Postal Solicitation FA3047-10-R-0009.docx

FA3047-10-R-0009

Section SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

Operate Official Mail Center

FFP

Official Mail Center (OMC) operations: OMC Manager and OMC Driver/Clerk in Support of inprocessing/sorting/distributing of mail in accordance with Performance Work Statement. Base period of performance commences on first day of the month following date of award and ends 30 Sep 2010.

FOB: Destination

SIGNAL CODE: A

NET AMT

Operate Postal Service Center (PSC) #2

Operate Postal Service Center (PSC) #2 in accordance with Performance Work Statement. Base period of performance commences on first day of the month following date of award and ends 30 Sep 2010.

NET AMT

Operate Postal Service Center (PSC) #3

Operate Postal Service Center (PSC) #3 in accordance with Performance Work Statement. Base period of performance commences on first day of the month following date of award and ends 30 Sep 2010.

NET AMT

Operate Postal Service Center (PSC) #6

Operate Postal Service Center (PSC) #6 in accordance with Performance Work Statement. Base period of performance commences on first day of the month following date of award and ends 30 Sep 2010.

NET AMT

Operate Postal Service Center (PSC) #7

Operate Postal Service Center (PSC) #7 in accordance with Performance Work Statement. Base period of performance commences on first day of the month following date of award and ends 30 Sep 2010.

NET AMT

Operate Central Mail Room (CMR)

Operate Central Mail Room (Building 171, Port San Antonio) in accordance with Performance Work Statement. Base period of performance commences on first day of the month following date of award and ends 30 Sep 2010.

NET AMT

Permanent Party Mail Delivery

Permanent Party Mail Delivery in accordance with Performance Work Statement. Base period of performance commences on first day of the month following date of award and ends 30 Sep 2010.

NET AMT

FFP

Operate Official Mail Center (OMC) operations: OMC Manager and OMC Driver/Clerk in Support of inprocessing/sorting/distributing of mail in accordance with Performance Work Statement. Period of performance is 1 Oct 2010 through 30 Sept 2011.

NET AMT

FFP

Operate Postal Service Center (PSC) #2 in accordance with Performance Work Statement. Period of performance is 1 Oct 2010 through 30 Sept 2011.

NET AMT

FFP

Operate Postal Service Center (PSC) #3 in accordance with Performance Work Statement. Period of performance is 1 Oct 2010 through 30 Sept 2011.

NET AMT

FFP

Operate Postal Service Center (PSC) #6 in accordance with Performance Work Statement. Period of performance is 1 Oct 2010 through 30 Sept 2011.

NET AMT

FFP

Operate Postal Service Center (PSC) #7 in accordance with Performance Work Statement. Period of performance is 1 Oct 2010 through 30 Sept 2011.

NET AMT

FFP

Operate Central Mail Room (Building 171, Port San Antonio) in accordance with Performance Work Statement. Period of performance is 1 Oct 2010 through 30 Sept 2011.

NET AMT

FFP

Permanent Party Mail Delivery in accordance with Performance Work Statement. Period of performance is 1 Oct 2010 through 30 Sep 2011.

NET AMT

FFP

Operate Official Mail Center (OMC) operations: OMC Manager and OMC Driver/Clerk support inprocessing/sorting/distributing of mail in accordance with Performance Work Statement. Period of performance is 1 Oct 2010 through 30 Sept 2012.

NET AMT

FFP

Operate Postal Service Center (PSC) #2 in accordance with Performance Work Statement. Period of performance is 1 Oct 2010 through 30 Sept 2012.

NET AMT

FFP

Operate Postal Service Center (PSC) #3 in accordance with Performance Work Statement. Period of performance is 1 Oct 2011 through 30 Sept 2012.

NET AMT

FFP

Operate Postal Service Center (PSC) #6 in accordance with Performance Work Statement. Period of performance is 1 Oct 2011 through 30 Sept 2012.

NET AMT

FFP

Operate Postal Service Center (PSC) #7 in accordance with Performance Work Statement. Period of performance is 1 Oct 2011 through 30 Sept 2012.

NET AMT

FFP

Operate Central Mail Room (Building 171, Port San Antonio) in accordance with Performance Work Statement. Period of performance is 1 Oct 2011 through 30 Sept 2012.

