DRAFT ISWM Section L M - Proposal Preparation Instructions Basis of Award - 2 Jun 09.doc

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT

52.216-1

TYPE OF CONTRACT

APR 1984

The Government contemplates award of a Firm Fixed Price contract resulting from this solicitation.

(End of provision)

52.233-2

SERVICE OF PROTEST

SEP 2006

(a) Protests, as defined in section 33.101 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, that are filed directly with an agency, and copies of any protests that are filed with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), shall be served on the Contracting Officer (addressed as follows) by obtaining written and dated acknowledgment of receipt from:

AETC CONS/LGCS

2021 First Street West Randolph AFB, TX 78150

(b) The copy of any protest shall be received in the office designated above within one day of filing a protest with the GAO.

(End of provision)

52.252-1

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED

FEB 1998

BY REFERENCE

This solicitation incorporates one or more solicitation provisions by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make their full text available. The offeror is cautioned that the listed provisions may include blocks that must be completed by the offeror and submitted with its quotation or offer. In lieu of submitting the full text of those provisions, the offeror may identify the provision by paragraph identifier and provide the appropriate information with its quotation or offer. Also, the full text of a solicitation provision may be accessed electronically at this/these address(es):

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/

52.252-5

AUTHORIZED DEVIATIONS IN PROVISIONS

APR 1984

(a) The use in this solicitation of any Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR Chapter 1) provision with an authorized deviation is indicated by the addition of"(DEVIATION)" after the date of the provision.

(b) The use in this solicitation of any Department of Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (48 CFR Chapter 2) provision with an authorized deviation is indicated by the addition of "(DEVIATION)" after the name of the regulation.

Addendum to 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items

SECTION L - PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

Volume I Technical Proposal

Date To Be Determined / 4:30 pm Central Time

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 subfactors. 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 volumes; Volume I - Technical Proposal, Volume II - Price Proposal, and Volume III - Past Performance Information.

1. Minimum Proposal Acceptance Period

(a) “Acceptance period,” as used in this provision, means the number of calendar days available to the Government for awarding a contract from the date specified in this solicitation for receipt of bids.

(b) The Government requires a minimum acceptance period of 240 calendar days from solicitation due date. Offerors may specify a longer acceptance period than the Government’s minimum requirement.

2. Inquiries By Offerors. The Contracting Officer is the sole point of contact for this acquisition. All questions regarding this solicitation must be directed in writing by e-mail, (preferred method) or mail/courier to:

AETC CONS/LGCS

ATTN: CAPT MICHELLE R. ADAMS

2021 FIRST STREET WEST

RANDOLPH AFB TX 78150-4302

E-mail address: michelle.adams@randolph.af.mil B. The contracting officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the contracting officer will review this determination and if, in the contracting officer'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 contracting officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists; offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine the reasonableness and affordability of the price.

C. Proposals are to be submitted and structured in accordance with Paragraph D, Specific Instructions. Telegraphic or facsimile offers will not be accepted. Whether hand carried or submitted via US Mail or other courier service, proposals must be received at 2021 First Street West, Randolph AFB, Texas 78150-4302. The sealed envelope or package used to submit your proposal must show the time and date specified for receipt, the Solicitation Number, and the name and address of the Offeror. Offerors are cautioned that Randolph AFB, TX has visitor control procedures requiring individuals not affiliated with the installation to obtain a visitor pass prior to entrance. SOME DELAY SHOULD BE ANTICIPATED WHEN HAND CARRYING PROPOSALS. Offerors should allow sufficient time to obtain a visitor pass and arrive at the bid depository PRIOR to the time specified for receipt. Late proposals will be processed in accordance with FAR 52.212-1(f) “Late submission, modifications, revisions, and withdrawals of offers.”

