B9 - Enclosure 3.pdf

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION

Enclosure #3

GENERAL PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

REQUIREMENTS

W912PM26RA003,

John H Kerr Dam and Reservoir Operation and Maintenance

This project is to provide Operations and Maintenance (O&M) of the government owned facilities at John H .Kerr

Dam and Reservoir. This service shall include planning, programming, administration, management, supervision, maintenance of accurate and complete records and files, quality control inspections, personnel, materials, supplies, parts, tools, equipment and vehicles, except as otherwise provided.

It is the intent to procure for the Government complete and efficient maintenance, repair, and minor repairs on the

John H. Kerr Project. The Project’s facilities include the Visitor Assistance Center, Environmental Education

Center (Tanner Center), village house, sewage treatment plant and lift stations, thirteen (13) recreation areas with water wells and lift stations, shoreline areas, approximately 50,000 surface acres of reservoir waters, Visitor Center security & fire systems, numerous operational areas and structures, forestry and wildlife lands, all Corps owned and GSA vehicles, vessels, and equipment, the dam and related structures. The Contractor shall furnish all necessary management, personnel, materials, supplies, replacement parts, fuel, lubricants and other items as necessary. All materials, supplies and equipment not rented or owned by the Contractor and provided by the

Government through this contract will remain the property of the Government. The Government requires a contractor to maintain these facilities in a safe, functional, and aesthetically pleasing condition, ensuring uninterrupted visitor access and efficient operation of critical infrastructure. Key Performance Objectives (KPOs) will be established to measure contractor performance and will be detailed in Section M of the RFP.

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 561210- Facility Support Services, size standard is $47,000,000.00.

This solicitation will be issued in electronic format only. No additional media will be provided. Paper copies of this solicitation will not be available. Other methods of requesting a package will not be honored.

This solicitation is 100% 8(a) Set-Aside

This is a competitive acquisition to award a single services contract where all offerors have a fair opportunity to compete for award. The Government’s intent is to award a contract to the responsible offeror whose proposals are fair and reasonable and are determined to be the most advantageous to the Government in terms of price and non-price factors. Proposals will be evaluated based on Technical Approach, Past Performance, and Price. The basis of award is the Best Value-Tradeoff process, as authorized by FAR 15.101-1; therefore, the Government intends to make award to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all the terms and conditions of the

RFP and represents the best overall value to the Government.

The proposal shall describe the capability of the offeror to perform the contract. The proposal should be specific and complete in every detail as well as be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward and concise description of capabilities to satisfactorily perform the contract as set forth in these instructions and requirements.

1. OVERVIEW.

In accordance with FAR Clause 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisitions, the Government reserves the right to make award without discussions. Therefore, offerors should submit their best technical and price terms in their initial offer and not automatically assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or to submit a revised offer. The Government may make award of a conforming proposal without discussions, if deemed to be within the best interests of the Government.

In accordance with 15.306(c)(1) and FAR Clause 52.215-1(f)(4), Instructions to Offerors – Competitive

Acquisitions, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

2.1 Contractor Team Arrangements. The Government will recognize the integrity and validity of contractor teaming arrangements, provided the arrangements are identified and company relationships are fully disclosed in the offer. As further described in paragraph 2.3, below, the Government will only evaluate the information submitted by the legal entity with whom the Government would enter a contract. This is the legal entity represented in Volume 1 Tab E, as registered in System for Award Management (SAM) and identified by its specifically assigned CAGE Code.

2.2 If applicable, the offeror shall submit evidence from the offeror’s SBA Servicing Agency that the offeror has notified and discussed the proposed joint venture for this project with the appropriate SBA personnel. For

8(a) set- aside procurements, all prospective Joint Ventures must comply with Title 13 Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) Part 124.513. For HUBZone set- aside procurements and awards to HUBZone SBCs through full and open competition after a price evaluation preference in favor of qualified HUBZone SBCs as a

Joint Venture must comply with 13 CFR 126.616.

