8_B1840_Updated Sections L and M_9 Apr 26.pdf

ATTACHMENT 8 REPAIR B1840 ROOF

FA4626-26-R-0006

SECTION L

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR RESPONDENTS

1. Information to Offerors (ITO) and Instructions for Proposal Preparation: The offeror’s proposal must include all data and information requested by this information to offerors and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Solicitation and all attachments in Section J. Non-conformance with the instructions provided in this information to offerors may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation. The response shall consist of three (3) sections: Section I – Past Performance, Section II – Technical, and Section III – Price/Required Documentation.

The listed parts and subparts MUST be submitted electronically via DoD Safe due to file size. All requests for DoD safe access MUST be submitted to Colleen Goad (colleen.goad.1@us.af.mil), Dennis DeForest (dennis.deforest.2@us.af.mil) and Elizabeth Basu (elizabeth.basu@us.af.mil) no later than 17 April 2026, by close of business. Once you request a DOD Safe drop off to the POCs listed above a link will be emailed to you and will be good for 14 days. This link is what you will send your proposal through to meet the proposal due date of 2 pm MDT on 21 April 2026. Electronic documents shall be submitted in PDF format and follow the page-limit guidance prescribed in para. 3(f). Failure to meet this requirement may result in late submission of the proposal and be determined non-responsive.

2. General Instructions

A. The offeror’s proposal must include all data and information requested by this information to offerors and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Solicitation and all attachments in Section J of the solicitation. Non-conformance with the instructions provided in this information to offerors may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

B. Proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal will not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements but shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors should 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 artwork, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired. However, if used, elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed artwork, or other embellishments must be incorporated within the page limitation set forth by this ITO.

D. The proposal acceptance period is specified in Section A of the solicitation. The offeror must make a clear statement in Section A of the proposal’s documentation subpart, that the proposal is valid throughout this date.

mailto:colleen.goad.1@us.af.mil mailto:dennis.deforest.2@us.af.mil mailto:elizabeth.basu@us.af.mil

E. In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.8 (Government Contract Files), the Government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals.

3. General Information

A. Point of Contact: Written requests for clarification may be sent to the Contracting

Officer (CO) and Contract Administrator (CA) at the address located in Section A of the solicitation. The primary POC for this acquisition is the CA Elizabeth Basu, who can be reached at 406-731-3586 or via email: elizabeth.basu@us.af.mil or CA Dennis DeForest, who can be reached at 406-731-4647 or via email at dennis.deforest.2@us.af.mil. The secondary POC for this acquisition is the CO, Colleen Goad who can be reached at 406- 731-3473 or via email at colleen.goad.1@us.af.mil.

Questions must be submitted no later than (NLT) 26 March 2026 at 2:00 PM, Mountain Daylight Time (MDT).

B. Debriefings: The CO will promptly notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range or otherwise excluded from competition before award; 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.

C. 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.

D. Electronic Reference Documents: All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on the System for Award Management website (SAM) at http://www.sam.gov.

Potential offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real-time e-mail notifications when information has been posted to the website for this solicitation.

E. Communications: 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.

F. Proposal Organization: The offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table below. The titles and contents of the binder 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 3(F) The attachments identified in the table shall be included in the electronic submission package. The contents of each proposal are described in the ITO paragraph as noted in the table below.

i. Page Limitations: Page limitations shall be treated as maximum. 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.

ii. 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 section or subpart. The same page size and format restrictions shall apply to responses to EN(s). Legible tables, charts, graphs, and figures shall be used wherever it is 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 section or subpart, 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.

iii. Cross-Referencing: To the greatest extent possible, each section and subpart shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with minimal

Table 3(F) – Proposal Organization

Section ITO Paragraph Number Title Paper Copies Electronic

Copy Page Limit

I 4 Past Performance 1 Original 2 Copies 1 40 Pages

II 5 Technical 1 Original 2 Copies 1 2 Pages Per

Focus Area

III 6 Price/Required Documentation

1 Original 2 Copies 1 Unlimited cross-referencing to other sections of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation, which is not found in its designated section/subpart, will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal. Cross-referencing within a proposal section/subpart is permitted where its use would conserve space without impairing clarity. If required, 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.

iv. Indexing: Each section and subpart shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that section/subpart. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections.

v. Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms: Each section/subpart 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 section/subpart.

