Attch_10_-_Section_L_&_M_(Updated).pdf

Attachment 10 FA4626-19-R-A003

Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders

1.0 Information to Offerors (ITO) and Instructions for Proposal Preparation

1.1. 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 submitted proposal shall consist of three (3) separate parts; Part I – Technical Requirements, Part II – Past Performance Information, and Part III

– Price/Contract Documents. These three (3) parts MUST be submitted in paper only with the inclusion of a CD containing the original proposal for Government electronic filing. No form of electronic proposal documents (fax, email, etc.) will be accepted by this Contracting Office.

1.2. 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 cost data to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine the reasonableness and affordability of the price.

2.0 General Instructions

2.0.1. The offeror's proposal must include all data and information requested by this ITO and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. The proposal shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Model Contract/Solicitation. Non-conformance with the instructions provided in this ITO may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation and removal from consideration for award.

2.0.2. 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 and evidence 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.

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

2.0.4. The proposal acceptance period is specified in Section A of the model contract/solicitation. The offeror shall make a clear statement in Section A of the proposal documentation volume that the proposal is valid through this date.

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

2.1 General Information

2.1.1. Point of Contact (POC)

The primary POC for this acquisition is Wesley Marcik. Address any questions or concerns to Wesley Marcik at (406) 731-4018 or Email:wesley.marcik@us.af.mil. The secondary POC for this acquisition is the Contracting Officer (CO), Melanie Dewing. Address any questions or concerns to Melanie Dewing at (406) 731-4004 or Email: melanie.dewing@us.af.mil.

2.1.2. 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 notify the Government that they request a post-award debriefing after the contract has been awarded. 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 FAR 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. This reservation includes matters of additional or substitute pages of the initial proposal.

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.

2.1.5 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. Otherwise, source selection information will be transmitted via FAX.

2.1.6 Site Visit

A Site Visit to Malmstrom AFB, Montana, will be conducted on 13 February 2019 at 10:00 AM Mountain Time. Due to space constraints, Offerors participating in the Site Visit will be limited to two (2) individuals per prime contractor and one (1) for any major subcontractor or a maximum of 3 for any prime or joint venture/teaming arrangement. Offerors are requested to submit questions to the CO above no later than 12:00 p.m. MST on 8 February 2019. Answers to questions submitted during and after the site visit will be made available on the FedBizOpps website at https://www.fbo.gov. Terms of the solicitation and specifications remain unchanged unless the solicitation is amended in writing.

2.1.6.1 Offerors attending the Site Visit must submit a visit request no later than 12:00 p.m.

MST on 6 February 2019. This date is required for Government processing time for the Entry Authority List (EAL), all offerors providing information past the identified date and time risk not receiving authority to enter the security controlled area for the site visit.

Offeror’s bear sole responsibility to provide information by date and time required.

2.1.6.2 Visit requests may be emailed to the POC at wesley.marcik@us.af.mil. Additional information on the Site Visit will be posted to FedBizOpps as it becomes available. All visit requests must be submitted by the company’s Security Manager and must contain the following information:

Person’s full name

SSN

Place of Birth Date of Birth Driver’s License Number and State of Issue Reason for Visit “FA4626-19-R-A003” POC for the visit (Wesley Marcik, 341 CONS/PKA, (406) 731-4018)

2.2 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits

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 attachments identified in the table shall be separately bound in three-ring, loose-leaf binders, as necessary. Offeror is required to include a CD with all original documents for electronic filing by the Government. 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 COPIES PAGE LIMIT

I 3.0 Technical/Technical Risk 1 Original 3 Copies

5 Pages per Technical Subfactor

II 4.0 Past Performance 1 Original 3 Copies

2 Pages per Citation no more than 5 Citations

III 5.0

Cost/Price (CLIN PRICES)/

Contract Documentation 1 Original 3 Copies

Unlimited

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, Tables of Contents, Tabs, Glossaries, or Resumes.

Past Performance citations for IDIQ contracts shall be handled as follows: each delivery order will be considered a separate citation.

2.2.1.1. Page Size and Format

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. Pages shall be no less than single spaced. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be no less than 11 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 also apply to responses to ENs.

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 each 8.5 x 11 surface of a foldout shall be counted as a separate 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.

