Attachment_5_Sections_L_and_M.pdf

SECTION J- ATTACHMENT 5

SSP Attachment 3 - Section L

Section L - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors

NOTICE TO OFFERORS: Funds are not presently available for this effort. No award will be made under this solicitation until funds are available. The Government reserves the right to cancel this solicitation, either before or after the closing date for receipt of proposals. In the event the Government cancels this solicitation, the Government has no obligation to reimburse an offeror for any costs.

1.0 PROGRAM STRUCTURE AND OBJECTIVES

1.1 Budget/Funding Information

A Firm Fixed Price contract will be awarded in accordance with FAR 16.202. This contract type places upon the contractor maximum risk and full responsibility for all costs and resulting profit or loss. It provides maximum incentive for the contractor to control costs and perform effectively and imposes a minimum administrative burden upon the contracting parties.

2.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 The offeror's proposal must include all data and information requested by this Instructions to Offerors (ITO) and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Statement of Work (SOW). Non-conformance with the instructions provided in this ITO may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

2.1.1 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 or experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror's proposal.

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

2.1.3 The proposal acceptance period is specified on Standard Form 1442 (SF1442) block 13 of the solicitation. The offeror shall make a clear statement in block 17 of SF1442 that the proposal is valid through this date.

2.1.4 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.

2.2 General Information

2.2.1 Points of Contact

The Contracting Officer (CO) or the Contract Administrator (CA) will be points of contact for this acquisition. Address any questions or concerns you have to the CO or CA. Written requests for clarification may be sent to the CO or the CA at the address located on Standard Form 1442 block 7 of the solicitation.

2.2.2 Debriefings

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 pre-award debriefing or they may choose to wait until after the source selection decision to request a post-award 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.

2.2.3 Discrepancies

If an offeror believes that the requirement 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 offerors are reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions.

2.2.4 Electronic Reference Documents

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

2.2.5 Communications

Exchanges of source selection information between Government and offerors will be controlled by the CO and CA. Email may be used to transmit information only if the email can be sent encrypted and must include “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 & 3.104” in the subject line of the email. Otherwise, source selection information will be transmitted via USPS, FedEx, UPS, or pick-up by local representative. Contractors may and are encouraged to use AMRDEC Safe, https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/Welcome.aspx, to send all documents.

2.3 Proposals Submission Options

The offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table (Table 2.2 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 2.2. The contents of each proposal volume are described in the ITO paragraph as noted in the table below:

Table 2.2 - Proposal Organization

VOLUME

ITO

PARAGRAPH

NUMBER

VOLUME TITLE

PAGE LIMIT

I 3.0 Executive Summary 3 II 4.0 Technical 20 III 5.0 Past Performance 3 pages per contract IV 6.0 Price N/A V 7.0 Contract Documentation N/A

2.3.1 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 destroyed or returned to the offeror (if requested) 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, tables of contents, tabs, glossaries, or resumes.

2.3.1.1. Page Size and Format

Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, not including foldouts. Pages shall be single-spaced. 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. These limitations shall apply to electronic proposals.

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 by 17 inches in size. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume, and count as a single page. 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 8 point. These limitations shall apply to electronic proposals.

2.3.1.2. Pricing Related Data

All pricing information shall be addressed in Section B of the RFP/Solicitation.

2.3.1.3. Cross-Referencing

To the greatest extent possible, 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.

2.3.1.4. 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. Table of contents do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

2.3.1.5. 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.

2.3.1.6 CD Proposals

If proposals are sent via CD, the content and page size of electronic copies must be identical to the hard copies. Indicate on each CD the volume(s) number and title. Each volume, identified in Table

2.2 above, shall be in its own file, labelled accordingly. If files are compressed, the necessary decompression program must be included.

2.3.1.7 Email Proposals (Preferred Option)

If proposals are sent via email, one email will be sent containing all required documents. Each volume, identified in Table 2.2 above, shall be in its own file, labelled accordingly. Email size is limited to 5MB. If email is expected to be over 5MB, contact the CO/CA. Contractors may and are encouraged to use AMRDEC Safe, https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/Welcome.aspx, to send all documents as size restrictions are less limited.

