FA4620-12-R-B001 Amendment 1 Revised Section M Page 64 of 65.pdf

FA4620-12-R-B001

such things as project similarity (valued at $1 million to $5 million), project complexity, contract type, contract environment, division of company proposing, and subcontractor interaction. In performing the past performance evaluation, each offeror will be assigned one of the following ratings:

RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Description

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the 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.

CONFIDENCE RATINGS

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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.

1.4 If the lowest priced offer is then judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance rating and is determined to be responsible, then the lowest priced offer represents the best value for the Government. A MACC contract award shall be made to that offeror along with award of the seed project.

1.5 Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L. Offeror’s may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element for any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors would not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

1.6 The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer deems discussions are in the Government’s best interest.

1.7 Competitive Range: The Government reserves the right to limit for purposes of efficiency, the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals (10 U.S.C.2305(b)(4) and 41 U.S.C.253B(d)). If the contracting officer, decides that an offeror’s proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal shall be eliminated from consideration for award and written notice of the decision shall be provided to the unsuccessful offeror in accordance with FAR 15.503.

1.8 Discussions: To maximize the Government’s ability to obtain best value, based on the requirements and

FA4620-12-R-B001

Amendment 1 27 Apr 12