FA4417-13-R-0018_Amend_03.pdf

FTEV 12-1082

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this Amendment is to extend the proposal due date, correct evaluation criteria.

1. CHANGE SF 1442, Block 13 A. PROPOSAL DUE DATE FROM: "2:00 PM local time 12 Aug 2013" TO: 2:00 PM local time 14 Aug 2013".

2. CHANGE SF 1442, Block 13 B. FROM: "An offer guarantee IS required" TO: An offer guarantee IS NOT required".

3. CHANGE SF 1442, Block 13 D FROM: Offers providing less than 49 calendar days" TO: Offers providing less than 47 calendar days".

4. Section I, Clause 52.228-1, Bid Guarantee is deleted in its entirety.

5. Section L, Clause HF021 - Proposal Preparation Instructions, paragraph (2)(a) deleted references to requirement for a construction schedule.

6. Section M, Clause HF022 - Evaluation Criteria for Award, paragraph (2)(a) deleted references to evaluation of a construction schedule.

7. All other items remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 10

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 07-Aug-2013

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X FA4417-13-R-0018

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

11-Jul-2013

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer X is extended, is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE

RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

07-Aug-2013

CODE

1 SOCONS

350 TULLY ST.

HURLBURT FIELD FL 32544

FA4417 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA4417-13-R-0018

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The offer guarantee has changed from is required to is not required.

The required response date/time has changed from 12-Aug-2013 02:00 PM to 14-Aug-2013 02:00 PM.

The offeror acceptance period has decreased by 2 from 49 to 47.

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been deleted:

52.228-1 Bid Guarantee SEP 1996

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

HF021 PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

(1) General 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 subfactors.

Offerors must clearly identify any exception to solicitation terms and conditions and provide accompanying rationale.

(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) The following instructions are to aid in the evaluation process. Proposals shall be complete, comprehensive and clearly presented, as detailed in section M of this solicitation. Proposals shall be neat, indexed

(cross-indexed as appropriate) and assembled in an orderly manner. Elaborate artwork, expensive paper/binding, and expensive visual and other presentation aids are neither necessary nor desired. All pages of each part shall be appropriately numbered and identified with the Request for Proposal (RFP) number. Include only information that is relevant to this source selection. Pages in excess of the maximum will be removed from the proposal and will not be evaluated. For the purposes of formatting, a page is defined as one face of an 8 ½” X 11” sheet of paper containing information and typing shall not be less than 12 pitch. Double-sided pages are acceptable and counted as

2 pages).

(d) A complete proposal shall consist three (3) sections: Section I, Technical Proposal; Section II, Past

Performance; and Section III, Price Proposal/Executed RFP Documents, and Teaming Agreement (if applicable).

Offerors shall submit one (1) original proposal, including all three sections, and one additional copy of Section I, Technical Proposal (sanitized with CAGE code only), and Section III, Price Proposal/Executed RFP Documents and

Teaming Agreement (if applicable).

(2) Specific Instructions.

(a) Section I – Technical Proposal. Submit original and one (1) copy (sanitized with CAGE code only)

(i) Each offeror’s technical proposal must address the following:

(1) Submitting a copy of the commissioning agent’s certification, current/active.

(2) List of current and past projects (last three years) showing evidence of commissioning multiple projects. All references for work not performed within three (3) years of the issue month of the solicitation will not be evaluated.

(ii) Failure to submit the required documents will result in immediate elimination from competition.

(b) Section II—Past Performance. Submit originals only, maximum of 10 total references.

Offerors shall provide past performance information on completed or current contracts (including Federal, State, local government and private) to demonstrate their ability to perform the proposed work as identified within the Specifications. Offerors must provide past performance information to establish Recency and

Relevancy on all Federal contracts before State, local government or private contracts. The Government’s evaluation of past performance information will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub contractors that will perform major or critical aspects (See Teaming Agreements, paragraph (d)), when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition.

(i) Recency is defined as projects performed in within the last three years of the issue month of the solicitation. All references for work not performed within three (3) years of the issue month of the solicitation will not be evaluated.

(ii) Relevancy is defined as Projects involving the type of construction and work elements described in the attached specifications, Section 01010, paragraphs 1.02 and 1.03, and cost within project magnitude as specified in the RFP, Block 10 of SF 1442.

(iii) Offerors shall complete Section A, Contractor Information, of Attachment 4, Past/Present

Performance Questionnaire and mail, fax or email the attached Past/Present Performance Questionnaire to all past performance references listed below and instruct them to return the completed questionnaire to the individual(s) indicated in paragraph (3)(b)(v) below. Evaluators are only allowed to use the Attachment 4, Past

Performance Questionnaire. Altered or substituted questionnaires will not be evaluated. Also, Past

Performance Questionnaires will only be accepted from Project Owners or their authorized representatives.