2.3 Notwithstanding the specific requirements of any other area of the RFP, information submitted about any company other than the offeror, whether an affiliated company, subsidiary (including wholly owned subsidiaries), or subcontractor, WILL NOT be evaluated for any factor. Successor entities shall clearly demonstrate in Volume I, Tab A of their proposal the official legal means performed to transform the former

Predecessor Company to its current Successor, legal business entity. Examples of substantive documentation may include but is not limited to Articles of Incorporation, Joint Venture Agreements, Novation Agreements, and Merger Documentation.

"Successor" means an entity that has replaced a predecessor by acquiring the assets and carrying out the affairs of the predecessor under a new name (often through acquisition or merger).

Note: The term ''successor'' does not include new offices/ divisions of the same company or a company that only changes its name.

2.4 Proposals are due no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442.

2.5 Each offeror must submit both a price proposal and technical proposal, in addition to Past Performance

Questionnaires. The Price Proposal, Technical Proposal and Past Performance Questionnaires must be submitted as separate volumes/files.

2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS.

3. GENERAL PROPOSAL FORMAT.

2.6 The Price and Technical Proposals in addition to the Past Performance Questionnaires must be received by the closing date and time set for receipt of proposals

2.7 No dollar amounts from the Price Proposal are to be included in the Technical Proposal

2.8 All information intended to be evaluated as part of the Technical Proposal must be submitted as part of the

Technical Proposal. Do not cross-reference similar material in the Price Proposal, or vice versa

2.9 Do not include exceptions to the terms and conditions of the solicitation in either the Price Proposal or the

Technical Proposal. Should the offeror include any standard company terms and conditions that conflict with the terms and conditions of the solicitation, the offer may be determined “unacceptable” and thus ineligible for award. Should the offeror have any questions related to the specific terms and conditions, these should be resolved prior to the submission of the offer.

2.10 The technical data criteria specified for each factor identified herein shall be submitted as part of the proposal.

3.1 Cover Page. Include the title of the solicitation, solicitation number, offeror name, and date of the submittal.

3.2 Table of Contents. Each volume of the proposal shall contain a detailed table of contents. If more than one

Adobe PDF file is used for a volume, the complete table of contents shall be included in each. Any materials submitted but not required by this solicitation (such as company brochures) shall be relegated to appendices.

3.3 All information intended to be evaluated as part of the Technical Proposal must be submitted as part of the

Technical Proposal. Do not cross-reference similar material in the Price Proposal, or vice versa. No dollar amounts from the Price Proposal are to be included in the Technical proposal.

3.4 Each offeror must submit both a Price Proposal and a Technical Proposal via email to troy.d.small@usace.army.mil and jenifer.m.garland@usace.army.mil No hard paper copies will be accepted or evaluated. Both the Price Proposal and the Technical Proposal must be received by the closing date and time set for receipt of proposals. In an effort to reduce paperwork and reduce cost, all proposals shall be submitted electronically. All submissions shall be in Adobe PDF format and shall be on 8 ½ x 11 size pages in no less than a 10 pitch or 10 font. Page limitations, where specified in the RFP, shall be considered a maximum. Offerors may use compressions utility software such as WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission.

Title the file(s) in the following format:

W912PM26RA003_COMPANYNAME_VOLUME 1

W912PM26RA003_COMPANYNAME_VOLUME II

Offerors shall submit the proposals electronically via email to the Contracting Officer, Troy D. Small at troy.d.small@usace.army.mil and the contract specialist, Jenifer Garland at jenifer.m.garland@usace.army.mil .

Offerors shall submit bid bonds (Standard Form 24) in both electronic and hard copy format. Electronic copies of bid bonds shall be included in Volume 1: Offerors Certifications and Price under Tab G. Hand carried bid mailto:troy.d.small@usace.army.mil mailto:jenifer.m.garland@usace.army.mil mailto:troy.d.small@usace.army.mil mailto:jenifer.m.garland@usace.army.mil bonds will not be accepted. Bid bond submissions shall be due by the proposal due date and time per the solicitation.

