Attachment 12 - Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

Section M. Evaluation Factors for Award

1.0 SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This acquisition will utilize a Performance Price Tradeoff Source Selection Procedure, with technical acceptability to make an integrated assessment for best value award decisions. Tradeoffs will be made only between past performance and price among those offerors who have been determined technically acceptable for the Volume II Technical. Past performance will be considered significantly more important than price. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines the superior past performance of a technically acceptable higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference. Contracts shall be awarded to the offerors deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9 and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation's requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications and all other information required by evaluation factors of this request for proposal) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors to represent the best value to the Government. In this Performance Price Tradeoff process, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the trade-off between past performance and price. For all technically acceptable proposals, Past Performance will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than Price.

While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process by its nature is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions, therefore each initial offer should contain the Offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting

Officer to be necessary.

The Government intends to award up to five (5) active contracts and two (2) inactive contracts to SBA

Certified small businesses. The Government intends to reserve one active contract award for a WOSB and one active contract award for a SDVOSB. Proposals may only be submitted by Small Business firms, registered in the North American Industrial Classification System Code (NAICS) of 236220.

1.2 DISCUSSIONS

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. 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, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, 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. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the

Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal

Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal

Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk to the offeror’s proposal that may change the rating of the offeror’s proposal.

1.3 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

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. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

The proposal shall present a complete, coherent presentation of team abilities as applicable.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS.

2.1 Evaluation Factors.

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

Factor 1 – Technical

Subfactor 1 - Executive Summary

Subfactor 2 - Seed Project

Subfactor 3 - Management Plan and Qualifications

Factor 2 – Past Performance

Factor 3 - Price

2.3 Factor 1 – Technical

The Government will evaluate all Technical Proposals for acceptability. Factors will be evaluated and assigned an "acceptable" or "unacceptable" rating as described below. Any factor evaluated as

"unacceptable" will render the entire proposal "unacceptable" and ineligible for award.

For the purposes of technical evaluation, the term “offeror” will include any proposed teaming arrangements. The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below. For the technical proposal to be rated as “Acceptable”, the contractor must demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirements of the NC2 program. If any portion of the technical proposal is “Unacceptable” the overall proposal will be rated as “Unacceptable.” Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be evaluated for Past Performance. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE / UNACCEPTABLE RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable

The proposal meets specified minimum requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance.

Unacceptable The proposal fails to meet specified minimum requirements necessary for contract performance.

2.3.1 Subfactor I – Executive Summary

Description: The executive summary should at a minimum address the offeror’s key technical, performance and management features in regards to performing the requirements of the solicitation. The purpose of this section is to provide the Government evaluators with a clear and concise introduction to the content and structure of the Technical proposal. This should be a "big picture" explanation and provide the Offeror’s overall approach and supporting rationale for the technical performance/management of the NC2 requirements.

The standard has been met when: The offeror submits an executive summary that addresses key technical, performance and management features that provide the Government evaluators a clear and concise introduction to the content and structure of the Technical proposal. This should be a "big picture" explanation and provide the Offeror’s overall approach and supporting rationale for the technical performance/management of the NC2 requirements.

2.3.2 Subfactor 2 – Seed Project

Description:

a. Offeror shall provide a solution to the Seed Project Repair Building Exterior, Bldg. 2792, JBSA-Ft. Sam Houston. The offeror must provide a detailed project schedule, a detailed work breakdown structure (WBS) and a redacted Basis of Estimate. The Seed Project deliverables must demonstrate a clear understanding of all tasks and elements of work required to complete the project.

b. Project Schedule: Submit a detailed project schedule. The schedule must show major measurable line items of the construction project, the percentage/value each line item represents in the total proposal cost and a timeline of when each line item is scheduled to be completed.

c. Work Breakdown Structure (WBS): Provide a detailed work breakdown structure for the entire seed project. This analysis must identify the elements of work, labor mixes, materials, equipment and labor hours to complete the project. The WBS must demonstrate a clear and concise approach, which the Prime Contractor and Teaming Partners will use to complete the seed project.

d. Basis of Estimate: Provide a complete basis of estimate for the seed project that identifies the elements of work, labor mixes, materials, equipment and labor hours to complete the project.