Binding and Labeling: Each section of the proposal shall be complete and clearly tabbed for each section in one (1) electronic binder. A cover sheet should be utilized in each section, clearly marked as to section number, title, copy number, solicitation identification, and the offeror’s name. All unclassified document submissions 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.

i. Distribution: Section I (Past Performance), Section II (Technical), and Section III (Price/Required Documentation) must be submitted electronically in accordance with instructions in paragraph 1.

ii. All proposals must be received no later than 21 April 2026 by 2:00 p.m. Mountain Daylight Time (MDT) and shall be sent to all the POCs listed below:

Contract Administrator: Elizabeth Basu - elizabeth.basu@us.af.mil Contract Administrator: Dennis DeForest - dennis.deforest.2@us.af.mil Contracting Officer: Colleen Goad - colleen.goad.1@us.af.mil

NOTE: In the case of electronic submission issues or technological disruptions preventing delivery, hand carried deliveries may be received and accepted at the address shown below.

341 CONS/PKA, Attn: Mr. Dennis Deforest or Mrs. Elizabeth Basu 7015 Goddard Dr. Bldg 145 Malmstrom AFB, 59402-6863 mailto:dennis.deforest.2@us.af.mil

Delivery may be accomplished from 8:00 am – 4:00 pm on the date set forth for receipt and up to one week prior. Please call the CA or CO at least one hour prior to your anticipated arrival time to ensure there will be personnel available to receive your proposal. 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:

Contract Administrator: Elizabeth Basu, 406-731-3586 Contract Administrator: Dennis DeForest, 406-731-4647 Contracting Officer: Colleen Goad – 406-731-3473 Contracting Squadron Front Office – 406-731-3744

4. Section I – Past Performance

A. General Instructions: Each offeror shall submit a past performance section with its proposal, containing a minimum of three (3), and no more than five (5) recent and relevant past performance references in accordance with the format contained in Attachment 9: Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements based on the recency and relevancy of the offeror’s performance history.

Past performance references may include but are not limited to 1) federal contracts/task orders or 2) non-federal contracts/task orders similar to the requirements of the solicitation. Offerors are cautioned that the Government will use data provided by each offeror and may use data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance.

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 section and data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance.

The offeror shall also 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 (Attachment 10). 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.

The Government will use past performance information submitted by the offeror’s references and may use other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, other federal government offices, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS), Federal

Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; the Defense Contract Management agency, interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials and private and commercial sources. The submission of past performance references that may be found from any of these sources will not increase the overall assessment of an offeror’s past performance rating. As such, offerors are highly encouraged to submit past performance references for consideration of the Government not already archived within these databases.

NOTE: Past performance questionnaires not submitted using Attachment 8 SHALL NOT be considered for evaluation or count towards the number of past performance information submitted. Failure to submit the required number of past performance information will not result in offeror disqualification.

B. Specific Instructions:

i. Section Organization: The Past Performance section shall be organized according to the following general outline:

1) Table of Contents

2) List of Tables and Drawings

3) Glossary

4) Cross Reference Matrix (if required)

5) Factor 1 – Past Performance

a. Past Performance Reference 1

b. Past Performance Reference 2

c. Past Performance Reference 3

d. Past Performance Reference 4

e. Past Performance Reference 5

ii. Recent and Relevant Contracts: For this evaluation, “recent” is defined as

“completed or ongoing projects within the last five (5) years from the date of the release of this solicitation.” For this evaluation, “relevant” is defined as “a project with a scope similar or identical to the requirements of the solicitation and valued greater than or equal to $500,000.00.” Include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance.

iii. Required Information: Offerors are required to submit each past performance reference in accordance with the format contained in Attachment 9: Past Performance Reference Sheet.