D. Specific Instructions:

I

VOLUME I - TECHNICAL

II

VOLUME II – PRICE

III

VOLUME III - PAST PERFORMANCE

1. VOLUME I – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

(a) Subfactor 1 – Mobilization Approach (Goodfellow, Sheppard and Keesler). This subfactor assesses the offeror’s plan to mobilize without degradation to the AETC mission. The offerors shall provide:

1) A plan describing the offeror’s:

a. Timeline schedule, which addresses start and completion of each event (e.g., acquisition, delivery and installation schedule of proposed equipment). The timeline shall be expressed in both a Gantt chart and a narrative description that addresses assumption of work, materials, equipment, facilities, vehicles, and work procedures. Accelerated mobilization plans or schedules will not be accepted.

b. Contractor provided materials, equipment, and vehicles, to include the number, capacity, age, condition and usage of proposed refuse, recyclable collection and recycling processing equipment.

c. Justification for purchases of new equipment that clearly describes the purpose, cost and associated benefits to the government.

d. Utilization of government furnished equipment and property.

(b) Subfactor 2 – Technical Approach (Goodfellow, Sheppard and Keesler). This subfactor assesses the offeror’s overall approach to perform ISWM using a resource management approach to meet the AETC mission. Offerors’s proposals shall include:

1) A plan describing the offeror’s approach to cost effectively divert solid waste and generate recycling revenue using the DoD ISWM Policy solid waste hierarchy which includes:

a. A proposed strategy of performing ISWM using a resource management approach to achieve mandated DoD diversion metrics (40% solid waste diversion)

b. A marketing and sales strategy of recyclable commodities to maximize revenue generation during robust and depressed recycling market cycles.

c. A plan that clearly identifies and utilizes methods of reducing future program costs through increased diversion and recycling.

2) A plan which clearly describes a marketing and sales strategy of recyclable commodities to maximize revenue generation during robust and depressed recycling market conditions. This plan must minimize transportation and total processing costs.

3) A plan to execute commodities recycling and maximize recycling revenue where there is not significant supporting recycling infrastructure, specifically Goodfellow AFB, TX, Laughlin AFB, TX, Sheppard AFB, TX and Vance AFB, OK. This plan must include different alternatives for final disposition of recyclable materials.

4) A plan to maintain and augment equipment to include waste hauling trucks, containers and recycling processing equipment, etc. This plan must describe a preventative maintenance plan along with a contingency plan to supplement key equipment to ensure continuous service in the event of failure. Include timelines to augment equipment.

(c) Subfactor 3 – Management Approach (Goodfellow, Sheppard and Keesler (with the exception of paragraph 5 which applies to and will be evaluated for all 13 bases)). This subfactor assesses the offeror’s overall plan to manage ISWM services using a resource management approach to meet the AETC mission. Offerors’s proposals shall include:

1) A description of recruiting and retaining staffing to meet existing, changing, unscheduled, urgent and surge requirements.

2) A plan to identify and resolve problems before they impact contract performance.

3) A plan to ensure data integrity for data systems and forms documentation required in the PWS.

4) A plan for tracking and reporting disposal and recycling tonnages and associated diversion metrics. This plan must include reporting methodology.

5) A plan to implement resources at all 13 bases to include mobilization, staffing and equipment capacity and management. This approach must describe in detail your proposed timelines for implementing all bases, to include number of personnel, method of acquiring equipment, etc.

2.

VOLUME II – PRICE PROPOSAL

(a) Complete blocks 12, 17, 23, 24 and 30 of the SF1449. In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP Sections A through K. These sections constitute the model contract.

(b) Insert proposed unit and extended prices in Section B for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) or SubClin (SCLIN), including all option periods. The extended amount must equal the whole dollar unit price multiplied by the number of units.

(c) Complete the necessary fill-ins and certifications in Sections I through K. Section K shall be returned in its entirety. For Sections C through I, the offeror shall submit only those pages that require a fill-in.

(d) Provide a copy of the letter from the Small Business Administration (SBA) showing proof of Section 8(a) status.

3.

PART III – PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

(a) Quality and Satisfaction Rating for Contracts Completed in the Past Three Years: Provide any information currently available (letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc.) which demonstrates customer satisfaction with overall job performance and quality of completed product for same or similar type contract.

(b) Performance Surveys: The government will evaluate the quality and extent of offeror's performance deemed relevant to the requirements of this RFP. The government will use information submitted by the offeror and other sources such as other Federal Government offices and commercial sources, to assess performance. Completely fill out Sections A and B on the Past Performance Information Sheets (PPIS) for no more than five (5) of the most relevant contracts performed for Federal agencies and commercial customers within the last three (3) years. Provide a copy of the completed PPIS with the Memorandum For Project Owners to the Contracting Agency points of contact identified on the PPIS. Verify the Contracting Agency points of contract prior to submitting your proposal to ensure the information is up-to-date. The evaluation of past performance information will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition.