NET AMT

FFP

Permanent Party Mail Delivery in accordance with Performance Work Statement. Period of performance is 1 Oct 2011 through 30 Sep 2012.

NET AMT

FFP

Operate Official Mail Center (OMC) operations: OMC Manager and OMC Driver/Clerk support inprocessing/sorting/distributing of mail in accordance with Performance Work Statement. Period of performance is 1 Oct 2012 through 30 Sept 2013.

NET AMT

FFP

Operate Postal Service Center (PSC) #2 in accordance with Performance Work Statement. Period of performance is 1 Oct 2012 through 30 Sept 2013.

NET AMT

FFP

Operate Postal Service Center (PSC) #3 in accordance with Performance Work Statement. Period of performance is 1 Oct 2012 through 30 Sept 2013.

NET AMT

FFP

Operate Postal Service Center (PSC) #6 in accordance with Performance Work Statement. Period of performance is 1 Oct 2012 through 30 Sept 2013.

NET AMT

FFP

Operate Postal Service Center (PSC #7) in accordance with Performance Work Statement. Period of performance is 1 Oct 2012 through 30 Sept 2013.

NET AMT

FFP

Operate Central Mail Room (Building 171, Port San Antonio) in accordance with Performance Work Statement. Period of performance is 1 Oct 2012 through 30 Sept 2013.

NET AMT

FFP

Permanent Party Mail Delivery in accordance with Performance Work Statement. Period of performance is 1 Oct 2012 through 30 Sep 2013.

NET AMT

FFP

Operate Official Mail Center (OMC) operations: OMC Manager and OMC Driver/Clerk support inprocessing/sorting/distributing of mail in accordance with Performance Work Statement. Period of performance is 1 Oct 2013 through 30 Sept 2014.

NET AMT

FFP

Operate Postal Service Center (PSC) #2 in accordance with Performance Work Statement. Period of performance is 1 Oct 2013 through 30 Sept 2014.

NET AMT

FFP

Operate Postal Service Center (PSC) #3 in accordance with Performance Work Statement. Period of performance is 1 Oct 2013 through 30 Sept 2014.

NET AMT

FFP

Operate Postal Service Center (PSC) #6 in accordance with Performance Work Statement. Period of performance is 1 Oct 2013 through 30 Sept 2014.

NET AMT

FFP

Operate Postal Service Center (PSC) #7 in accordance with Performance Work Statement. Period of performance is 1 Oct 2013 through 30 Sept 2014.

NET AMT

FFP

Operate Central Mail Room (Building 171, Port San Antonio) in accordance with Performance Work Statement. Period of performance is 1 Oct 2013 through 30 Sept 2014.

NET AMT

FFP

Permanent Party Mail Delivery in accordance with Performance Work Statement. Period of performance is 1 Oct 2013 through 30 Sep 2014.

NET AMT

INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE TERMS

Supplies/services will be inspected/accepted at:

DELIVERY INFORMATION

30-SEP-2010

BARBARA STRAYER

2261 HUGHES AVE

BLDG 7243

STE 101

LACKLAND AFB TX 78236-9801

671-2726

F2M3U2

30-SEP-2010

F2M3U2

30-SEP-2010

F2M3U2

30-SEP-2010

F2M3U2

30-SEP-2010

F2M3U2

30-SEP-2010

F2M3U2

30-SEP-2010

F2M3U2

30-SEP-2011

F2M3U2

30-SEP-2011

F2M3U2

30-SEP-2011

F2M3U2

30-SEP-2011

F2M3U2

30-SEP-2011

F2M3U2

30-SEP-2011

F2M3U2

30-SEP-2011

F2M3U2

30-SEP-2012

F2M3U2

30-SEP-2012

F2M3U2

30-SEP-2012

F2M3U2

30-SEP-2012

F2M3U2

30-SEP-2012

F2M3U2

30-SEP-2012

F2M3U2

30-SEP-2012

F2M3U2

30-SEP-2013

F2M3U2

30-SEP-2013

F2M3U2

30-SEP-2013

F2M3U2

30-SEP-2013

F2M3U2

30-SEP-2013

F2M3U2

30-SEP-2013

F2M3U2

30-SEP-2013

F2M3U2

30-SEP-2014

F2M3U2

30-SEP-2014

F2M3U2

30-SEP-2014

F2M3U2

30-SEP-2014

F2M3U2

30-SEP-2014

F2M3U2

30-SEP-2014

F2M3U2

30-SEP-2014

F2M3U2

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT

52.209-5 CERTIFICATION REGARDING RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS (DEC 2008)

