FA4452-12-R-0003 Amendment 3.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM 52.212-1 & 52.212-2

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 – INSTRUCTIONS TO OFERORS – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

1.0 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 the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The response shall consist of three separate parts; Part I - Price Proposal, Part II - Technical Proposal, and Part III - Past Performance Information. Non-conformance with the instructions provided in this ITO may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

(b) The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the government's requirements but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume that the government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror's proposal.

(c) Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed art work, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

(d) 52.212 (c), Period for Acceptance of Offers is tailored as follows: The offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm until time of award or completion of any protests unless otherwise withdrawn.

(e) In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.8 (Government Contract Files), the government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals. Unless the offeror requests otherwise, the government will destroy extra copies of such unsuccessful proposals.

(f) The contracting officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial proposals, the contracting officer will review this determination and if, in the contracting officer's opinion, adequate price competition exists no additional data 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 price data to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine the reasonableness and affordability of the price.

2.0 Omitted

2.1 General Information

2.1.1. Point of Contact

The Contracting Officer (CO) and the Contract Specialist (CS) are the sole point of contact for this acquisition. Address any questions or concerns you may have to the CO or CS. Written requests for clarification may be sent to the CS at the address located in the SF1449 block 7 of the model contract/solicitation. All questions shall be submitted NLT 1 PM CDT on 21 June 12. Questions submitted after the established due date may not be addressed prior to the solicitation closing date.

2.1.2. Debriefings

If a competitive range is established, the CO will promptly notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range; whereupon, they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505. Offerors excluded from the competitive range may request a preaward debriefing or they may choose to wait until after the source selection decision to request a postaward debriefing. However, offerors excluded from the competitive range are entitled to no more than one debriefing for each proposal. The CO will notify unsuccessful offerors in the competitive range of the source selection decision in accordance with FAR 15.506. Upon such notification, unsuccessful offerors may request and receive a debriefing. Offerors desiring a debriefing must make their request in accordance with the requirements of FAR 15.505 or 15.506, as applicable.

2.1.3. Discrepancies

If an offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the CO in writing with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the offeror is asking the CO to consider as related to the omission or error. The offeror is reminded that the government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

2.1.4. Electronic Reference Documents

All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website at http://www.fedbizopps.gov. Potential offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real-time e-mail notifications when information has been posted to the website for this solicitation.

2.1.6 Communications

Exchanges of source selection information between government and offerors will be controlled by the CO. Email may be used to transmit such information to offerors only if the email can be sent and received encrypted and includes “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 & 3.104” in the Subject line.

2.2 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits

The offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table (Table 2.1 below). The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits and with the number of copies as specified in Table 2.1. The attachments identified in the table shall be separately bound in three-ring, loose-leaf binders, as necessary. The contents of each proposal volume are described in the ITO paragraph as noted in the table below:

Table 2.1 - Proposal Organization

Number

*Limit past performance volume to seven pages per past/present contract submitted. Complete a Past Performance Information Sheet (PPIS) (Attachment 1) for each contract.

2.2.1 Page Limitations

Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal and excess paper copies will be returned to the offeror as soon as practicable. Page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs). The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the offerors. Each page shall be counted except the following: cover pages, table of contents, list of table(s) and drawings, past performance consent letters and resumes/position descriptions.

2.2.1.1. Page Size and Format

(a) A page is defined as each face of a sheet of paper containing information. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages. Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, not including foldouts. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be no less than 12 point. Tracking, kerning, and leading values shall not be changed from the default values of the word processing or page layout software. Use at least 1 inch margins on the top and bottom and ¾-inch side margins. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. These page size and format restrictions shall apply to responses to ENs.

(b) Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed 11 x 17 inches in size. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume. Foldout pages may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams and schematics not for pages of text. For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 10 point.

2.2.2 Pricing Related Data

All pricing data shall be addressed ONLY in the Contract and Associated Information/Price Proposal section. Price trade‑off information, work hour estimates, and material kinds and quantities may be used in other volumes only as appropriate for presenting rationale for alternatives or design and trade‑off decisions.

2.2.4 Cross-Referencing

Each volume shall be written on a stand‑alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with a minimum of cross referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation which is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal.

2.2.5 Indexing

Each volume shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections.

2.2.6 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, and with an explanation for each. Glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

2.2.7 Binding and Labeling

Each volume of the proposal should be separately bound in a three-ring, loose leaf binder permitting the volume to lie flat when open. Staples shall not be used. A cover sheet should be bound in each book, clearly marked as to volume number, title, copy number, solicitation identification, and the offeror's name. The same identifying data should be placed on the spine of each binder. All unclassified document binders shall have a color other than red or other applicable security designation colors. Be sure to apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(e), Restriction on disclosure and use of data, and FAR 3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information.