(c) Organizational Structure: If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, provide complete information as to the organizational relationship and structure, responsibilities of each, business sizes and socioeconomic status. Include any relevant and recent past performance information on previous teaming arrangements with same partner. If this is a first time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide relevant contracts.

(d) Subcontractor Consent: Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor 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.

E. Documents submitted in response to this RFP must be fully responsive to and consistent with the following:

1. Requirements of the RFP (CLINs & PWS) and government standards and regulations pertaining to the PWS.

2. Evaluation Factors for Award in Section M of this RFP.

3. Any limitation on the number of proposal pages. Pages exceeding the page limitations set forth in this Section L will not be read or evaluated, and will be removed from the proposal.

4. Format for proposal Parts I and III shall be as follows:

(a) The proposals will be on 8 1/2” x 11” paper except for fold-outs used for charts, tables, or diagrams, which may not exceed 11” x 17”.

(b) A page is defined as one face of a sheet of paper containing information.

(c) Typing shall not be less than 12 pitch.

(d) Elaborate formats, bindings or color presentations are not desired or required.

SECTION M: BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

A. This is a competitive Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) 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.

B. 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. Offerors’s must submit the requested material(s) in Section L, Proposal Preparation Instructions, paragraph D. Failure to submit any component may be considered materially deficient and may result in a determination that the offeror is ineligible for award of the resulting contract. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

C. Technical Evaluation Procedures

1. VOLUME I - Technical Acceptability: Initially, the government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable, Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable, or Unacceptable. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically Unacceptable. All technically acceptable offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and past performance history.

(a) The proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactors: Mobilization Approach, Technical Approach and Management Approach.

(b) The offeror’s proposal shall, at a minimum, address each of the subfactors in paragraph 2 below, as they apply to the PWS. During evaluations of each proposal, the government will assign each subfactor a rating as shown below. Separate ratings will be assessed for each subfactor. A rating of unacceptable in one or more technical subfactors will constitute an overall rating of unacceptable for the technical evaluation.

The following technical rating definitions will be used in the assessment of technical capability

Reasonably Susceptible of

Being Made Acceptable An approach which, as proposed, does not meet specified minimum performance/capability requirements necessary for performance due to error(s), omissions(s) or deficiency(ies) which, in the view of the government, may be corrected through discussions without significant revision of the proposal.

2. Mobilization and Technical Approached will be evaluated for Goodfellow, Sheppard and Keesler only. Management Approach will be evaluated for Goodfellow, Sheppard and Keesler except for C 2. (c)

5, which will be evaluated for all bases. The offeror shall submit information for the following subfactors:

(a) Subfactor 1 - Mobilization Approach (Goodfellow, Sheppard and Keesler)

The proposal shall demonstrate a sound and comprehensive mobilization/transition approach that meets the requirements of the PWS and ensures a seamless transition of full performance within 30 days after award. The standard has been met when:

1) The proposal demonstrates a sound and comprehensive mobilization time line that adequately describes assumption of work, materials, equipment, work procedures and inventory for transfer of government furnished equipment and facilities.

2) The proposal demonstrates a sound and comprehensive mobilization approach which maximizes the utilization of existing equipment and facilities.

This approach must identify how existing equipment will be utilized to optimize solid waste diversion and recycling while maintaining minimal start-up costs.

3) The proposal demonstrates a sound and comprehensive mobilization approach which exhibits the appropriate amount and placement of proposed equipment (other than GFE) detailing the acquisition, delivery and installation schedule, depending on base requirements.

a. This approach must clearly identify, justify and quantify the benefits of any planned purchases of new equipment for refuse, recyclable collection and recycling processing while minimizing cost.

b. This approach must clearly identify the number, capacity, age, condition and usage of proposed refuse, recyclable collection and recycling processing equipment.