The estimate should show detailed listing of RS Means line item numbers, description of items, units of measure, quantity of units required, and REDACTED unit costs/total cost.

The standard has been met when: The offeror proposes a solution that reflects a thorough understanding of the requirements of the seed project as evidenced by the Schedule, WBS and redacted

Basis of Estimate.

2.3.3 Subfactor 3 – Management Plan and Qualifications

Description:

a. The offeror shall summarize their overall management plan/approach. This plan shall include the offerors overall management approach with regard to organization, coordination, development, monitoring and control of the construction process. The plan shall also describe the offeror’s local site office organization with regard to levels of management, supervisory experience, personnel authority, and specific positions required to manage requirements through project completion. The plan shall also describe the offeror’s material purchasing system and local capabilities. Describe how warranty/maintenance support will be handled by your organization. Describe interface with home/site office, subcontractor operations and construction teams. Describe interface and partnering with government project managers, contracting officials, inspectors, and users.

b. The offeror shall submit an organizational chart delineating the key functional areas within the Prime Contractor’s corporate structure and their relationships and interactions between the headquarters staff, and key field staff personnel as well as all teaming partners and subcontractors that depicts a systematic approach to manage all of the requirements in the project specifications as required.

c. Quality Control Plan: The offeror shall provide a general description of their quality control plan that outlines the offeror’s intended approach to provide quality control for the

NC2 program.

d. The offeror shall provide a personnel overview that shows offeror’s personnel have achieved the minimum qualifications. The contractor’s key personnel who will be involved in the day-to-day operations of this contract and subsequent task orders shall include, as a minimum, personnel qualified in the areas identified below. The following sub-paragraphs identify the minimum requirements, certifications, licenses, etc. required for personnel performing activities or acting in a specific capacity:

i. Program/Project Manager (PM): The Project Manager must have a minimum of 10 years of experience as a Project Manager or Superintendent on projects of similar size and complexity. The Project Manager is primarily responsible for the overall management of the project. The PM is the primary POC for the Contracting

Officer for all contractual issues with regards to project/program execution and is responsible for the overall management of this contract. The PM is to ensure that quality work is accomplished on schedule and qualified personnel and subcontractors are assigned to complete performance. It is the PM’s responsibility to ensure that contractor personnel and subcontractors possess the appropriate qualifications and experience to complete specified project tasks and that they comply with all statutes, regulations and the contract requirements. The PM shall have available and provide to the CO, upon request, all required employee or subcontractor certifications and qualifications.

ii. Project Superintendent(s): A Project Superintendent shall not manage multiple project across JBSA installations. The Project Superintendent can manage up to eight (8) projects at a single installation (Lackland includes Kelly Field Annex, Medina Annex (Chapman Annex), and Port Annex/Fort Sam Houston includes

Medical Center Annex and Grayson Street Annex/Randolph includes Sequin

Auxiliary Field and Canyon Lake). The project superintendent must have a minimum of 10 years’ experience in construction with at least 5 of those years as a superintendent on projects similar in size and complexity. The individual must be familiar with the requirements of Emergency Management (EM) Publication 385-

1-1 and have experience in the areas of hazard identification and safety compliance. The individual must be capable of interpreting a critical path schedule and construction drawings. The qualification requirements for the alternate superintendent are the same as for the project superintendent.

iii. Quality Control (QC) Manager: The contractor shall have a QC Manager with a minimum of three (3) years’ experience in construction and at least two (2) years of hands-on construction. The QC Manager must report to an officer of the firm and not be subordinate to the Project Superintendent or Project Manager.

iv. Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO): Provide an SSHO that meets the requirements of USACE EM 385-1-1 Section 1. The SSHO must ensure that the requirements of 29 CFR 1926.16 are met for all projects. Provide a Safety oversight team that includes a minimum of one (1) person at each project site to function as the Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO). The SSHO or an equally-qualified Alternate SSHO must be at the work site at all times to implement and administer the Contractor's safety program and government-accepted Accident

Prevention Plan. The SSHO and Alternate SSHO must have the required training, experience, and qualifications in accordance with USACE EM 385-1-1 Section

01.A.17, and all associated sub-paragraphs. The SSHO may also serve as the

Quality Control Manager. The SSHO may also serve as the Superintendent.