2.2.2 Cost or Pricing Related Data

All pricing information shall be addressed in the Contract Documentation volume, in Section B of the Schedule of the RFP. Information shall be limited to Contract Line Item Number (CLIN), SubCLIN, including unit and extended pricing, as specified in Section B of the RFP.

2.2.3 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.

Cross-referencing within a proposal volume is permitted where its use would conserve space without impairing clarity.

The offeror shall provide a Solicitation Cross Reference Matrix indicating by ITO, SOW/SOO/PWS, and/or specification paragraph number, the corresponding proposal paragraph in that section which addresses the referenced item.

2.2.4 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.

2.2.5 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.

2.2.6 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 Distribution

Volumes I (Technical Requirements), II (Past Performance) and III (Price/Contract Documents) MUST be submitted in paper form only and accompanied with the submission of the required CD for the Government’s electronic filing requirement. No form of electronic proposal (fax, email, etc.) will be accepted by this Contracting Office. All proposals must be received no later than 7 March 2019 at 2:00 p.m. Mountain Time and shall be delivered to the Contracting Officer (CO) at:

341 CONS/PKA (Attn: Melanie Dewing) 7015 Goddard Drive, Bldg. 145 Malmstrom AFB, MT 59402-6863

Be sure to advise the Contracting Officer (CO) for prime and subcontractors that the proposal is "For Official Use Only" and "Source Selection Information--See FAR 2.101 and FAR 3.104".

NOTE: Hand carried deliveries shall be received and accepted at the address shown above.

Delivery may be accomplished from 8:00 am – 2:00 pm on the date set forth for receipt and up to one week prior. Please call the CO at least two hours prior to your anticipated arrival time to ensure there will be personnel available to receive your proposal. Offerors should speak personally with one of the individuals listed below and not rely on voicemail. Contractor personnel delivering proposals are advised that they may be unable to access Malmstrom, AFB without a valid U.S. Uniformed Services Identification Card or DoD Force Common Access Card (CAC) that has been through the Biometrics process. Be advised your vehicle may be subjected to random vehicle searches, and/or you may encounter unexpected delays at the gates and plan accordingly. Phone numbers for the Contracting Office are as follows:

Melanie Dewing – 406-731-4004

Wesley Marcik – 406-731-4018

3.0 Volume I - Technical Volume

3.1 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 factors/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.

3.2 Format and Specific Content

Volume 1 – Technical Capability

SUBFACTOR 1 – Team Qualifications and Experience SUBFACTOR 2 – Project Phasing Plan

3.2.1 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) Cross Reference Matrix

(5) Factor One

(6) Subfactor One

(7) Subfactor Two

4.0 Volume II - Past Performance

4.1 General

Each offeror shall submit a past performance volume with its proposal, containing past performance information in accordance with the format contained in Attachment 8. This information is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners who are proposed to perform 25% percent or more of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price or perform aspects of the effort the offeror considers critical to overall successful performance. 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 (Attachment 9) 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. 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.

4.2 Early Proposal Information

Each offeror is requested to submit the information shown in Attachment 8 for each relevant contract seven (7) days prior to the date set for receipt of proposals and no later than the date for submission of proposals. Failure to submit early proposal information will not result in offeror disqualification.

4.3 Relevant Contracts

Submit information in accordance with Attachment 8: Past Performance Information, Also include information on [no more than] five (5) recent contracts that you consider most relevant in demonstrating your ability to perform the proposed effort. Recent is defined as within the last five

(5) years or ongoing projects that are greater than 80% complete. Also include information on ten

(10) 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 Section M, Evaluation Factors for further information.

4.3.1 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 Cost/Price factor used to evaluate the proposal.

4.3.2 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.

5.0 Volume III - Cost/Price/Contract Documentation

5.1 General Instructions

5.1.1 Cost/Price Reasonableness and Realism

This section is to assist you in submitting data other than certified cost or pricing data that is required to evaluate the reasonableness and realism of your proposed cost/price. Compliance with these requirements is mandatory and failure to comply may result in rejection of your proposal. Note that unrealistically low or high proposed costs or 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. Additionally, unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal. Proposals should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their reasonableness and realism. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed costs/prices rests with the offeror.