Past Performance Questionnaires will not be accepted from Prime Contractors, Subcontractors, or

Manufacturers. Offerors are responsible to ensure questionnaires are transmitted to their references, and to indicate which references the questionnaire was sent to (see paragraph (3)(b)(v) below).

(a) In lieu of a Past/Present Performance Questionnaire, if a project is currently available in the

Construction Contractor’s Appraisal Support System (CCASS), the contractor should attach the evaluation to the questionnaire with the relevant solicitation number and submit directly to the 1 st Special Operations

Contracting Squadron office before the official closing date and time.

(iv) If Teaming Agreements are contemplated, the teaming members must provide complete information as to relevant and recent past performance information on previous teaming agreements. If this is a first time teaming effort, each party to the teaming agreement must provide information on all relevant contracts as specified in paragraph (2)(b). The maximum number of past performance for each teaming member shall not exceed a total of 10 references. See additional requirements for Teaming Agreements in paragraph (2)(d).

(v) Inform your references that they shall forward questionnaires directly to the address below.

Questionnaires must be received in the 1 st Special Operations Contracting Squadron office not later than the closing date of the solicitation. Offerors are responsible for ensuring their references transmit the questionnaire to the Contracting Office.

1 SOCONS/LGCB

Attention: Kevin Wesolowski and Tina Kneip

350 Tully St, Bldg 90339

Hurlburt Field, FL 32544-5810

Fax: (850) 884-1272 (Attention: Kevin Wesolowski and Tina Kneip)

Email: kevin.wesolowski@hurlburt.af.mil and tina.kneip@hurlburt.af.mil

(vi) Offerors are required to provide a summary of each past performance reference, with a maximum of 10 total references. The summary should explain what aspects of each contract are deemed recent and relevant as related to the requirements of this solicitation and in accordance with Section M. Failure to provide required relevancy description may impact the confidence rating, (i.e. aspects of previous projects should match work elements identified in the solicitation/specification). The summary should not exceed 1 page per reference

(maximum total of 10 pages) and include:

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

(2) Name and address of customer or Government agency

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

(4) Dollar value

(5) Period of performance/Completion date

(6) Brief description of work performed and relevance to proposed work efforts

(7) Comments regarding any known performance deemed unacceptable to the customer, or not in accordance with the contract terms and conditions

(vii) Lack of any past performance will not automatically disqualify an offeror, but it is a factor that is considered in the Price Performance Trade-Off (PPT) technique described in Section M.

(viii) If the offeror claims there is no past performance, then status must be identified to the contracting officer not later than the date/time proposals are due from all offerors.

(ix) The government shall consider past performance information on contracts obtained from any other sources when evaluating the offeror’s past performance.

(c) Section III – Price/Cost Proposal and Financial Questionnaire. Submit the Standard Form 1442 and all pages originally included in the RFP. Submit original and one (1) copy.

(i) Complete blocks 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, and 20a-c of the SF 1442, Solicitation, Offer, and Award. An authorized official of the firm submitting the offer must sign and date the SF 1442 in block 20a-c. (In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP, Sections A through K).

(ii) Complete the necessary fill-ins (SF 1442, Block 10 Continuation Page)

(iii) Insert proposed prices in Section B for each Contract Line Item.

(iv) Complete certifications in Section K or Online Certifications and Representations (ORCA).

mailto:kevin.wesolowski@hurlburt.af.mil mailto:tina.kneip@hurlburt.af.mil

(d) Section III – Teaming Agreements (include only if applicable). Submit original and one (1) copy of signed Teaming Agreement.

(i) If Teaming Agreements are contemplated they must comply with the appropriate Federal

Regulations (13 C.F.R. Part 121 (Size Regulations), Part 124 (8(a) & SDB), Part 125 (Government

Contracting Programs), and/or Part 126 (HUBZone). The Government will recognize the integrity and validity of contractor teaming agreements; provided, the agreements are identified and company relationships are fully disclosed in an offer. Teaming agreements will be incorporated into the contract.

Failure to clearly define roles and/or provide a teaming agreement with a proposal shall make teaming agreements and related subcontractor past performance ineligible for evaluation and consideration of award. Teaming Agreements must provide the following information as part of their proposal (Section III) not later than the date/time proposal are due:

(a) Clearly establish roles of each party (who is prime and who is subcontractor, who is responsible for what tasks, contract administration, proposals, work management, etc

(b) Provide for protection of competition-sensitive proprietary information. (subcontractor past performance cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor’s consent.

Provide 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, only if it is being used as part of the past performance evaluation.

(c) Identify each member’s share of the prospective contract, 50/50, 51/49, etc.

(d) Exclusivity. Assurance that the team member will not be replaced for the duration of the contract, any exceptions should be identified. Assurance that the team members are not teaming with another firm for the same procurement.