(a)(1) The Offeror certifies, to the best of its knowledge and belief, that-

(i) The Offeror and/or any of its Principals-

(A) Are ( ) are not ( ) presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, or declared ineligible for the award of contracts by any Federal agency;

(B) Have ( ) have not ( ), within a three-year period preceding this offer, been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for: commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, state, or local) contract or subcontract; violation of Federal or state antitrust statutes relating to the submission of offers; or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, tax evasion, violating Federal criminal tax laws, or receiving stolen property; and

(C) Are ( ) are not ( ) presently indicted for, or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity with, commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (a)(1)(i)(B) of this provision.; and

(D) Have [ballot], have not [ballot], within a three-year period preceding this offer, been notified of any delinquent Federal taxes in an amount that exceeds $3,000 for which the liability remains unsatisfied.

(1) Federal taxes are considered delinquent if both of the following criteria apply:

(i) The tax liability is finally determined. The liability is finally determined if it has been assessed. A liability is not finally determined if there is a pending administrative or judicial challenge. In the case of a judicial challenge to the liability, the liability is not finally determined until all judicial appeal rights have been exhausted.

(ii) The taxpayer is delinquent in making payment. A taxpayer is delinquent if the taxpayer has failed to pay the tax liability when full payment was due and required. A taxpayer is not delinquent in cases where enforced collection action is precluded.

(2) Examples. (i) The taxpayer has received a statutory notice of deficiency, under I.R.C. Sec. 6212, which entitles the taxpayer to seek Tax Court review of a proposed tax deficiency. This is not a delinquent tax because it is not a final tax liability. Should the taxpayer seek Tax Court review, this will not be a final tax liability until the taxpayer has exercised all judicial appeal rights.

(ii) The IRS has filed a notice of Federal tax lien with respect to an assessed tax liability, and the taxpayer has been issued a notice under I.R.C. Sec. 6320 entitling the taxpayer to request a hearing with the IRS Office of Appeals contesting the lien filing, and to further appeal to the Tax Court if the IRS determines to sustain the lien filing. In the course of the hearing, the taxpayer is entitled to contest the underlying tax liability because the taxpayer has had no prior opportunity to contest the liability. This is not a delinquent tax because it is not a final tax liability. Should the taxpayer seek tax court review, this will not be a final tax liability until the taxpayer has exercised all judicial appeal rights.

(iii) The taxpayer has entered into an installment agreement pursuant to I.R.C. Sec. 6159. The taxpayer is making timely payments and is in full compliance with the agreement terms. The taxpayer is not delinquent because the taxpayer is not currently required to make full payment.

(iv) The taxpayer has filed for bankruptcy protection. The taxpayer is not delinquent because enforced collection action is stayed under 11 U.S.C. 362 (the Bankruptcy Code).

(ii) The Offeror has ( ) has not ( ), within a three-year period preceding this offer, had one or more contracts terminated for default by any Federal agency.

(2) Principal, for the purposes of this certification, means an officer, director, owner, partner, or a person having primary management or supervisory responsibilities within a business entity (e.g., general manager; plant manager; head of a subsidiary, division, or business segment; and similar positions).

(b) The Offeror shall provide immediate written notice to the Contracting Officer if, at any time prior to contract award, the Offeror learns that its certification was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances.

(c) A certification that any of the items in paragraph (a) of this provision exists will not necessarily result in withholding of an award under this solicitation. However, the certification will be considered in connection with a determination of the Offeror's responsibility. Failure of the Offeror to furnish a certification or provide such additional information as requested by the Contracting Officer may render the Offeror nonresponsible.

(d) Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of records in order to render, in good faith, the certification required by paragraph (a) of this provision. The knowledge and information of an Offeror is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings.

(e) The certification in paragraph (a) of this provision is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when making award. If it is later determined that the Offeror knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Government, the Contracting Officer may terminate the contract resulting from this solicitation for default.

(End of provision)

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT

52.212-1 ADDENDUM TO INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (SEP 2006)

Addendum to 52.212-1(c), Period for Acceptance of Offers. The paragraph is tailored as follows: “The offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for 90 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers.”