5.1.2 Rounding

All dollar amounts for all CLINs/SubCLINs should be proposed in whole dollar amounts rounded to two decimal points, for example: $1,423.78.

5.2 Volume Organization

Insert proposed unit and extended prices in Section B for each Fixed Price Contract Line Item Number (CLIN). Offerors must propose on every contract line item, even if it is $0.00, in order to be considered for award.

5.3 Model Contract/Representations 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 Model Contract, and Sections A through K.

5.3.1 Section A - Solicitation/Contract Form

Completion of blocks 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 and signature and date for blocks 20A, 20B and 20C of the SF 1442. Signature by the offeror on the SF 1442 block 20B constitutes a proposal, which the Government may accept. The "original" copy should be clearly marked under separate cover and should be provided without any punched holes.

5.3.2 Section B - Supplies or Services and Costs/Prices

Completed pricing information in Section B of the model contract.

5.3.3 Section H - Special Contract Requirements

None.

5.3.4 Section K - Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of Offerors Completed representations, certifications, acknowledgments and statements.

5.3.5 Acknowledgement of all Amendments. Each offeror must sign and return one copy of the Standard Form (SF) 30 by the date specified on the form.

5.4 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, cost, and specific requirements of the solicitation. This information shall be provided in the format and content of Table 5.4.

Table 5.4- Solicitation Exceptions

Solicitation Document

Page/ Paragraph

Requirement/ Portion

Rationale

SOO, SOW, SPEC,

Model Contract, ITO, etc.

Applicable Page and Paragraph Numbers

Identify the requirement or portion to which exception is taken

Describe why the requirement can/will not be met

5.5 Other Information Required

5.5.1 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.

5.5.2 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.

5.5.3 Teaming Arrangement. If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement and relationship and copies of any teaming or joint venture agreements.

5.5.4 Financial Data. Submit financial data in this volume to include the following:

5.5.4.1 Names address and points of contact for all financial institution organizations utilized to determine if the contractor has adequate financial resources to perform the contract or the ability to obtain them.

5.5.4.2 Written authority to contact the provided financial institution.

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Section M – Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT)

1. BASIS FOR AWARD

a. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing offerors' past performance will be significantly more important than price. This may result in an award to a higher confidence rating, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation criteria. By submission of its proposal, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. Failure to meet a requirement may result in a proposal being determined unacceptable. The Government intends to award one contract. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the solicitation. All such proposals shall be treated equally except for their technical capability, prices and performance records. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

b. Evaluation Process:

(1) Initial proposals shall be considered for technical capability in accordance with the evaluation criteria described in paragraph 2(a)1.

(2) Proposals with an Acceptable technical rating will then be ranked according to price, including option prices, described in paragraph 2(a)2.

(3) The three lowest priced offerors will then receive a performance confidence assessment in accordance with the evaluation criteria described in paragraph 2(a)3.

(4) If none of the three lowest priced offerors is evaluated to have a Substantial Confidence performance assessment, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror receives a Substantial Confidence performance assessment or until all offerors are evaluated. The Source Selection Authority shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision if the lowest priced offeror does not receive a Substantial Confidence performance assessment.

(5) Prior to award, a responsibility determination will be made as described in FAR Part 9.

c. Offerors must include prices for CLINs identified on the SF 1442 of the solicitation for the basic period and all option periods. Failure to do so may be considered by the Government as non-responsive and cause for rejection of the entire proposal.

d. 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.

e. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in the Instructions to Offerors. Offerors 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. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the Government reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS

a. Three evaluation factors will be used to evaluate proposals: Technical Capability, Price and Past Performance, with past performance being significantly more important than price.

1. Factor 1: Technical Capability

a) An evaluation of technical acceptability of each offeror's technical capability proposal shall be made. The contracting officer may conduct discussions, request clarifications, and/or have communications with offerors to determine technical acceptability of their proposal IAW the solicitation requirements. The basis for evaluation of technical capability proposals is described below. At a minimum, the technical capability proposal shall consist of the following:

Subfactor 1 – Team Qualifications and Experience

DESCRIPTION: The offeror shall provide a full, structured, and detailed list of the entire project team (including all subcontractors) and corresponding qualifications. At a minimum, the team should include the project manager, project superintendent, project quality control, project welders with welding certifications, and boiler installation and maintenance personnel. Welders, boiler installers, and maintenance personnel shall have the required certifications and experience with boilers rated at a minimum of 30MMBTU. All key personnel should have at least 5 years of experience in their specialization, as demonstrated in project summary or resume.