(e) Statement of acknowledgement that the Prime Contractor is responsible for adhering to contract terms and conditions and daily management. The Prime Contractor is obligated to negotiate in good faith and responsible for conveying mandatory government terms and conditions to subcontractors.

(f) The prime contractor shall remain fully responsible for contract performance, regardless of any teaming agreement between the prime contractor and its subcontractors.

(3) Relationship between Instructions and Evaluation. Your attention is directed to the functional relationship between Sections L and M of this solicitation. Section L provides information for the purpose of organizing the proposal and is not intended to be all inclusive. Section M describes evaluation factors for award. The Government evaluation of proposals will cover areas identified in Section M, proposals should address all such areas of evaluation.

(4) Amendment of Solicitation Prior to Closing. The government reserves the right to revise or amend the specifications, drawings, or the solicitation prior to the proposal closing time. Such reservations or amendments will be communicated by amendments to the Request for Proposal (RFP) and posted in Fedbizops (www.FBO.gov). If such amendments require material changes in quantities or prices, the proposal closing date may be postponed by enough days to enable offerors to revise their proposals. In such cases, the amendment will include an announcement of the new closing date and time. Offerors MUST acknowledge all amendments in their proposal, either by completing SF 1442 Block 18, or providing signed copies of the amendments with their proposal (Section

III).

(5) Questions. All questions regarding this solicitation must be submitted in writing no later than 5 calendar days after the site visit. All questions received prior to RFP closing date and subsequent answers will be posted to the

Federal Business Opportunities website www.fbo.gov. It is the responsibility of the contractor to continuously monitor the site for updates. To mitigate the risks associated with the cancellation of this solicitation due to untimely submission of questions, all questions must be submitted to the individual(s) listed below no later than close of business 5 calendar days after the site visit. Any questions submitted after this period may not be answered.

Fax: (850) 884-1272 (Attention: Kevin Wesolowski and Tina Kneip) http://www.fbo.gov/

Email: kevin.wesolowski@hurlburt.af.mil and tina.kneip@hurlburt.af.mil

The following have been deleted:

HF021 PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS MAR 2012

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT

HF022 EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR AWARD

(IAW FAR 15.204-5(c))

For price evaluation purposes only, the offeror’s price will be ranked by adding the total of all contract line item numbers (CLINs). Evaluation of the CLINs will not obligate the Government to award all CLINs. In the best interest of the government, the Government reserves the right to award all, some, or none of the CLINs.

(1) Basis for Award:

(a) This is a competitive best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Supplement

(DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Supplement (AFFARS). 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. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable.

(b) This acquisition will utilize a best value approach, in which the Government seeks to award to an offeror who provides the greatest confidence that they will meet the Government’s requirements affordably. The

Best Value technique chosen for this particular acquisition will be Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT). The PPT approach permits tradeoffs between price/cost and past performance, and includes evaluation for technical acceptability. Contract award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements, is considered technically acceptable, and provides the best value to the Government, considering price and past performance. For this acquisition, past performance is significantly more important than price/cost.

The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

(2) Technical Evaluation. Initially, offers shall be evaluated independently of the cost/price proposal evaluation to determine the offerors compliance with the technical requirements of this solicitation. The government may make a final determination as to the rating of an offer based on the proposal as submitted without requesting any further information. Offerors proposals will be evaluated against the following factors:

(b) In accordance with Section L, Clause HF021, each technical proposal will be evaluated against the following requirements:

mailto:kevin.wesolowski@hurlburt.af.mil mailto:tina.kneip@hurlburt.af.mil

(i) Submitting a copy of the commissioning agent’s certification, current/active.

(ii) List of current and past projects (last three years) showing evidence of commissioning multiple projects. All references for work not performed within three (3) years of the issue month of the solicitation will not be evaluated.

(c) Evaluators shall assign a rating of ACCEPTABLE OR UNACCEPTABLE based on the minimum requirements established above.

(i) ACCEPTABLE – Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

(ii) UNACCEPTABLE – Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

(iii) If all offerors are deemed unacceptable, the government may establish a competitive range and enter into discussions.

(iv) Failure to submit the required documents will result in immediate elimination from competition.

(3) Price/Cost Evaluation and Teaming Agreements (if applicable).

(a) Only offerors determined to be technically acceptable shall be ranked according to price, including any option prices (if applicable) using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404. Each offeror’s price will be evaluated to determine if it is reasonable and realistic.

(i) Reasonable – Must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business.

(ii) Realistic – Evaluation of the extent to which proposed costs are sufficient for the work to be performed, reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements, and consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal.

(iii) Unrealistically low proposed costs/prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement or the offeror has made an unrealistic proposal.