Deletions include: 52.212-1(b)(11)(e)-Multiple Offers and 52.212-1(h) Multiple Awards

ADDENDA TO 52.212-1 PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

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, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Taking exception to any provision in the solicitation will render the proposal ineligible for award.

A site visit will be scheduled for April 22, 2010, at 9:00 AM Central Time at Lackland AFB, Texas. Interested parties must submit site visit request and information not later than April 19, 2010, 11:00 AM Central Standard Time. The request must include name(s) of individual(s), date of birth, driver’s license (indicate state), home address (no P.O. Box), and social security number to Shirley J. Jones at shirley.jones@lackland.af.mil or shirley.jones@lackland.af.mil or fax to 210-671-1199, attention Shirley J. Jones, reference solicitation number. Questions arising from the site visit must be submitted in writing to Mrs. Jones via email or fax to Shirley J. Jones at 210-671-1199 or 210-671-1433 or contracting officer not later than April 26, 2010, 3:00 PM.

The proposal in response to this solicitation shall consist of three (3) separate parts; Part I - Price Proposal, Part II - Technical Proposal, and Part III - Past Performance Information. All documents submitted in response to this solicitation must be fully responsive to and consistent with the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS), Contract Line Items (CLINs) and government standards and regulations pertaining to this solicitation and PWS. Elaborate formats, bindings or color presentations will not enhance the rating of the proposals

B. To be considered for award, the complete proposal package must be mailed or submitted in time to be received not later than May 11, 2010, 3:00 PM Central Standard Time at:

802 Contracting Squadron/LGCB Attn: Shirley J. Jones or Mr. Anastacio Ramos, contracting officer 1655 Selfridge Avenue Lackland AFB TX 78236.

Proposals received after May 11, 2010 3:00 PM Central Standard Time will be considered late and will be handled in accordance with FAR 52.212-1(f). All proposals must be in English. Fax or email proposals will not be considered.

C. Specific Instructions:

1. PART I – PRICE PROPOSAL - Submit original and one (1) copy

(a) Complete blocks 12, 17, 26 and 30a, 30b, 30c page 1 of the SF 1449. In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions.

(b) Insert proposed unit and extended prices in Section SF 1449 – Continuation Sheet - Supplies/Services for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN)/Subclin including al option periods. All unit prices must be rounded to the nearest penny.

(c) Complete the necessary fill-ins and certifications.

2. PART II – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL Submit original and three (3) copies: The maximum number of allowable pages for Part II- Technical Proposal should be no more than 30 pages total. If any technical proposal exceeds 30 pages total, the Government will only evaluate the first 30 pages and return the remaining pages to the offeror without being evaluated. A page printed on both sides shall be counted as two pages. Pages containing text shall be single spaced, typewritten or printed on standard size paper (8-1/2 x 10-1/2 inch or 8-1/2 x 11 inch) providing not more than twelve characters per linear inch, with adequate margins on each side (at least one inch).

(a) Manning: Proposed manpower to meet all requirements of the Performance Work Statement including numbers, types, skills, and man hours of proposed personnel.

(b) DD254 or equivalent facility security clearance form from non-DoD federal agency, and a listing of proposed personnel with current secret clearances. The proposed personnel listing must include for each individual: name, residential address (not P.O. Box), date of birth, driver’s license number or state ID number with state of issue, and social security number.

3. PART III – CONTRACTOR ’S PAST/PRESENT PERFORMANCE (Original plus 3 copies) - Limited to a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) of the most relevant contracts performed within the last three years, from the date of issuance of this solicitation, for the same or similar contract requirements. See definition of relevancy in 52.212-2.

Offerors shall complete and return the Fact Sheet (Attachment 3) not later than 12 noon Central Standard Time on May 4, 2010 for each of the most relevant contracts as discussed in above paragraph. If additional space is required for paragraph “F” of the Fact Sheet, separate page(s) may be utilized; however, this additional space shall be limited to no more than one (1) page.