In the event the Government identifies issues or has questions during the assessment of a past performance reference, a conversation of efforts may be accomplished with 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 demonstrate clear 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.

iv. 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 period 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 subpart 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, you must show how these changes affect the relevance of any efforts you identify for past performance evaluation or 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. Section II – Technical

A. General Instructions:

i. Section Organization: The Technical section shall be organized according to the following general outline:

3) Glossary

4) Cross Reference Matrix (if required)

5) Factor II – Technical

a. Technical Management Plan – Focus Area 1

b. Technical Management Plan – Focus Area 2

c. Technical Management Plan – Focus Area 3

i. General: The purpose of the technical evaluation is to assess the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the performance or capability requirements. The technical section should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. Your responses will be evaluated against the criteria defined in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award. Using the instructions provided below, provide as specifically as possible the actual means and methodology you would use for accomplishing or satisfying these focus areas. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation. 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.

ii. Format and Specific Content:

1) Technical Management Plan: The offeror will provide a written management plan documenting proof of capability and capacity to perform the requirements of this solicitation.

2) To be considered responsive to this solicitation, the offeror must provide one (1) detailed management plan providing, as specifically as possible, the actual means and methodology used to accomplish/satisfy the three (3) technical focus areas of work and address your technical solution for meeting or exceeding the Government’s requirements listed in Section M of this solicitation.

3) The technical management plan must be in accordance with the page limitations and page size restrictions set forth in paragraph 3(F).

6. Section III – Price/Required Documentation

A. General Instructions:

i. Cost/Price Reasonableness: 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.

Offers should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their reasonableness. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed costs/prices rests with the offeror.

ii. Price Information. The CO has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition for this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the CO will review this determination and if, in the CO’s opinion, adequate price competition exists, no additional cost information may be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required. If, however, at any time during this acquisition the CO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, offerors may be required to submit information necessary for the CO to determine the price fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR 15.403-5.

i. Section Organization: The Price/Required Documentation section shall be organized according to the following general outline:

3) Glossary

4) Cross Reference Matrix (if required)

5) Factor III: Price/Required Documentation

a. Solicitation Representations and Certifications

b. Bid schedule (section B)

c. Bid Guarantee

d. Acknowledgement of All Amendments

e. Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements

f. Other Information

ii. Format and Content:

1) Solicitation Representations and Certifications: The purpose of this section 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.

a. 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 an offer, which the Government may accept. The “original” copy should be clearly marked under a separate cover and should be provided without any punched holes.

b. Section I through K – Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of Offerors: Complete the necessary fill-ins and certifications in Section I through K. Section K shall be returned in its entirety.

2) Section B – Supplies or Services & Prices or Costs: Insert proposed unit and extended prices in Section B for each Contract Line-Item Number (CLIN) or sub-CLIN (SLIN), even if it is $0.00 to be considered for award. The extended amount must equal the whole dollar unit price multiplied by the number of units.

ALL CLINS/SLINS on the SF 1442 will count towards the total evaluated cost.

(1) Rounding: All dollar amounts for all CLINs/SLINs should be proposed in whole dollar amounts rounded to two decimal points, for example:

$1,423.78.

3) Bid Guarantee: The offeror shall submit the bid guarantee in this section of the proposal. The bid guarantee shall be submitted on an SF 24 and be in the amount of 20% the bid price or $1 million, whichever is less.

4) 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) 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 of the table below.

6) Other Information Required: Offerors shall provide the following information in Section III of their proposal:

a. 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 and those individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government.

b. Company Division/Address, Identifying Codes, and Applicable Designations: Provide company/division’s street address, county, and facility code; UEI number (can be found on SAM.gov); 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.

Solicitation Exceptions Solicitation Document Page/Paragraph Requirement/Portion Rationale

SOO, SOW, Specs, Model Contract, ITO, etc.

Applicable Page and Paragraph Numbers

Identify the requirement or portion to which the exception is taken

Describe why the requirement can/will not be met

c. 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.