However, the SSHO may not serve as SSHO, Quality Control Manager and

Superintendent (all three positions) concurrently.

The standard has been met when: The offeror has submitted a comprehensive summary of overall management plan/approach; a complete organizational chart that depicts a systematic approach to manage all of the requirements of the NC2 program and delineates the key functional areas within the

Prime Contractor’s corporate structure as required; an acceptable Quality Control Plan and a personnel overview showing offeror’s personnel have achieved the minimum qualifications.

2.4 Factor 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Offerors shall provide adequate past performance information on completed or current contracts considered most relevant in demonstrating the ability to perform the proposed work as identified within the specifications. Offerors must provide recent and relevant past performance information. Offerors are required to explain what aspects of each contract are deemed relevant to complexity and magnitude as related to the requirements of this solicitation. Failure to provide required relevancy description may impact the integrated performance confidence assessment rating, (i.e. aspects of previous projects should match work elements identified in the Solicitation/specifications).

Offerors are cautioned that the Government will use data provided by the teaming partners as well as the prime contractor. The offeror shall provide no more than six (6) recent and relevant past performance references. The offeror shall provide at least two (2) recent and relevant past performance references from the prime contractor. The Government reserves the right to obtain data from other sources such as the

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and the Past Performance Information

Retrieval System (PPIRS), but it’s the responsibility of the offeror to provide no more than six (6) recent and relevant past performance references.

Lack of any past performance will not automatically disqualify an offeror, but it is a factor that is considered in the Best Value Subjective Tradeoff Source Selection described in this section. If the offeror claims there is no past performance, then that status must be identified to the Contracting Officer in the

Volume III Past Performance Summary Page.

In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror's Past Performance Proposal Volume and information obtained from any and all sources, including sources outside the Government. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and/or similar systems, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of contractors who are part of the partnership or joint venture identified in the Offerors proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract

Reporting System and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror. The Government will consider the recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the Offeror's performance. This evaluation is separate and distinct from the

Contracting Officer's responsibility determination. The assessment of the Offeror's past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the Offeror's probability to successfully meet the requirements of the

RFP.

2.4.1 – Recency

Provide a summary of previous/current contracts not to exceed one (1) page of past performance information per reference. The summary should explain what aspects of each contract are deemed recent as related to the requirements of this solicitation. The Government will only consider recent performance on a project effort completed within the last three (3) years prior to the date of issuance of this solicitation. Ongoing projects may be used as long as they are at least 80% complete as of the date of issuance of this solicitation (A progress report signed by a Government Contracting Officer or equivalent must be provided to prove actual completion percentage).

(i) The summary should not exceed 1 page per reference and include:

(A) Name of project (Contract number, if applicable)

(B) Name and address of customer or Government agency

(C) Name, telephone, fax number and/or email of customer contact or contracting officer

(D) Dollar value

(E) Period of performance/Completion date

(F) Brief description of work completed

Recency Assessment - An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been completed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Ongoing projects may be used as long as they are at least 80% complete as of the date of issuance of this solicitation (A progress report signed by a Government Contracting Officer or equivalent must be provided to prove actual completion percentage). Any effort that is deemed “not recent” will not be evaluated further. A Recency Assessment will be assigned for each evaluated effort as described below:

PAST PERFORMANCE RECENCY RATINGS

Recent Presented past performance effort is ongoing or has been completed during the past three (3) years.

Not Recent

Presented past performance effort is not ongoing and or has not been performed during the past three (3) years.

2.4.2 Relevance

Description: Provide a summary of previous/current contracts not to exceed two (2) pages of past performance information per reference. The Summary should explain what aspects of each contract are deemed relevant as related to the requirements of this solicitation. Relevant past performance information must demonstrate construction experience managing concurrent projects with similar scope and complexity of NC2 requirements. In determining relevance, consideration will be given to program similarity, project complexity, technical diversity, contract/subcontract management, schedule, and magnitude. Project work elements include renovation, alteration and repair, and construction. This information may include data on efforts performed by teaming partners, if such resources will significantly influence the performance of the proposed effort.