2.3 Electronic Copies

The content and page size of electronic copies must be identical to the hard copies. For electronic copies, indicate on each CD the volume number and title. Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including subfactors, exhibits, annexes, and attachments, if any. The offeror shall submit all volumes in electronic format, using recordable CDs. Each volume shall be in a different directory on a CD. If files are compressed, the necessary decompression program must be included. The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office Word 2007, MS Office Excel 2007, MS Office Project 2007, and MS Office Power Point 2007, as applicable. In the event that hard copies and electronic copies of a proposal are submitted and if there are any discrepancies between the hard copies and the electronic copies of the proposal, the hard copies will be used for evaluation.

2.4 Distribution

The "original" proposal shall be identified. Proposals shall be addressed to the following and mailed or hand carried to:

HQ AMC/A7KQA

Attn.: Solicitation FA4552-12-R-0003

Attn.: Jennifer Gasparich

507 Symington Drive, Room W202

Scott AFB IL 62225-5022

3.0 Volume I – Contract and Associated Information/Price Proposal

3.1 Executive Summary (Section 1)

This section shall include a cover letter (letter of transmittal) and executive summary. The executive summary of the entire proposal should be concise, to include addressing significant risks, and highlighting any key or unique features, excluding price. The salient features should tie in with evaluation factors/subfactors. Any summary material presented here shall not be considered as meeting the requirements for any portions of other volumes of the proposal.

A master table of contents for the entire proposal shall be included in Section 1.

3.2 Contract Documentation (Section 2)

(a) RFP Standard Form 1449 - Offeror is required to complete blocks 17a,17b, 30a, 30b and 30c of the RFP, Standard Form 1449. By completing blocks, 17a, 17b, 30a, 30b and 30c of the Standard Form 1449 the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP. RFP Certifications – Complete and submit all required information (fill-ins, signatures, etc.) found in the provisions FAR 52.212-3 and DFARS 252.212-7000.

(b) SF 1449 Continuation Sheet –Price - The offeror shall insert its proposed price for each Firm Fixed Priced (FFP) CLIN in the spaces provided. Price shall reflect all prices associated with providing the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Support Services function. All prices shall be rounded off to the nearest whole dollar. The government has inserted Not to Exceed (NTE) amounts for Cost Reimbursable (CR) CLINs X002 and X003 and Firm Fixed Priced Level of Effort (FFP-LOE) CLIN X004. CLIN X005 will remain a Not Separately Priced (NSP) CLIN.

(c) Authorized Offeror Personnel - Provide the name, title, and telephone number of the company/division point of contact regarding decisions made with respect to your proposal and who can obligate your company contractually. Also, identify those individuals authorized to negotiate with the government.

(d) Company/Division Address, Identifying Codes, and Applicable Designations - Provide company/division's street address, county and facility code; CAGE code; DUNS code; TIN; size of business (large or small); and labor surplus area designation. This same information must be provided if the work for this contract will be performed at any other location(s). List all locations where work is to be performed and indicate whether such facility is a division, affiliate, or subcontractor, and the percentage of work to be performed at each location.

(e) Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements - Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as 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 the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Each exception shall be specifically related to each paragraph and/or specific part of the solicitation to which the exception is taken. Provide rationale in support of the exception and fully explain its impact, if any, on the performance, schedule, price, and specific requirements of the solicitation. This information shall be provided in the format and content of Table 7.2.

Table 7.2 - Solicitation Exceptions

Solicitation Document Page/ Paragraph Requirement/ Portion Rationale

Page and Paragraph

Numbers

why the requirement can/will not be met

3.3 Pricing Support Documentation (Section 3)

The offeror shall submit pricing information to support the completeness and reasonableness of their proposed prices for all CLINS. The pricing information submitted should fully support the PWS requirements for each major functional element specified in the PWS. A breakdown should also be provided which shows the skill mix, labor categories, position descriptions, and estimated fully burdened labor rates. Also, Information shall be segregated by the performance periods, individual performance locations, and then a total price for each MAJCOM as specified in solicitation Appendix 1 – EOD Locations and Equipment. Information shall also show the consolidated total price for performance.

Surge CLIN pricing shall only include the labor categories, position descriptions, and estimated fully burdened labor rates. The surge CLIN will be a FFP LOE CLIN and negotiated at time of requirement utilizing existing labor categories and rates.

3.4 Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9, Responsibility Information (Section 4)

The Offeror shall address in this section whether they meet items (a) through (d) of the general standards of responsibility as defined in FAR 9.104. Provide financial data to support company’s adequate financial resources and identify any current or previous government contracts to support establishment of a satisfactory performance record. Provide contact information for any contract identified. Also, identify cognizant Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) office and provide a point of contact.