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

i. Basis for Contract Award

A. Basis for Award: This is a competitive tradeoff source selection process which will obtain best value in accordance with FAR part 15, Contracting by Negotiation. This may result in an award to a higher confidence rating, and a higher priced offer where the decision is consistent with the evaluation criteria. By submission of its offer, 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 an offer being determined non-responsive. The Government intends to award one firm-fixed price (FFP) 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 offers shall be treated equally except for their technical capability, past performance records, and price. The Government will evaluate each proposal based on the overall alignment with the evaluation criteria within the solicitation.

i. Pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2), the contracting officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. The competitive range will be based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria, as identified in the RFP, unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency.

B. Evaluation Process: Proposals will be evaluated using three evaluation factors (1) Technical capability, (2) Past Performance, and (3) Price. Past Performance is the most important. Past Performance and Technical capability when combined are significantly more important than price; however, price will contribute substantially to the selection decision. The greater the equality of proposals for factors other than price, the more important price becomes in selecting the best value for the Government.

Step 1. Each Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for responsiveness to the requirements set forth in the solicitation. Offers deemed responsive to the requirements of the solicitation will be evaluated utilizing the criteria in steps 2 through 5. Offers deemed non-responsive to the requirements of the solicitation will not be evaluated further.

Step 2. Price Organization: All proposals deemed responsive during the initial review will be ranked in order from lowest to highest total proposed price. The evaluations will then proceed starting with the lowest priced proposal.

Step 3. Technical: The lowest-priced proposal will be evaluated to determine technical capability. The Offeror’s technical plan will be assessed and assigned an adjectival technical risk rating in accordance with the evaluation criteria described in TABLE 3.

The Offeror’s technical plan will then be assessed and assigned an overall adjectival combined technical/risk rating in accordance with the evaluation criteria described in

TABLE 4. The Government will use the combined ratings from both charts to determine technical capability.

• If the proposal is rated an overall adjectival rating of lower than “Marginal”, it will be eliminated from further consideration. The Government will then proceed to evaluate the next lowest-priced proposal, beginning again with Step 2.

• If the proposal is rated an overall adjectival rating of “Acceptable” or higher, it will advance to Step 4.

Step 4. Past Performance: The Offeror’s past performance will then be assessed and assigned a relevancy rating in accordance with the evaluation criteria described in TABLE 1. The Offeror’s past performance will then be assessed and assigned a performance confidence rating in accordance with the evaluation criteria described in

TABLE 2.

• If the Offeror’s past performance confidence is rated at a “Substantial”, while also receiving an acceptable rating or higher for technical capability, and its price is determined fair and reasonable, evaluations will stop and an award will be made to that Offeror.

• If the Offeror’s past performance confidence is rated at a “Satisfactory”, the Government will then proceed to evaluate the next lowest-priced proposal, beginning again at Step 2.

* Evaluations will then continue in order of lowest price to highest price until an Offeror’s proposal receives a Technical adjectival rating of “Acceptable” or higher, and a Past Performance confidence rating of “Substantial”. Once an offeror receives both these ratings, a possible tradeoff to award to the higher-ranking offeror will be considered.

*If, after exhausting all offeror proposals, should there be no past performance rated with “Substantial” confidence, the Government may award to the lowest priced acceptable offeror who has a “Satisfactory” confidence rating for past performance. Should there be no offerors rated with a “Satisfactory” confidence rating, the Government may award to the lowest priced technically acceptable offeror who has a “Neutral” Confidence rating in its past performance or otherwise cancel the solicitation and resolicit.

Step 5: An Offerors determination of responsibility will be made as described in FAR Part 9. The Source Selection Authority shall then award a firm-fixed price contract to the offeror whose proposal is determined to be most advantageous to the Government based on the comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria.

i. The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors; however, it reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

ii. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and, in the format specified in Section L. 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.

ii. Evaluation Factors for Award

Three evaluation factors will be used to evaluate proposals. Past Performance (Factor 1), Technical Data (Factor 2), and Price (Factor 3).