Request For Proposal No: W912PM26RA003

Due Date of Proposal: 2 October 2025

Time by which Proposals are due: 1:00 P.M. (Eastern Time)

Title of Project: W912PM26RA003, John H Kerr Dam and Reservoir Operation and Maintenance, Proposals are due as specified on the solicitation document (as amended if applicable). Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous. Offerors should time their upload effort with prudence by not waiting until the last few minutes—this will allow for unexpected delays in the transmittal process. If an electronic submission is uploaded minutes before the deadline but the upload doesn’t complete until after the deadline, the submission will be considered late. Offerors are encouraged to keep a copy of the upload confirmation for their records.

3.5 The contractor is responsible for including sufficient details in its proposal to permit a complete and accurate evaluation. Accordingly, the Contractor shall be clear and concise in its proposal. The Government will not make assumptions concerning the Contractor’s intent.

3.6 The technical data criteria specified for each factor identified herein and as described in these instructions shall be submitted as part of the proposal. Failure to submit all the data required by the RFP, and these instructions may be cause for determining a proposal incomplete and, therefore, not considered for award.

3.7 Do not include exceptions to the terms and conditions of the solicitation in either the technical or price proposal. Should the offer include any standard company terms and conditions that conflict with the terms and conditions of the solicitation, the offer may be determined “unacceptable” and thus ineligible for award. Should the offeror have any questions related to specific terms and conditions, these should be resolved prior to the submission of the offer.

3.8 Tabs. Proposal shall be organized and tabbed as follows:

3.8.1 VOLUME I: One (1) electronic copy Adobe PDF file as tabbed per the table below shall be submitted.

TAB Table of Contents of Offerors Certifications, Factors 1 & 4

Small Business Participation Plan and Price

A The Proposal Cover Sheet

B Standard Form 1442

C Acknowledgement of Amendments (If Applicable)

D Factor 1: Price

E Representations and Certifications

F Teaming Arrangement (If Applicable)

G Financial Information and Bonding Capability

TAB A – The proposal cover sheet is required by FAR 52.215-1 (c) (2) and must be submitted by all offerors.

The format for the proposal cover sheet is as follows:

PROPOSAL COVER SHEET

1. The solicitation number;

2. The name, address, and telephone and facsimile numbers of the offeror (and electronic address if available).

3. A statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation and agreement to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item;

4. Names, titles, and telephone and facsimile numbers (and electronic addresses if available) of persons authorized to negotiate on the offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation; and

5. Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal. Proposals signed by an agent shall be accompanied by evidence of that agent’s authority, unless that evidence has been previously furnished to the issuing office.

Offerors should ensure telephone number; fax number, e-mail address, Unique Entity ID (UEID) number and

CAGE Code are all included. UEID number will be used to access Contractor Performance Assessment

Reporting System (CPARS) data. Offerors should also provide any other assigned number that identifies them in the CPARS database. If a separate UEID has been created for a joint venture (J-V) it must be submitted. A

UEID number shall also be provided for each company identified in any other proposed association of firms or

Contractor Team Arrangement. The offeror should also submit their Tax ID number on the proposal data sheet

TAB B - Standard Form 1442, completed and signed by authorized individual(s) of the offeror. Offers submitted in the name of a Joint Venture must be signed in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the joint venture agreement as evidenced in the proposal.

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

TAB D – Factor 1 - Price. Proposed price schedule is to be completed in its entirety by all offerors to include the

Subtotals and Totals section as found in Section B - Solicitation, Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) Schedule.

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

TAB F - Teaming Agreement, if applicable. See paragraph 2.1 and 2.2 Note to 8(a)—SBA must approve a joint venture agreement prior to the award of an 8(a) contract on behalf of the joint venture.

TAB G - Financial Information & Bonding Capability (e.g. past three years financial statements, annual reports, Dun & Bradstreet Ratings and/or number, etc.) Provide a list of all current contracts held, total dollar value, award date, anticipated completion, performance and payment bond amount.