(b) Teaming Agreements must provide the following information as part of their proposal (Section III) not later than the date/time proposal are due:

(g) Clearly establish roles of each party (who is prime and who is subcontractor, who is responsible for what tasks, contract administration, proposals, work management, etc

(h) Provide for protection of competition-sensitive proprietary information. (subcontractor past performance cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor’s consent.

Provide 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, only if it is being used as part of the past performance evaluation.

(i) Identify each member’s share of the prospective contract, 50/50, 51/49, etc.

(j) Exclusivity. Assurance that the team member will not be replaced for the duration of the contract, any exceptions should be identified. Assurance that the team members are not teaming with another firm for the same procurement.

(k) Statement of acknowledgement that the Prime Contractor is responsible for adhering to contract terms and conditions and daily management. The Prime Contractor is obligated to negotiate in good faith and responsible for conveying mandatory government terms and conditions to subcontractors.

(l) The prime contractor shall remain fully responsible for contract performance, regardless of any teaming agreement between the prime contractor and its subcontractors.

(4) Past Performance Evaluation.

(a) The government will evaluate the lowest priced proposal, determined to be technically acceptable.

Offerors shall provide information regarding past or current contracts (including Federal, State, local government, and private) for efforts similar to the Government requirement as stated in this solicitation through either questionnaires or evaluations from the Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS) as identified in

Section L paragraph (2)(b). The Government 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 (See Teaming Agreement, Section L, paragraph (2)(d) and

Section M paragraph (3)(b) when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. The Government may also evaluate information on problems identified and encountered on previous contracts and corrective actions taken by the offeror. The Government may use information previously obtained from past performance questionnaires or data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources in the evaluation process.

(b) In the event an Offeror submits a Past Performance Questionnaire and it is subsequently determined that the referenced project was formally evaluated in the CCASS, these ratings in CCASS shall take precedence.

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

Therefore, the offeror shall be rated as “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)”. However, as stated in Section L, paragraph (2)(b)(vii) it is a factor that is considered in the Price Performance Trade-off (PPT) technique.

(d) 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. Offerors may be asked to clarify or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond.

(e) Teaming Agreements, if applicable: Each teaming offeror’s past performance will be evaluated separately. The Prime Contractor’s past performance will be weighted slightly more than equal based on their overall responsibility for contract management. The separate ratings of each party in the Teaming Agreement will be combined to determine the Government’s overall evaluation of best value.

(f) The Government will evaluate the offerors ability to successfully complete projects based on demonstrated past and present experience that meet the requirements of Recent and Relevant.

(i) Recency is defined as contracts performed within three (3) years of the issue month of the solicitation.

(ii) Relevancy is defined as contracts involving:

(a) Projects involving the type of construction and work elements described in the attached Specifications, Section 01010, paragraphs 1.02 and 1.03.

(b) Cost within project magnitude, as specified in Block 10 of the SF 1442 (RFP).

(c) In evaluating past performance, relevant performance will have a greater impact on the

Performance Confidence Assessment than a less relevant effort. Between the subfactors of recency and relevancy, the government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFP.

(g) The following relevancy definitions, apply:

(i) VERY RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(ii) RELEVANT: Present/Past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(iii) SOMEWHAT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and

(iv) NOT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and

(h) Based on the evaluation of all recent and relevant past performance for an offeror an overall

Performance Confidence rating is assigned in accordance with FAR 15.305(a) (2). The Performance Confidence assessment represents the Government evaluation team's judgment of the probability of an offeror successfully accomplishing the proposed effort based on the offerors demonstrated past and presents performance.

The ratings are defined as follows:

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.

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.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE (Neutral): 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.

(5) Evaluation of Ratings. If the lowest priced evaluated offer has been determined technically acceptable and is judged to have a Substantial Confidence 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 further consideration of any other offers. If the lowest priced offeror, that is technically acceptable, is not judged to have a Substantial Confidence rating, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror is judged to have a Substantial Confidence rating or all offerors are evaluated. The Source Selection

Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

(6) Contractor Responsibility. Once the apparent successful offeror is selected the government will evaluate the offeror’s financial capabilities. In the case of a Teaming Agreement, the financial capabilities of both teaming partners will be evaluated, with the Prime Contractor’s financial capability carrying significantly more weight than the subcontractor’s. Attachment 5, Financial Reference Worksheet will be forwarded to the financial institution and a determination will be made regarding the apparent successful offerors financial capabilities.

(7) Clarifications, Discussions, and Negotiations. The Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions with offerors. Therefore, the offerors initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. In accordance with FAR 15.306, Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, relevance of past performance information). Communications

(Clarifications) conducted 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. However, the

Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary.

Discussions or negotiations may be conducted with all offerors in the competitive range. Offerors may be required to participate in telephone discussions or in face-to-face oral discussions at the 1 st Special Operations Contracting

Squadron, 350 Tully Street, Hurlburt Field, FL.

(End of Summary of Changes)