(a) Offerors shall forward Present/Past Performance Questionnaires to their Present/Past Performance references listed on each Fact Sheet. The sample present/past performance questionnaire transmittal letter (Attachment #4), should be forwarded with the questionnaire to the offeror’s references. These questionnaires are to be completed by the offeror’s references, who must return the questionnaire directly to the Contract Specialist, Shirley Jones at e-mail Shirley Jones@lackland.af.mil or Fax to (210) 671-1199 or (210) 671-1433, and reference solicitation number. The Present/Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment #5) is due not later than May 4, 2010, 3:00 PM Central Standard Time.

(c) Offerors are advised that the government reserves the right to consider past and present performance information available from other sources , including but not limited to the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). The government reserves the right to contact references who fail to return questionnaires on time or fail to fill in information in questionnaires.

(d) Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractors and/or teaming partners cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor’s consent. Provide with the proposal a letter from all subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor. A sample subcontractor consent letter is included.

(e) Informal teaming arrangements will not be considered. Joint ventures/teaming arrangements must be formalized in writing and approved by the Small Business Administration. If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent past performance information on previous teaming arrangements with the same partner. If this is a first time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of past and present relevant contracts. Past experience of one team member will be considered past experience of all team members for purposes of evaluation

(5) Guidance for Prospective Offerors – Impact of Teaming Arrangements On Small Business Status

(a)This procurement has been set aside for small business. In order to ensure that award is made to an eligible small business, prospective Offerors, in consultation with their legal advisor, are encouraged to review the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) size eligibility standards found at Title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 121 (13 C.F.R. § 1210. In particular, Offerors proposing a joint venture, subcontracting, or another form of teaming arrangement should review 13 C.F.R. § 121.103, What is affiliation? , prior to submitting a proposal.

(b)The SBA is the sole authority for making determinations of small business status for small business programs, Such determinations are binding on the Offeror and on the Offeror and on the contracting officer. Accordingly, a finding by the SBA of affiliation between an Offeror and its proposed team member(s) or subcontractor(s) may result in the Offeror being found to be other than a small business and therefore ineligible for contract award.

(c )Business concerns are considered to be affiliates of each other if either one directly or indirectly controls or has the power to control the other, or if another concern controls both of them. In determining whether affiliation exists, factors such as common ownership, common management, and contractual relationships are considered. An Offeror will also be found to be affiliated with its subcontractor(s) if the Offeror is unusually reliant upon its subcontractors or if the subcontractor(s) will perform primary and vital requirements of a contract.

(d)The SBA has issued extensive decisions concerning its evaluation of affiliation of an Offeror and its proposed subcontractor(s). The following examples set forth characteristics that the SBA has reviewed in considering the question of affiliation and may assist prospective Offerors in developing any teaming arrangements and their proposals.

(e)The SBA considers whether proposed subcontracting, partnership, joint venture, or other teaming arrangements contain discrete descriptions of the tasks or work to be performed by each party. The SBA considers whether the Offeror or, if the Offeror is a joint venture or partnership, the joint venture participants or partners, perform the primary or vital portions of the Statement of Work. The SBA considers whether teaming arrangements clearly set forth the relationship between the parties, as well as the individual roles and responsibilities assigned.

1. The SBA considers whether there is a clear separation of facilities, employees, and management (decision-making authority) between the Offeror and any entities with which it has teaming arrangements.

1. The SBA considers the extent to which the Offeror directly employs Key Personnel (Program Manager, Project Manager, etc.).

1. If the Offeror is an eligible small business prime contractor, the SBA considers whether the majority of the technical expertise resides with the Offeror. If the Offeror is an eligible joint venture (see 13 CFR 121.103(f)(3)), the SBA considers whether the majority of the technical expertise resides among the joint venture members.

1. The SBA considers the Offeror’s profit sharing arrangements with its’ proposed subcontractor or other entities.

(5)In reviewing affiliation between the Offeror and its proposed subcontractors or entities with which the Offeror has a teaming arrangement, SBA considers the previous contractual or business relationships between the Offeror and that entity.

Addendum to 52.212-2 EVALUATION—COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JAN 199)

This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing offerors’ past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than cost or price considerations. However, cost/price will contribute substantially to the selection decision. The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the reasonably priced, technically acceptable, responsible offeror whose proposal conforming to the solicitation offers the best value to the Government. This award will be issued utilizing the Test Program at FAR part 13.5.

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.