2.3.1.8 Distribution

CD Proposals shall be addressed to the CO and mailed or hand carried to:

90th Contracting Squadron 7505 Barnes Loop, Building 208 Francis E. Warren AFB, WY 82005-2860 Solicitation Number: FA4613-19-R-A004

3.0. VOLUME I – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In the executive summary volume, the offeror shall provide the following information:

3.1. Narrative Summary

The narrative summary of the entire proposal should be concise, to include addressing the significant risks, and highlighting any key or unique features, excluding price. The salient features should tie in with Section M 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.

3.2. Table of Contents

Include a master table of contents of the entire proposal.

4.0. VOLUME II - TECHNICAL

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 Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award. Using the instructions provided below, provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology you would use for accomplishing/satisfying these subfactors.

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 the Government’s minimum performance and/or capability requirement for the following technical subfactor.

4.2.2. Volume Organization

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

(1) Table of Contents

(2) List of Table and Drawings

(3) Glossary

(4) Subfactor 1

(5) Subfactor 2

4.2.3. Subfactors

Subfactor 1: Provide a project that was performed and completed by the offerors company within the last three years where directional boring under an existing roadway or other infrastructure was used.

Subfactor 2: Provide a critical path schedule to meet SOW requirements within the stated period of performance

5.0. VOLUME III – PAST PERFORMANCE

5.1. General

Each offeror shall submit a past performance volume containing the prime contractor’s past performance information and all other data in accordance with sections 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4. The Prime Contractor shall submit a maximum of three (3) projects performed within the past five (5) years.

Only ongoing projects and projects that have been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation will be evaluated. 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. Only the prime contractor’s past performance information will be evaluated.

5.2. Relevant Contracts

Submit information in accordance with this section on three (3) recent contracts that you consider most relevant in demonstrating your ability to perform the proposed effort. Provide any information currently available (letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc.)

which demonstrates customer satisfaction with overall job performance and quality of completed service for relevant past efforts/contracts within the past five (5) years. In addition, explain corrective actions taken in the past, if any, for substandard performance and any current performance problems such as cost overruns, extended performance periods, numerous warranty calls, etc.

Furnish the following information for each contract listed:

1) Company/Division name

2) Product/Service

3) Contracting Agency/Customer

4) Contract Number

5) Contract Dollar Value

6) Period of Performance

7) Verified, up-to-date name, address, FAX & telephone number of the Contracting Officer

8) Comments regarding compliance with contract terms and conditions

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

5.3. 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 an unacceptable past performance evaluation 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. 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.

5.4. Organizational Structure

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. Indicate any joint venture or teaming arrangements proposed for this solicitation and provide a copy of the joint venture agreements, if any.

6.0. VOLUME IV – PRICE

6.1. General Instructions

6.1.1. Price Reasonableness

Prices must be reasonable. Compliance with these requirements is mandatory and failure to comply may result in rejection of your proposal. Note: that unrealistically low or high proposed prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement or has submitted an unrealistic proposal. Offers should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their reasonableness. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed prices rests with the offeror.

6.1.2. Price Data

Data beyond that required by this instruction shall not be submitted, unless you consider it essential to document or support your price position. All data relating to the proposed price, including all required supporting documentation, must be included in the section of the proposal designated as the Price volume. Under no circumstances shall this data and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal.

6.1.3. Cost or Pricing Data Requirements

In accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b) and 15.403-3(a), data other than certified cost or pricing data may be required to support a determination of price reasonableness. Data shall be provided in accordance with FAR 15.403-5. If, after receipt of proposals, the CO determines that there is insufficient data available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1 apply, the offeror shall be required to submit additional cost or pricing data.

6.1.4. Rounding

All dollar amounts provided shall be rounded to two (2) decimal points.

7.0. VOLUME V – CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

7.1. Representation and Certifications

The purpose of this volume is to provide information to the Government for preparing the contract document and supporting file. The offeror's proposal shall include a signed copy of the solicitation and sections A through K.

7.1.1. Section A – Solicitation/Contract Form

An offeror’s completion of blocks 14, 15, 16, and 17 of SF1442 and signature and date for blocks 20A, 20B and 20C of SF1442 constitutes an offer, which the Government may accept. The "original" copy should be clearly marked under separate cover and should be provided without any punched holes.

7.1.2. Section B – Supplies or Services and Prices

Insert proposed unit and extended prices in Section B for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN).

7.1.3. Sections C through K

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

7.2. 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

SOW, SPEC,

ITO, etc.