3.8.2 VOLUME II: Technical Proposal (Factors 2-3)

One (1) electronic copy Adobe PDF file as tabbed per the table below shall be submitted.

TAB Table of Contents of Technical Proposal (Factors 2 & 3)

A Factor 2: Technical Approach

B Factor 3: Past Performance

4. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS & EVALUATION STANDARDS

TAB A—FACTOR 2 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

3.8.3 Further Description of TABs A & B and further information of Factors 2 and 3 can be found in the subsequent sections (paragraphs 4-5) of this section entitled the SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS &

EVALUATION STANDARDS.

4.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

4.1.1 The technical proposal must be presented in a practical, straightforward, specific, concise, and complete manner and organized into the following sections, with estimated page length for each section shown. These page limits are suggestions for each section and may be exceeded if necessary;

however, the entire technical volume page length cannot exceed the 50 maximum page allowance.

The technical proposal shall be broken down by functional area and coincide with the technical provisions (TP) as described in the table of contents of the Performance Work Statement describing

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

4.1.2 The narrative must address all the minimum criteria specified in paragraph 4.1.2.1.

4.1.2.1 Minimum Criteria:

a. Workforce Organization (2 pages) - offerors will provide an organizational chart from corporate management down to hourly employees. The chart should identify all supervisors and foremen, and clearly show the physical number of employees and identify part-time, seasonal, and full-time employees.

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

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

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

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

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

g. Equipment, Materials, and Supplies List (16 pages) - offerors will provide a single comprehensive list of all vehicles, specialized tools, and equipment required for the contract. Offerors will also provide a list of materials and supplies, including estimated quantities, specific to each technical provision.

h. Major Activity Schedule (6 pages) - offerors will provide a schedule, Gantt chart or similar format, showing which technical provisions and any major sub-tasks are accomplished each month. Separately, for janitorial services, mowing, and any other recurring routine services, provide a specific schedule showing crew composition, tasks accomplished, and locations or routes.

i. Management Approach (12 pages) - offerors should describe the approach to managing the work, including prioritizing and assigning work and managing inventories. Offerors should describe how maintenance management (work orders) and inventory systems will be used and describe the cost tracking system and how costs will be tracked. Offerors should briefly explain what authorities each tier of the organization chart has. Management and documentation requirements from TP- 1 & 2 should be addressed here. Summary discussion of plans (other than Mobilization Plan) should occur in the Management

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

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

4.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

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

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

4.2.3 Failure to provide clear and comprehensive detail to any of the minimum requirement for the Technical

Criteria may be noted as a significant weakness or weakness. Technical Criteria that merely provided restatement of the solicitation or specification language will not fulfill the requirements of this source selection.

The Technical Criteria must provide information that demonstrates the offeror understand the project requirements.

5. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS & EVALUATION STANDARDS

TAB B—FACTOR 3 - PAST PERFORMANCE.

5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

5.1.1 Past performance refers to the quality of recent, relevant project experience from the owner’s perspective.

The offeror should complete and provide a NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), on no fewer than two (2) and no more than three (3) projects. Projects submitted under this factor must first be deemed relevant in accordance with the minimum criteria specified in paragraph 4.1.2.1 before being evaluated for quality in accordance with the criteria specified in paragraph 5.2 and the evaluation standards set forth in paragraphs 6.2.

The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 3 – Past Performance for the Prime Contractor. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Jenifer Garland (Contract Specialist) and Troy Small (Contracting Officer) via email at jenifer.m.garland@usace.army.mil and troy.d.small@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

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

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

The offeror shall provide clear and adequate information in response to the past performance elements. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division, unit or team member submitting the offer. To the extent necessary to conduct a meaningful evaluation, the Government will call and confirm with the points of contact, information provided by the offeror on the NAVFAC/USACE

PPQ. The Government reserves the right to interview other individuals if the point of contact is not available.