Technical Proposals will be evaluated as follows:

A.Technical Acceptability: The Government will first evaluate all timely proposals for technical acceptability. To be eligible for award an offer must be technically acceptable. To be acceptable all technical factors must be rated technically acceptable. If, any technical factor is rated below acceptable, the overall proposal will receive the rating of the lowest rated technical factor. Only proposals rated as technically acceptable can receive an award.

(1) Each technical factor will receive one of the ratings listed below:

Acceptable – The technical proposal meets all the standards identified in paragraph A(2) of this provision.

Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable – The technical proposal does not meet the standards identified in paragraph A(2) of this provision; however, there is reason to believe that through minor revisions the technical factor could be made acceptable.

Unacceptable - The technical proposal fails to meet standards identified in paragraph A(2) and would require a substantial rewrite or revision to be made Acceptable, or the offeror takes an exception to any part of the solicitation.

(2) The technical proposal will be evaluated for the following technical factors:

Technical Evaluation Factor 1: Manning: The Government will evaluate the proposed manpower to determine if it is sufficient to meet all requirements of the performance work statement. In making this assessment the Government will evaluate the numbers, types, and skills of the personnel proposed against the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

1. Standard: The proposed manpower has sufficient numbers, types, and skills of personnel to meet all requirements of the PWS.

1. The standard has been met when: The proposed manpower shows sufficient numbers, types and skills of personnel to meet all requirements of the PWS.

Technical Evaluation Factor 2: Security Clearance: The Government will evaluate the DD254 to determine if the contractor possesses a current Secret facility clearance and all personnel possess current Secret Clearance.

1. Standard: The contractor possesses current Secret facility clearance and all personnel possess current Secret Clearance.

1. The standard has been met when: The contractor provided a DD254-Department of Defense Contractor Security Classification Specification that demonstrates possession of a secret facility clearance or equivalent US federal government security clearance form from a recent or current federal contract that meets all DD254 security elements, which are required at a United States Air Force installation and possession of current Secret clearance by all contractor personnel, who are part of proposed manning.

B. Price Evaluation: Next, the Government will evaluate the price proposals, and any other relevant proposal data submitted, to determine if proposed prices are reasonable and balanced. An offeror’s proposed estimated prices will be determined by multiplying the estimated quantities identified in the Bid Schedule by the proposed unit price for each CLIN. The extended amounts for each CLIN will then be totaled to obtain the estimated total for each performance period. The estimated total for the basic performance will then be added to the estimated total for each Option period to obtain the total proposed estimated total. All proposed prices for all contract periods will be evaluated for reasonableness, which may be determined based on prices submitted by the competition, historical pricing, current market conditions, comparison to the Independent Government Estimate, and/or other proposal analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1. Evaluation of option prices will not obligate the Government to exercise options. The Government may require submission of information other than cost or pricing data to the extent necessary to evaluate price reasonableness. Proposed contract line item prices will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items or sub line items appears to be significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. An offeror’s proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. After price evaluation is complete the Government will rank all Technically Acceptable proposals by evaluated price, including option prices.

C. Performance Confidence Assessment. Using past performance questionnaires and data provided by the offeror, and data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources, the contracting officer will evaluate recent and relevant past performance information, and using this information will develop a performance confidence assessment. The Government will use the following procedures in evaluating performance:

(1) The Government will accomplish the past performance evaluation, assigning a performance confidence assessment rating to the offeror’s proposal based on performance ratings of recent and relevant efforts.

(2) The Government will seek recent and relevant performance information from: (i) past and present efforts provided by the offeror using questionnaires and (ii) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources. These may include the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), the Contractor Performance and Reporting System (CPARS), and the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPAIS). The past performance evaluation will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. The past performance evaluation may also consider the past performance of affiliated companies or operating divisions within the parent company or joint ventures of the parent company when it is reasonable to attribute the experience of these past efforts to the proposed effort and when they clearly demonstrate the resources (e.g. financial resources, overall oversight and management or other resources) of the parent or affiliated division will mean fully affect performance of the instant acquisition. The past performance of teaming partners or subcontractors who are proposed to perform less than 20% of the work and are not proposed to perform critical aspects will not be evaluated.

