EVALUATION FACTORS

1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors: The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability, but will not rank the proposals by the non‐price factors or subfactors.

Factor I: Price

Factor II: Technical

Subfactor 1 – Project Management Plan and Project Schedule

Factor III: Past Performance

2. Technical Factor: The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor.

Offerors that fail to clearly address any of the following requirements may receive an Unacceptable rating for this subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, ineligible for award. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

Table C‐1 Technical Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Project Management Plan and Project Schedule

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s Project Management Plan and Project Schedule

a. Offerors shall submit a Management Capabilities plan, to include the Offeror's approach for construction, environmental compliance, health and safety management, quality control, and issue resolution. This plan shall include the Offeror's overall management approach with regard to organization, coordination, development, monitoring and control of the construction process.

b. The Offeror's Schedule shall be evaluated to ensure that it demonstrates coordination of work activities, phasing, adverse weather considerations, and ensure the project will be delivered on time and on budget.

c. Using the provided Statement of Works, the Offeror must provide a project schedule and narrative supporting the schedule. The project schedule and supporting narrative shall capture the separate work elements of the project, the order of work elements to include project phasing, number of days for each work element, and the identification of long lead materials. Long lead materials such as major equipment, specialized fencing material, etc., must be specifically identified in the Technical proposal. If there are no long lead materials, the proposal must state that there are no long lead materials.

d. The project schedule must include mobilization, demolition, major work elements, final inspection, demobilization, and close‐out documents. The schedule must be in the form of a progress chart of suitable scale to indicate appropriately the percentage of work scheduled for completion by any given date during the performance period.

e. The submitted schedule must be developed using project scheduling software such as MS Project, Primavera, or any other comparable form that can accurately describe construction performance. It is the Offeror's responsibility to identify all necessary work elements. The form must show major measurable line items of the construction project, percentage/value each line item represents in the total proposal cost and a timeline when each line item is scheduled to be completed. The project schedule itself shall visually depict and address each of the following elements:

i. An Order of work elements to include project phasing (including identification of critical periods).

ii. Number of days for each work element.

iii. Identification of Long Lead Materials and their anticipated arrival and install date(s).

3. Past Performance Factor: The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Offerors must receive a past performance rating of

“Acceptable” to be eligible for award.

(a) Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the ratings described below.

Table C‐2 – Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Rating Description

Acceptable

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

Unacceptable

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

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)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

(b) Evaluation Process: The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the solicitation requirements. 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 Past

Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity

Information System (FAPIIS), or other databases; and interviews/questionnaires with Contracting

Officers and commercial sources.

i. Recency Assessment: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the Offeror’s submitted projects must have been completed within the past five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation, or is currently ongoing and substantially complete (at least 50% construction progress completed). Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated

ii. Relevancy Assessment: The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price factor. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered).

Consideration will be given to the offeror that performed as the prime contractor for three (3) projects which are similar in size, scope and complexity to the project contemplated for this solicitation. Projects that meet some but not all criteria in size, scope, or complexity can be submitted if, at least one (1) project meets all definitions in the below “Definitions” section, but all submitted project experience must meet the size requirement.

Definitions:

Size ‐ a "FENCING" project with a contract value of at least $700,000, and similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to the effort required by this solicitation.

Scope ‐ a project in which structures designed and constructed are similar to the structures included in this solicitation's project in accordance with the attached statement of works‐ i.e., fencing demolition, fencing replacement, and/or anti‐vehicle cabling installation.

Complexity ‐ a project which required a level of activities (labor, subcontracting, equipment, materials, management, supervision, etc.) in design and construction efforts that are similar to the level of activities required for this solicitation project. The Offeror's submitted projects should demonstrate similarity in the interrelated work features required in executing multiple construction activities involving fencing installation, "deadman" anchor installation and/or removable bollards installation.

The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

Table C‐3 – Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

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

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

iii. 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, relevant 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). The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports an unsatisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Table C‐4 – Past Performance Quality Assessment

Quality Assessment Description

Satisfactory

During the contract period, contractor performance is substantially meeting (or substantially met) contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

Unsatisfactory

During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

Not Available

Quality and/or performance information is not available.

(c) Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated past performance rating at the factor level (see

Table C‐2). More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Past Performance rating than less recent effort.

4. Price Factor: Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable, unrealistic or unbalanced may not be considered for award.

(a) The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes based upon the total price proposed for the requirement.

(b) Reasonableness: The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable and realistic pursuant to FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201‐3.

(c) The Government will rank all proposals that have adhered to the solicitation requirements by price

(from lowest to highest total evaluated price), including any option prices if applicable. For proposal evaluation purposes, contract line items numbers (CLINs) will be evaluated as follows:

e.g. CLIN 0001 + CLIN 0002 + CLIN 0003 = Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The Government intends to award based on the aggregate total of CLINs. The lowest aggregate total of all CLINs shall constitute the lowest priced offer. The Offeror's price proposal shall represent the

Offeror's best effort to respond to the solicitation.

If the Government cannot determine the proposed pricing to be fair and reasonable, data other than certified cost and pricing may be requested from the Offerors.

(d) Upon evaluation, if the lowest priced TEP evaluated proposal is rated "Acceptable" for all Technical

Subfactors and Past Performance Factors, the offer is considered overall acceptable and represents the best value for the Government, and the evaluation process stops at this point. An Award will be made to that Offeror without further consideration of any other offers. If the lowest priced TEP evaluated proposal is not rated "Acceptable" for all Technical Subfactors and Past Performance Factors, the next lowest priced Offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an Offeror is rated "Acceptable" for all Technical Subfactors and Past Performance Factors or until all Offerors are evaluated. If all Offerors are evaluated and none are rated "Acceptable", the Government reserves the right to enter into discussions with all or some of the Offerors; or cancel the solicitation at that point.