A. Factor 1 – Past Performance

i. Past performance will be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the requirement based on previous and current contract efforts.

ii. For this evaluation, “recent” is defined as “completed or ongoing projects within the last five (5) years from the date of the release of this solicitation.”

iii. For this evaluation, “relevant” is defined as “a project with a scope similar or identical to the requirements of the solicitation and valued greater than or equal to $500,000.00. A level of relevancy will be assessed to each past performance reference as described in TABLE 1.

TABLE 1 – RELEVENCY

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 little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

iv. The Government will use past performance information submitted by the offeror’s references and may use other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, other federal government offices, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; the

Defense Contract Management agency, interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials 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.

v. Where the relevant past and present performance record indicates performance problems, the Government may 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 what might otherwise be indicated. The Government will evaluate/assess all past performance information, positive and negative. Offerors may 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 “Neutral Confidence.”

vi. Each past performance reference submitted by an offeror will receive a Performance Confidence Rating as described in TABLE 2 based on the recency, relevancy, and quality of the offeror’s performance.

TABLE 2 - PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE

Adjectival 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.

Neutral Confidence

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.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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.

B. Factor 2 – Technical

i. A technical evaluation of each Offeror’s proposal shall be made using the combined technical/ risk rating method. The technical rating provides an assessment of the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach meets the performance and capability requirements of the Government. The focus of the combined technical/risk rating is to identify if the contractor has an adequate capability, capacity, and understanding of the requirements of the Government. This rating will be based on the Government’s technical knowledge and historical data.

ii. To satisfy the technical requirements of this solicitation, Offerors shall provide one

(1) detailed management plan providing, as specifically as possible, the actual means and methodology you would use to accomplish/satisfy the three (3) technical focus areas of work and address your technical solution for meeting or exceeding the Government’s requirements. A list of the three (3) technical focus areas is below:

a. Focus Area 1 – Installing Electrical Equipment and Controls: Contractor must demonstrate the ability to perform in all aspects of connecting to a medium voltage distribution system and providing electrical service to components in accordance with electrical code requirements. Contractors must include experience with electrical connections to mechanical HVAC components as well as heat tracing of gutters and downspouts installation, heat tracing controls and sensors.

b. Focus Area 2 – Repair of roofing and sealing systems: Contractor must demonstrate the ability to perform in all aspects the assessment of roofing sealing components, and proper installation of new components or material and repair of existing components and or systems to ensure watertight seals. This includes seals around roof penetrations, mechanical equipment curbs, EPDM joints, and interfaces to vertical CMU walls. Additionally, contractors will demonstrate the ability to surface prep for application of elastomeric coatings.

c. Focus Area 3 – Gutters and Downspouts: Contractor must demonstrate the ability to perform in all aspects the sealing of gutter systems and include extending of existing downspouts down to ground levels.

iii. The evaluation team will evaluate the technical management plan above to identify weaknesses, potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Each offeror’s technical management plan will be assessed an adjectival technical risk rating as described as in TABLE 3:

TABLE 3 – TECHNICAL RISK

Adjectival Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance.

Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that cause an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

iv. The evaluation team will then evaluate each offeror’s technical proposal for quality. It will include consideration of risk in conjunction with the significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies found in the proposal. Each offeror’s technical proposal will be assessed an overall adjectival combined technical/risk rating as described in TABLE 4.

TABLE 4 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements, contains multiple strengths and /or at least one significant strength.

Purple Good Proposal demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal demonstrates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is un-awardable.

C. Factor 3 – Price

i. An offeror’s proposed price will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in Section B by the proposed unit price for each CLIN to confirm extended amount for each. Offerors whose total evaluated price is unreasonable (in accordance with FAR 15.404 and FAR 31.201-3) may not be considered for award.

ii. 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 the offer.

iii. 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.

iv. All offerors are required to submit offers on all items listed in Section B.

D. Contractor Responsibility:

i. Prior to award, a responsibility determination will be made as described in

FAR Part 9.

ii. A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer) whether there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.