(3) Recency – Present and Past performance efforts will first be evaluated for recency. To be recent, some portion of the performance effort must have occurred within the last three years prior to the issue date of the solicitation. Among those performance efforts qualifying as recent, more weight will be given to those efforts occurring later in the period than those occurring earlier in the period. More recent efforts will be given greater weight than less recent efforts. Performance not qualifying as recent will not receive further evaluation or consideration. Non-recent performance will not be evaluated for relevancy or quality of performance.

(4)Relevancy – The Government will next evaluate the relevancy of performance that qualified as recent. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving mail inprocessing/outprocessing and delivery services that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation. Performance qualifying as relevant will be categorized as Very Relevant, Relevant, or Somewhat Relevant. More relevant performance will be given more weight than less relevant performance. Performance that does not meet one of the three relevancy criteria (Very Relevant, relevant, or somewhat relevant) is not relevant and will not be evaluated for quality of performance.

The relevancy definitions are as follows:

a. Very Relevant - Very relevant performance carries more weight than relevant or somewhat relevant. To qualify as very relevant the past/present performance effort must meet all of the following criteria:

(1) The effort must have included five of the six following items: a. Receiving mail, b. Sorting mail, c. Delivering mail, d. Weighing mail, e. Affixing postage, f. Performing courier service; (2) The volume of mail must have exceeded an average of 200,000 pieces of mail per month; (3) The volume must have equaled or exceeded 12,000 boxes or parcels per month; (4) Mail service must have been provided to a minimum of 8,000 individuals per month; (5) Performance must have been at multiple locations; (6) Performance must have included operation of mail rooms for same contract effort.

b. Relevant – Relevant performance fails to meet all requirements for very relevant performance but meets all of the following:

The effort must have included four of the six following items: (1) a. Receiving mail, b. Sorting mail, c. Delivering mail, d. Weighing mail, e. Affixing postage, f. Performing courier service; (2) The volume of mail must have exceeded an average of 100,000 pieces of mail per month; (3) The volume must have equaled or exceeded 6,000 boxes or parcels per month; (4) Mail service must have been provided to a minimum of 6,000 individuals per month; (5) Performance must have been at multiple locations; (6) Performance must have included operation of mail rooms for same contract effort.

c. Somewhat Relevant – Somewhat relevant performance does not meet all requirements for very relevant or relevant but meets all of the following:

The effort must have included three of the six following items: a. Receiving mail, b. Sorting mail, c. Delivering mail, d. Weighing mail, e. Affixing postage, f. Performing courier service; (2) The volume of mail must have exceeded an average of 50,000 pieces of mail per month; (3) The volume must have equaled or exceeded 3,000 boxes or parcels per month; (4) Mail service must have been provided to a minimum of 3,000 individuals per month; (5) Performance must have been at multiple locations; (6) Performance must have included operation of mail rooms for same contract effort.

d. Not Relevant – Not relevant performance is all performance that fails to meet one of the three relevancy categories above.

(3) Quality of Performance - Performance efforts that qualify as recent and meet one of the three relevancy criteria (very relevant, relevant, or somewhat relevant) will then be evaluated for quality of performance. Each evaluated effort will receive one of the following performance ratings: Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, and Unsatisfactory

Based on the evaluation of individual performance efforts, the Government will then develop one of the following Performance Confidence Assessments for each offeror whose past performance is evaluated.

The Government will generally apply the following relationship between performance ratings and performance confidence. However, the Government reserves the right downgrade or lower the performance confidence rating based on lack of relevant past or present performance. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history or whose performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned may receive the rating of “Unknown Confidence”, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably no unfavorably. Offeror’s 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. Adverse past performance is defined as past or present performance effort that is rated less than satisfactory overall or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

Performance Rating Performance Confidence

D. The Government intends to award without discussions. However, the government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. If award is to be made without discussions, the following process will be followed:

(1) If the technically acceptable proposal/offeror with the lowest evaluated reasonable price has an overall “Substantial Confidence” performance rating, that offer represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without consideration or evaluation of the past performance of any other offeror contingent upon a determination of contractor responsibility for that offeror.

(2) If the technically acceptable proposal/offeror with the lowest evaluated reasonable price does not have overall “Substantial Confidence” performance rating, the past performance evaluation process will continue (in order by evaluated price) until a technically acceptable offeror with a reasonable price is found with an overall “Substantial Confidence” performance rating or until the past performance of all technically acceptable offers with a reasonable price are evaluated.