5.1.2 Other Sources. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/UEID numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal

Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System

(eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

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

mailto:jenifer.m.garland@usace.army.mil mailto:troy.d.small@usace.army.mil

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

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

5.2.2 The Government will consider past performance of the prime contractor. If a firm has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate the past performance of the unit or division submitting the offer.

5.2.3 The Government will consider recent, relevant projects that are successfully completed and/or substantially completed (fully designed and at least 50% construction progress completed) within six (6) years preceding the date of the solicitation. To be deemed relevant, projects must comply with minimum criteria in paragraph 4.1.2.1. The Government will consider the recency and relevancy of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance. The Government places higher value on projects for which successful performance can be validated by means other than the offeror’s self-assessment such as through independent telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the proposal, CPARS or other agency performance databases, offeror furnished references or personal knowledge. The

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

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

5.3 The Government will evaluate recent, relevant past performance (as set forth in paragraph 6.2) based on the elements listed below to assign a confidence rating in accordance with paragraph 6.3:

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.4 In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of

“neutral.” Although the Government may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the Government may determine, that a “Substantial

Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating.

6. EVALUATION STANDARDS.

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

Performance Risk will be made. Performance Risk relates to the assessment of an offeror's present and past work and accomplishments to determine the offeror's ability to successfully perform as required.

6.1 Combined Technical/Risk Rating. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Each evaluation factor and its risk rating combined will be determined and assigned using the adjectival descriptions contained herein. Upon assessment of each individual factor and its risk rating, the appropriate overall rating for the proposal will be assigned using these same adjectival descriptions. The following table provides Ratings and Definitions for the Technical/Risk of Factor 2.

Color Rating djectival Rating

Description

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

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

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

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

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

6.2 In performing the Factor 3 - Past Performance evaluation, the government will apply the following relevance levels to assess the relevance of the prior contract effort(s) of offerors in accordance with the Army

Source Selection Supplement utilizing the following tables:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

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

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

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

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

6.3 The Government will assign a confidence level to Factor 3 – Past Performance, in order to establish an overall rating for this factor. In assessing past performance, the ratings for relevancy, and the Evaluation

Criteria as established at 5.2, will be consider for the Prime contractor only. Regardless of whether the offeror is a joint venture, partnership or if the Prime Contractor is part of informal teaming arrangement, as defined in paragraph 2.1 the government will only evaluate this factor for the legal entity whom the government would enter into a contract. The Confidence levels are defined as:

Adjectival Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory

Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

6.4 Definitions

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

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

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

Government during contract performance.

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

15.001.

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

7. PRICE.

7.1 Price will not be rated but will be a factor in establishing the competitive range prior to discussions (if held) and in making the best value decision for award of any resultant contract. Pricing for the contract shall be completed and submitted on the Pricing Schedule shown on page three (3) of the solicitation, Continuation of

Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs.

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

7.3 In accordance with FAR 52.217-5 – Evaluations of Options (Jul 1990), the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement.

Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

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

8. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS.

8.1 NON-COST FACTORS:

FACTOR 2 – TECHNICAL APPROACH: This factor is more important than Factor 3 but less important than Factor 1.

FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE: This Factor is less important than Factor 1 and Factor 2.

8.2 COST FACTORS:

FACTOR 1 – Price: This factor is more important than Factor 2 and Factor 3. However, when combined

Factor 2 and Factor 3 are more important than Factor 1.

9. BASIS FOR AWARD.

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

9.2 In order to determine which proposal(s) represent the best value, the SSA will compare proposals to one another. Best value will be determined by a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in this RFP.

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

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

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

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

NOTE 1: Pages that exceed the required page limitations will not be evaluated. Additional pages over the maximum allowed will be removed or not read and will not be evaluated by the Government. Tables of contents, proposal cover letters, and tabs between proposal information do not count toward any page limitations in the proposal. The total number of Pages for Volume I shall not exceed 25 Pages and Volume II shall not exceed 25 Pages. The offerors submission for Solicitation W912PM26RA003shall not exceed 50 pages in total.