Applicable Page and Paragraph Number

Identify the requirement/portion to which exception is taken

Describe why the requirement can /will not be met

7.3 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.

SECTION J- ATTACHMENT 5

SSP Attachment 4 - Section M

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M001 EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures, Appendix C, 31 March 2016, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3, revised 25 May 2018. These regulations are available electronically at the FAR website, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the proposal with the lowest evaluated price from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors. Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Subpart 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one (1) Firm Fixed-Price contract for all personnel, labor, equipment, supplies, tools, material, and other items and services necessary for performing all operations required to furnish and install all specified materials and equipment for replacement of steel gas distribution piping with fusion welded HDPE pipe using directional boring on roads at F.E. Warren AFB, Wyoming.

1.2 Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions, however; 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 as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

1.3 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

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 factors or subfactors. 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.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.0 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability, but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors or subfactors.

(1) Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Provide a project that was performed and completed by the offerors company within the last three years where directional boring under an existing roadway or other infrastructure was used.

Subfactor 2: Provide a critical path schedule to meet SOW requirements within the stated Period of Performance (PoP).

(2) Factor 2: Past Performance

(3) Factor 3: Price

2.1 Technical Factor

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 subfactor.

Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, un-awardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion. One technical rating will be assigned to the Technical Factor.

TABLE 1 – Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method Adjectival

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Each offeror’s technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the specifications, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements.

The technical proposal shall address each of the subfactors in sufficient detail.

2.1.1 Subfactor 1: Provide a project that was performed and completed by the offerors company within the last three years where directional boring under an existing roadway or other infrastructure was used.

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s experience and competence for execution of the requirement while maintaining the integrity of the existing roadway.

Measure of Merit: The offer must provide photos of post project work, listing of requirements for the job, and initial timeline of expected completion dates in comparison to actual completion dates.

2.1.2 Subfactor 2: Provide a critical path schedule to meet SOW requirements.

Description: This subfactor will describe how the company plans to execute the required work described in the SOW.

Measure of Merit: The offeror must provide a copy of their critical path schedule describing their key milestones to start boring and end boring, installation of meters and valves, termination of existing service lines, trenching, testing and repair anything that may be disturbed while conducting work.

2.2 Past Performance Factor

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Offerors must receive a past performance rating of “Acceptable” to be eligible for award.

(1) Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the ratings described below:

TABLE 2- Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

NOTE: 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 (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

(2) Evaluation Process

The past performance evaluation considers the Prime contractor’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the solicitation requirements. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided by the Prime contractor’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; and interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

(i) 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 five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(ii) Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether 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 (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to projects demonstrating experience with boring, underground gas piping installation, meter installation and installation of gas pipe connections between HDPE and existing ductile iron pipe. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime contractor. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

TABLE 3 – Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method Adjectival

Rating Definition

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2.3 Price Factor

Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable, unbalanced, or unaffordable may not be considered for award. The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes, based upon the total price proposed for CLIN 0001.

(1) Reasonableness: The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

(2) Unbalanced Prices: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high costs. Offerors that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3.0 Evaluation Factors

Award will be made to the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal that provides the best value to the Government. The Government will evaluate proposals based upon the instructions contained in Sections L and M of this solicitation. All proposals will be ranked according to the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) (lowest to highest). The total TEP is the price of CLIN 0001. Next, a technical evaluation will be conducted on the lowest priced offer and if it is determined to be technically acceptable, the technical evaluation stops at this point. If the Offeror’s technical evaluation is unacceptable, the next lowest priced offer will be evaluated for technical acceptability. This process will continue until an offer is identified to be technically acceptable.

A past performance evaluation will be conducted on the lowest price technically acceptable offer to determine the offeror’s ability to perform the required work. If it is determined that the past performance on that Offeror is “Acceptable”, the past performance evaluation stops at this point.

If the Offeror’s past performance evaluation is unacceptable, the next lowest priced technically acceptable offer will be evaluated for past performance. This process will continue until an Offeror with an acceptable past performance is identified or until all technically acceptable offers have been evaluated. A price evaluation will then be conducted on the lowest priced technically acceptable offer with an acceptable past performance. An award will be made to the proposal that has the lowest price technically acceptable offer, has an acceptable past performance and has a fair, reasonable and balanced price.