MEASURE OF MERIT: This requirement is met when the offeror has provided a full, structured, and detailed list of the entire project team (including all subcontractors) and corresponding qualifications and experience within a project summary sheet or resume.

Subfactor 2 – Project Phasing Plan

DESCRIPTION: The offeror shall provide a phasing plan to meet a period of performance of no more than 120 days. This phasing plan does not bind the Government, nor the contractor, to maintaining this phasing plan if work conditions alter the schedule. Also provide at least 2 contacts for projects (in the past 5 years) where large scale phasing plans were needed.

MEASURE OF MERIT: This requirement is met when the offeror has provided an acceptable phasing plan for this project to meet a period of performance of no more than 120 days and two contacts were provided for past projects with phasing plans.

b) The Government will evaluate the offeror’s technical capability proposal identified above. The Government’s evaluation team shall evaluate overall technical capability on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. All factors of the Technical Capability proposal must be determined “Acceptable” using the descriptions below for the Technical Capability proposal to receive an Acceptable rating. If any of the factors are determined to be “Unacceptable,” the Technical Capability proposal will receive an Unacceptable rating.

Technical Capability Rating. The technical capability rating provides an assessment of the quality of the offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirements. Each technical capability area will receive one of the ratings described below. The focus of the technical rating is to identify if the contractor has an adequate approach and understanding of the requirement. This rating will be based on the Government’s technical knowledge and historical data.

2. Factor 2: Price

a. The Government shall rank all technically Acceptable proposals (and Unacceptable proposals that are correctable) by price, including any option prices if applicable. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in Section B by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number to confirm the extended amount for each. Offerors whose total evaluated price is unreasonable (in accordance with FAR 15.404 and FAR 31.201-3), unbalanced (in accordance with FAR 15.404-1), or unrealistic may not be considered for award.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

b. All extensions of the unit prices shown will be subject to verification by the

Government. In case of variation between the unit price and the extension, the unit prices will be considered to be the proposal.

c. The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options (if applicable) shall not obligate the Government to exercise the options(s).

d. Offerors are required to submit proposals on all items listed on the SF 1442.

e. 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.

f. Realism: The offeror’s Price proposal may be evaluated to ensure it is realistic, pursuant to FAR 15.404-1(d).

g. Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices, variable quantity matrix factors, and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. A proposal may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3. Factor 3: Past Performance

a) Past performance will be evaluated on recency and relevancy. Each offeror will receive an integrated overall performance confidence assessment accordance with the evaluation process described in paragraph 1.(b). Past performance will be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform based on previous and current contract efforts.

b) For the purpose of this evaluation, “recent” is defined as performance occurring within the last five (5) years from the date of release of this solicitation. The following relevancy definitions apply to each citation reviewed:

Rating Definition 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 none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

c) The Government will use past performance information submitted by the offerors’ references, other sources such as other federal government offices, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)/Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS), and private and commercial sources. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. Relevancy is defined above. More relevant past performance will be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Consideration will be given to whether the past performance information is applicable to the prime contractor, teaming partners, and/or joint venture actually performing that part of the requirement. This information may include efforts performed by other divisions, critical subcontractors, or teaming contractors, if such resources will be brought to the current effort.

d) Where the relevant past and present performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts, or performance evaluations, to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness. If the offeror clearly demonstrates 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 rated higher than might otherwise be indicated. The Government will evaluate/assess all past performance information, positive and negative. Offerors will be offered the opportunity to respond to negative past performance reports if they had not had the opportunity to do so previously. An offeror without a record of relevant past performance will receive a past performance rating of “Unknown Confidence.”

e) Each offeror will be assessed a Performance Confidence Rating described below, taking into account the recency, relevancy, and quality of each citation reviewed:

3. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY. Prior to award, a responsibility determination will be made as described in FAR Part 9.

A written notice of award or acceptance of a proposal, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the proposal, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the proposal’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept a proposal (or part of a proposal), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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.