(i) The summary should not exceed 2 pages per reference and include:

(A) Name of project/program (Contract number, if applicable)

(B) Name and address of customer or Government agency

(C) Name, telephone, fax number and/or email of customer contact or contracting officer

(D) Dollar value

(E) Period of performance/Completion date

(F) Brief description of work completed, and why the effort is relevant

(G) Comments regarding any known performance deemed unacceptable to the customer, or not in accordance with the contract terms and conditions, any mitigating circumstances and any corrective actions taken.

Relevance Assessment - The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all performance information obtained to determine how closely the work performed under those contracts relate to this solicitation. Relevant past performance information must demonstrate construction experience managing concurrent projects with similar scope and complexity of NC2 requirements

The Government may consider as relevant, efforts performed for agencies of federal, state, or local governments and commercial customers.

The Government will use the following degrees of relevance when assessing each contract/task order referenced:

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCE RATINGS

Very Relevant

The past performance effort involved demonstrates the offerors ability to manage at least six (6) concurrent contracts/task orders of similar scope and complexity with an aggregate value equal to or greater than $2.8M annually.

Relevant ability to manage at least four (4) concurrent contracts/task orders of similar scope and complexity with an aggregate value

$1.5M to $2.79M annually.

Somewhat Relevant ability to manage at least two (2) concurrent contracts/task orders of similar scope and complexity with an aggregate value of $500K to $1.49M annually.

Not Relevant

The past performance effort involved fails to demonstrate the offerors ability to manage concurrent contracts/task orders of similar scope and complexity.

2.4.3 Quality

The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the Past Performance Information Sheets, Past Performance Questionnaire responses, CPARS or similar systems, interviews with Government customers and, if applicable, commercial clients.

The offeror shall provide a complete Present/Past Performance Information (PPI) Sheet for each reference

(see Section J, Attachment 17). All information provided in the Present/Past Performance Information

Sheet should be recent and relevant.

The Government will use the PPIs to coordinate the completion of a Past Performance Questionnaire

(PPQ) with each reference (see Section J, Attachment 18). It is the responsibility of the offeror to provide past performance references that are current with the correct contact information.

The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in the Offeror's ability to successfully perform the requirements of this effort. The Past Performance evaluation considers the Offeror's demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet the users' needs.

Quality is assessed after evaluating aspects of the Offeror's recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to this requirement. Particular attention will be paid to the following areas which are addressed in the Past/Present Performance Questionnaire and Contractor Performance

Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation data: Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, Management, and Regulatory Compliance, as well as Safety/Labor Compliance. IAW FAR 15.306 Exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals, if award will be made without conducting discussions, offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond.

Quality Assessment – The Government will consider the performance quality of recent and relevant efforts. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, CPARS or similar systems, interviews with Government customers and, if applicable, commercial clients. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements.

Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

The evaluation is based on Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, Management, and Regulatory Compliance provided in the Past Performance Information worksheet, as well as Safety/Labor Compliance performance record. Factor III Quality will receive one of the below Past Performance Quality Ratings:

PAST PERFORMANCE QUALITY RATINGS

Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance 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 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 being assessed contains 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 being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s proposed 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 being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Not Applicable Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect, performance was not observed, or information was not available.

2.5 Integrated Performance Confidence Assessment

Assigning Ratings - As a result of the recency, relevance and quality assessments of the references provided, offerors will receive an Integrated Performance Confidence Assessment Rating (see table below). There is no order of precedence between recency, relevance and quality. Collectively, past performance factors will be evaluated to comprise the Integrated Performance Confidence Assessment

Rating. This analysis is subjective in nature but the Government intends to identify the offerors with recent, relevant and quality past performance.

In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and receive a rating of “Unknown/Neutral.” A rating of "Substantial Confidence" or "Satisfactory

Confidence" past performance may be determined a better value than an "Unknown/Neutral Confidence" past performance rating in this best value tradeoff solicitation.