(b) Subfactor 2 - Technical Approach (Goodfellow, Sheppard and Keesler)

The proposal shall demonstrate a sound and comprehensive technical approach that meets the requirements of the PWS and ensures proper resource utilization. The standard has been met when:

1) The proposal demonstrates a sound and comprehensive approach to cost effectively divert waste and generate recycling revenue properly using the solid waste hierarchy.

a. This approach must clearly identify a diversion strategy that meets the DoD mandate of 40% requirement.

c. This approach must clearly demonstrate the ability to reduce future program costs through increased diversion and recycling.

2) The proposal demonstrates a sound and comprehensive marketing and sales strategy of recyclable commodities to maximize revenue generation during robust and depressed recycling market conditions and minimizes transportation and total processing costs.

3) The proposal demonstrates a sound and comprehensive plan to execute commodities recycling and maximize recycling revenue where there is not significant supporting recycling infrastructure, specifically Goodfellow AFB, TX, Laughlin AFB, TX, Sheppard AFB, TX and Vance AFB, OK.

4) The proposal demonstrates a sound and comprehensive plan to maintain and augment equipment which ensures continuous service in the event of failure.

(c) Subfactor 3 - Management Approach (Goodfellow, Sheppard and Keesler (with the exception of paragraph 5 which applies to and will be evaluated for all 13 bases))

The proposal shall demonstrate a sound and comprehensive management approach that meets the requirements of the PWS. The standard has been met when:

1) The proposal demonstrates a sound and comprehensive rationale and methodology of recruiting and retaining staffing to meet existing, changing, unscheduled, urgent and surge requirements.

2) The proposal demonstrates a sound and comprehensive approach to identifying and resolving problems before they impact contract performance.

3) The proposal demonstrates a sound and comprehensive approach that ensures data integrity for data systems and forms documentation required in the PWS.

4) The proposal demonstrates a sound and comprehensive approach for tracking and reporting disposal and recycling tonnages and associated diversion metrics. This approach must include a sample of reporting methodology that satisfies the reporting requirements set forth in the Performance Plan.

5) The proposal demonstrates a sound and comprehensive management approach to implement resources at all 13 bases to include mobilization, staffing and equipment capacity and management within the estimated timelines.

6) Organization: If applicable, the standard has been met when the above information has been provided for the prime and all subcontractors expected to perform over 20% of the proposed cost over the life of the contract. The offeror submits information relative to the formation, organization and operation of the business unit for proposed teaming arrangements, joint ventures or other business combinations. The offeror has disclosed existing or planned agreements between and among the principals, each company’s responsibility for financial management, the business systems contemplated for use by the entity and their location, cost and revenue sharing agreements and any other information which describes the business arrangement. All parties (prime, subcontractor, teaming partner, etc.) must be determined responsible to be considered eligible for contract award IAW FAR 9.103(b).

D. Price Evaluation Procedures

1. VOLUME II – Price: Evaluation of Base Period plus 4 1-year Option Periods for Goodfellow, Sheppard and Keesler AFBs:

The government price evaluation team shall evaluate the price proposals, and any other relevant proposal data submitted, to determine if proposed prices are reasonable and balanced.

(a) Each offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated as the sum of Contract Line Item Number (CLIN)s X001-X016 for the basic period and all options. This calculation is described in more detail in the proposal preparation instructions section of this solicitation. All proposed prices for all contract periods will be evaluated for reasonableness, which may be determined based on 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 years will not obligate the Government to exercise options.

(b) The Government may require submission of information other than cost or pricing data to the extent necessary to evaluate price reasonableness. A contract will not be awarded to an offeror whose proposed price is not determined reasonable. For purposes of this acquisition, the Government considers any type of price reduction or increase that is unexplained, including any identified as a management challenge, to be unreasonable.

(c) Price analysis will be used to determine if the prices for the proposed CLINs are balanced or unbalanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more CLINs or subCLINs appears to be significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. Unbalanced pricing may result in an offer being rejected if the Government determines that it presents an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(d) Financial Responsibility: The standard has been met when the offeror demonstrates how adequate financial capability will be maintained, including a fiscal plan for covering mobilization, unexpected or emergency situations and initial performance costs prior to recoupment in the form of monthly invoice payments. When the offeror provides complete financial statements for one fiscal year and year-to-date financial information through the last quarter available. When the offeror provides year-end financial statements certified by an independent accounting firm or as a minimum by an authorized officer of the organization. When the offeror provides evidence of availability if the offeror intends to rely on internally available working/operation capital. When the offeror provides the maximum lines of credit that may be available if the offeror plans to rely on financial support from other sources including documentation to support the amounts. An offeror not determined to be responsible will be ineligible for contract award IAW FAR 9.103(b).