4.0 Volume II - Technical Volume

4.1 General

The Technical Volume should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. Your responses will be evaluated against the Technical subfactors defined in FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation Factors for Award. Using the instructions provided below, provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology you would use for accomplishing/satisfying the PWS requirements. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. By your proposal submission, you are representing that your firm will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation. It is not necessary or desirable for you to tell us so in your proposal. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

4.2 Format and Specific Content

4.2.1 Technical

In the technical volume, address your technical solution for meeting or exceeding the government’s minimum performance or capability requirements of each technical subfactor.

4.2.2 Volume Organization

The Technical volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

(a) Table of Contents

(b) List of Table(s) and Drawings

(c) Glossary

(d) Project Plan

(e) Quality Control Plan

(f) Staffing Plan

4.2.2.1 Project Plan

1) Describe a detailed and effective approach to accomplish this requirement that ensures timely support for all functions as described in the PWS; Plan needs to describe the solution by function (i.e. Technical Support, EOD Technical Services Logistics Support, etc); 2) Include a description of the organizational structure and define the responsibilities of each organizational component as it relates to all functions as described in the PWS; and 3) Define the interrelationship between organizational components.

4.2.2.2 Quality Control Plan

1) The offeror’s quality control processes that will be used to implement effective procedures for early identification of non-conforming services to ensure services provided under the contract conform to the requirements of the solicitation; 2) The methodology for developing/using metrics to track performance trends; 3) The customer complaint methodology for communication with customers and resolution of complaints; 4) Corrective actions that will be taken to ensure timely acceptance/performance in accordance with the PWS; and 5) Partnering approach with the government to ensure mission objectives are met.

4.2.2.3 Staffing Plan

1) Provide a personnel matrix which identifies the personnel resources, including any teaming arrangements, they will use to fulfill the PWS requirements; 2) Provide a personnel matrix which properly correlates positions by labor category to the PWS tasks; 3) Identify the necessary key positions and provide resumes or position descriptions, which demonstrate requisite education, experience, security, or special skills needed to perform the intended PWS tasks; 4) Provide evidence of their capability to effectively recruit, train, and retain adequate personnel resources to sustain acceptable performance; and 5) Provide evidence of their capability to continue support during mission essential conditions.

5.0 Volume III - Past Performance

5.1 General

Each offeror shall submit a past performance volume with its proposal, containing past performance information in accordance with the PPIS format contained in Attachment. This information is required for the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners who are proposed to perform on this effort. Offerors are cautioned that the government will use data provided by each offeror in this volume and data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance.

Along with the information required in this paragraph, the offeror shall submit a consent letter executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the offeror so the offeror can respond to such information contained in Attachment 2. For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the offeror shall also submit a client authorization letter, authorizing release to the government of requested information on the offeror's performance contained in Attachment 3.

5.2 Early Proposal Information

As soon as practicable, offerors shall complete Section 1 of the attached Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment 4) and email it and the Past Performance Questionnaire Cover Letter (Attachment 5) to points of contact (POCs) the offeror has listed in the PPIS (Attachment 1). The POCs listed in the PPIS’s should represent the individuals most knowledgeable about the offeror’s performance on the indentified contract or program, such as the following: (1) Contracting Officer’s Representative; (2) Program/Project Manager; (3) Contracting Officer. The POCs will complete the questionnaires and forward them by email directly to the Contract Specialist, Jennifer Gasparich at jennifer.gasparich@us.af.mil. RESPONDENTS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRS SHALL NOT SEND THE COMPLETED INFORMATION SHEET BACK TO THE OFFEROR. Offerors shall not follow-up with the respondents to ensure they have completed the questionnaires. PPQs are requested to be submitted to the Contract Specialist 10 calendar days prior to the date set for receipt of proposals. The Contracting Officer will use discretion in accepting PPQs received after the requested date.

5.3 Relevant Contracts

Submit information in accordance with Attachment 1 Past Performance Information on no more than 10 total contracts from each offeror/team. Recent contracts are those that you consider most relevant in demonstrating your ability to perform the proposed effort. Also include information on at least 2 recent contracts performed by each of your teaming partners and significant subcontractors that you consider most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort. Include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance. For a description of the characteristics or aspects the government will consider in determining recency and relevance, see Addendum to 52.212-2 para C- Past Performance Assessment.

5.3.1 Specific Content

Offerors are required to explain what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate. This may include a discussion of efforts accomplished by the offeror to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risk. Merely having problems does not automatically equate to a limited or no confidence rating, since the problems encountered may have been on a more complex program, or an offeror may have subsequently demonstrated the ability to overcome the problems encountered. The offeror is required to clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. This may allow the offeror to be considered a higher confidence candidate. For example, submittal of quality performance indicators or other management indicators that clearly support that an offeror has overcome past problems is required. Categorize the relevant information into the specific Technical subfactors and Price factor used to evaluate the proposal.