Integrated Performance

Confidence Assessment

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.

Unknown/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.

2.6 Factor 3 – Price

Provide a complete basis of estimate for the Seed Project that identifies the elements of work, labor mixes, materials, equipment and labor hours to complete the project. The estimate should show detailed listing of RS Means line item numbers, description of items, units of measure, quantity of units required, and unit costs. Additionally, the basis of estimate shall provide actual rates (i.e. profit, overhead, labor burden, bonding, City Cost Index) and the proper application of these rates to derive at the proposal grand total. This basis of estimate will be used to evaluate the Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

3. PERFORMANCE PRICE TRADEOFF WITH TECHNICAL EVALUATION PROCESS

3.1 Factors

Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the

Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described at paragraph 2.1 of this section.

3.2 Order of Importance

In this Performance Price Tradeoff process, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the trade-off between past performance and price. For all technically acceptable proposals, Past Performance will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than Price.

3.3 Evaluation/Tradeoff Methodology

The Government shall evaluate offers to identify the best value to the government for award according to the below steps. The specific steps for evaluations/tradeoff are as follow:

Step 1: Completeness – The Government will review Volume I for completeness. The

Contracting Officer may conduct clarifications to address the completeness of Volume I deliverables. It is the offeror’s responsibility to verify the executed contract documentation and supporting documentation meet the requirements of Sections L & M of this solicitation.

Step 2: Evaluate Technical Acceptability – Proposals that are determined complete and meet the requirements of the Terms & Conditions of the solicitation will then be evaluated for technical acceptability of the Volume II Technical. In the absence of discussions, if a proposal is deemed technically unacceptable, it will be eliminated and past performance will not be evaluated. Thus the proposal will be eliminated from competition.

Step 3: Evaluate Past Performance – For proposals found technically acceptable in Step 2, the respective Past Performance Information will be evaluated and assigned an "Integrated Performance

Confidence Assessment" rating. Only offerors rated Substantial, Satisfactory or Unknown/Neutral on the

Integrated Performance Confidence Assessment" will then be evaluated for price.

Step 4: Evaluate Price – Proposals found technically acceptable and that have received a

Substantial, Satisfactory or Unknown/Neutral Past Performance Rating will then be reviewed for fair and reasonable pricing IAW 15.404-1(b)(2)(i), on the seed project based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

The TEP is the aggregate dollar amount for the seed project. If the proposed price is deemed fair and reasonable the proposal will be deemed eligible for further evaluation. Proposals not determined fair and reasonable will not be evaluated further.

Step 5: Categorize – All proposals eligible for further evaluation will then be ranked from lowest to highest in their respective socioeconomic/small business categories, according to TEP.

Step 6: Source Selection Team Decision – At this point, the WOSB offerors will be evaluated by the Source Selection Team which will make a comprehensive determination if it is in the best interest of the Government to consider a performance price tradeoff. Once an apparent WOSB awardee has been identified, all remaining proposals eligible for a SDVOSB award will be evaluated in the same manner as the WOSBs. Once an apparent SDVOSB awardee has been identified, all proposals not chosen as an apparent awardee in the first two socioeconomic categories will then be evaluated in the

Small Business category in the same manner as the WOSBs and SDVOSBs. The Government reserves the right to trade up for an offeror with a higher TEP that has been assigned a higher Integrated

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating within each socioeconomic/small business category. The

Source Selection Authority will conduct an independent, integrated, comparative assessment to determine which offerors meet the Government requirements of technical acceptability, provide the greatest confidence of past performance, and have a total evaluated price that represents the best value to the

Government.

Step 7: Source Selection Authority's Decision for IDIQ Contracts – Once best value

Offerors are determined, the offerors are eligible for NC2 awards. The Government may award up to five

(5) active IDIQ basic contracts to the five (5) highest rated offerors. Of the 5 highest rated offerors, one will be a WOSB and one will be a SDVOSB. The remaining top two (2) offerors will then receive inactive IDIQ basic contracts. The inactive pool of contractors are ineligible for task order participation until they are on-ramped IAW Section G of the resulting contracts.