(e) Accounting System: The standard has been met when the offeror identifies the name, address and phone number of the prime and major subcontractor’s cognizant DCAA office (if known).

E. Performance Confidence Assessment Evaluation

1. VOLUME III - Past Performance: The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the offeror’s ability to fulfill the solicitation requirements while meeting schedule, budget, and performance quality constraints. The government will use the following procedures in evaluating past performance:

(a) The Performance Confidence Assessment Group (PCAG) 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.

(b) The PCAG will seek relevant performance information from: (1) past and present efforts provided by the offeror (using questionnaires, forwarded that the contracting officer will forward to past or current customers identified in the PPIS) and (2) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. 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 of teaming partners or subcontractors who are proposed to perform less than 20% of the work will not be evaluated.

(c) Recency: Recency is defined as performance occurring within the last three (3) years of the date of this solicitation issuance. Performance that is more recent will have more impact than less recent performance.

(d) Relevancy: Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving requirements that are similar or greater in scope and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation. Relevancy will be assigned ratings of Very Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, and Not Relevant. The Government will give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFP. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor. The following relevancy rating definitions will be used in the assessment of relevancy:

(e) Performance: Performance information may be obtained from the references on each project submitted. The Government may also obtain performance data from other sources.

1) In addition to evaluating the extent to which the offeror’s performance meets basic contract PWS and Technical requirements, the assessment will consider things such as the offeror’s history of forecasting and controlling costs, adhering to schedules, (including the administrative aspects of performance), reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction, and generally, the offeror’s business-like concern for the interest of the customer.

2) Where relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent projects or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and evaluate their effectiveness.

3) The following performance rating definitions will be used in the assessment of performance:

PERFORMANCE

RATING

DEFINITION

Exceptional

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory

Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

4) The PCAG will integrate the recency, relevancy and performance on all the efforts evaluated for the offeror; the integration will result in a performance confidence assessment rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence as defined below for the offeror. 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 shall receive the rating of “Unknown Confidence”, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

5) The following performance confidence assessment definitions will be used in the assessment of performance confidence:

D. After initial evaluation of each offeror’s technical and price proposals, and assessment of each offeror’s past performance, if the lowest priced offeror (by TEP) is determined technically acceptable with a reasonable price, is determined responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104, and has a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment, evaluations will stop at this point without consideration of any other offers as this represents the best value to the Government and award will be made to that offeror.

E. If the lowest priced offeror (by TEP) does not have a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment, the next lowest priced, technically acceptable, reasonably priced and responsible offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by TEP) until an offeror is judged to have a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment or until all offers are evaluated. The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision unless it is in the Government’s best interest to conduct discussions.

F. The government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. If the government elects to hold discussions, a competitive range will be established based on FAR 15.306(c) procedures and this solicitation. The government reserves the right to further 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. If the contracting officer determines that an offeror’s proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award. Written notice of this decision shall be provided to unsuccessful offerors in accordance with FAR 15.503. Offerors excluded or otherwise eliminated from the competitive range may request a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505 or 15.506.

G. After conclusion of discussions and receipt of final proposal revisions, the government will rank all offers by TEP. If the lowest priced offeror is determined technically acceptable with a reasonable price, is determined responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104, and has a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment, evaluations will stop at this point without consideration of any other offers as this represents the best value to the Government and award will be made to that offeror. If the lowest priced offeror does not have a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment, the next lowest priced, technically acceptable, reasonably priced and responsible offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by TEP) until an offeror is judged to have a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment or until all offers are evaluated. The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

H. Offerors shall submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Proposal Preparation Instructions. 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 performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Exchanges conducted with regard to adverse past performance, or to resolve minor or clerical errors, will not constitute discussions, and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

PAGE

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104