5.3.2 Organizational Structure Change History

Many companies have acquired, been acquired by, or otherwise merged with other companies, and/or reorganized their divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc. In many cases, these changes have taken place during the time of performance of relevant past efforts or between conclusion of recent past efforts and this source selection. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to determine what past performance is relevant to this acquisition. To facilitate this relevancy determination, include in this proposal volume a "roadmap" describing all such changes in the organization of your company. A pamphlet or other commercial document describing such reorganizations may suffice. As part of this explanation, show how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts you identify for past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment. Since the government intends to consider past performance information provided by other sources as well as that provided by the offeror(s), your "roadmap" should be both specifically applicable to the efforts you identify and general enough to apply to efforts on which the government receives information from other sources.

5 Attachments:

1. PPIS

2. Consent Letter

3. Client Authorization Letter

4. PPQ

5. PPQ Cover Letter

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2 – EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive best value source selection in which past performance is significantly more important than price. By submission of its proposal, 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. All technically acceptable proposals shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. Failure to meet a requirement may result in a proposal being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

A. Technical Acceptability. Initially, the government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable. The proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactors:

1. Technical Approach:

a. Project Plan –The plan must:

1) Describe a detailed and effective approach to accomplish this requirement that ensures timely support for all functions as described in the PWS; plan needs to describe the solution by function (i.e. Technical Support, EOD Technical Services Logistics Support, etc).

2) Include a description of the organizational structure and define the responsibilities of each organizational component as it relates to all functions as described in the PWS.

3) Define the interrelationship between organizational components.

b. Quality Control Plan– The plan must specify:

1) The offeror’s quality control processes that will be used to implement effective procedures for early identification of non-conforming services to ensure services provided under the contract conform to the requirements of the solicitation.

2) The methodology for developing/using metrics to track performance trends.

3) The customer complaint methodology for communication with customers and resolution of complaints.

4) Corrective actions that will be taken to ensure timely acceptance/performance in accordance with the PWS.

5) Partnering approach with the government to ensure mission objectives are met.

c. Staffing Plan - The plan must:

1) Provide a personnel matrix which identifies the personnel resources, including any teaming arrangements, they will use to fulfill the PWS requirements.

2) Provide a personnel matrix which properly correlates positions by labor category to the PWS tasks.

3) Identify the necessary key positions and provide resumes or position descriptions, which demonstrate requisite education, experience, security, or special skills needed to perform PWS tasks.

4) Provide evidence of their capability to effectively recruit, train, and retain adequate personnel resources to sustain acceptable performance.

5) Provide evidence of their capability to continue support during mission essential conditions.

B. Price Evaluation. Next, the government shall rank all technically acceptable proposals by price, including any option prices if applicable. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in SF1449 by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number or Subcontract Line Item Number to confirm the extended amount for each. The price evaluation will document reasonableness and completeness of the proposed total evaluated price.

Completeness. The proposals and any supplemental information will be reviewed to determine the extent to which cost elements of the proposal have been addressed. The service provider’s price proposal and other information will be evaluated to ensure continuity and traceability of prices to the technical proposal and between the initial proposal and any revisions thereto. The review will determine the adequacy of the contractor’s proposal in addressing and fulfilling the solicitation requirements.

Reasonableness. The proposal and any supplemental information will be reviewed to determine the reasonableness of price and the contractor’s understanding of the work and ability to perform the solicitation requirements.

C. Past Performance Assessment.

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated past performance. The contracting officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information on all offerors based on (1) the past efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources.

1. Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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. Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the PWS, Technical subfactors, and Price factor. The government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. 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 other sources available to the government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

a. Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

b. Relevancy Assessment. The government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price factor. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). Past performance of prime contractor, teaming contractor and subcontractor will be evaluated in the aggregate with all being of equal importance to one another. 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 whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information sheet (PPIS) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts (DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4):

3. Offerors with no recent/relevant performance history or if the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating "unknown confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably (neutral).

4. In evaluating past performance, the government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFP.

5. If the lowest priced evaluated technically acceptable proposal is judged to have a “substantial confidence” performance confidence assessment, that proposal 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 proposals.

6. If the technically acceptable offer with the lowest evaluated price does not receive a substantial confidence performance confidence assessment rating, the next lowest priced offer will be evaluated for a substantial confidence performance confidence assessment. The evaluation process will continue until an offer that is technically acceptable receives a performance confidence assessment rating of substantial confidence or all offers are evaluated. At this point, the evaluation is complete and the SSA proceeds to the integrated best value assessment of the evaluated offerors.

D. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items.

E. Offeror’s may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal 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. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors are considered clarifications and will not constitute discussions. The contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without discussions and the opportunity for proposal revision.

F. 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.

G. 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.

(End of Summary of Changes)