FA485518R0003_Amendment_0004.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to:

Update Section M, Evaluation Criteria, paragraph 6.3.1 to read “The ability to provide detailed design narrative, plans, draw ings, and specif ications adequately addressing the items listed in Section L, paragraph 5.5.1.1 through paragraph 5.5.1.11”

All other terms and conditions remain the same

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 10

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 26-Jan-2018

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X FA485518R0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

12-Dec-2017

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE

RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

26-Jan-2018

CODE

27 SOCONS/CC

110 E ALISON AVE, BLDG 600

CANNON AFB NM 88103-5321

FA4855 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA485518R0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

EVALUATION CRITERIA

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD. This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-1 and 15.3 as supplemented by the Defense Federal

Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 215.300, and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation

Supplement (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

The Best Value technique chosen for this particular acquisition will be a Subjective Tradeoff. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, 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 best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical and/or past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation

(described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation.

2. DISCUSSIONS. The Government intends to award without discussions. Therefore, the offerors initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. Although the Government intends to award without discussion, it reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. 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 at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk to the offeror’s proposal that may change the rating of the offeror’s proposal.

3. CLARIFICATIONS. In accordance with FAR 15.306, Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, relevance of past performance information). Clarifications conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

4. EVALUATION FACTORS. The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Price Factor (located within Vol 1)

Factor 2: Technical Factor (Located within Vol 2)

Subfactor 1: Program Management

Subfactor 2: Coefficient Rationale

Subfactor 3: Sample Project

Factor 3: Past Performance Factor (Located within Vol 3)

Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

4.1. Relative Importance of Factors. For this solicitation, the Technical Factor, which includes the technical rating and technical risk rating, is the most important followed by past performance, and then cost/price.

Technical Subfactors 1, 2, and 3 are of equal importance. Additionally and in accordance with FAR

15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

5. PRICE FACTOR. The offeror’s price proposal, as described in Section L, paragraph 4.1.2, will be evaluated as follows.

5.1. Completeness and Reasonableness. Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness. Additionally, the offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated, for award purposes, based upon the coefficient proposed for the base year and all option years. While the coefficient will not be rated, it will be evaluated for completeness and 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. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

5.2. The price proposal will be evaluated using the information listed on the Bid Schedule, located in Section B of the solicitation document. The adjusted annual amount based on percentage of estimated volume will be multiplied by the offeror’s proposed coefficient for each category. The resulting adjusted total estimated value for each category will be added together to arrive at the total estimated usage for each performance period. All performance periods will then be added together to determine the total proposed price for all years. The percentage of estimated volume per category is as follows:

Standard Hours (0700 – 1600) -- 90%

Non-Standard Hours -- 4%

Secure Area* Standard Hours -- 4%

Secure Area Non-Standard Hours-- 2%

* Secured Area - is any area that requires more stringent measures to enter that area; that may vary between personnel background checks/clearances to work hours/regulations.

5.3. Estimated volume is based on a maximum contract value of $15M over 5 years ($3M per year), and will be used for evaluation purposes only. The offeror should not consider this figure as any indication of proposed contract usage, nor base the proposed coefficient rates on any expectation that such levels of award will be made by the Government.

5.4. Balance. Offeror’s price proposals will be reviewed for balance among all Bid Schedule Line Items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total cost/price, the cost/price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as demonstrated by application of cost or price analysis techniques. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to Cost/Price. Per FAR 52.215-1(f)(8), the Government may determine a proposal unacceptable if the costs/prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items. The Government file://///Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR15.DOC%23b15304 file://///Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR15.DOC%23b15304 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/dfars/dfars219.htm#b15404 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/dfars/dfars215.htm#b312013 may also consider an offer unbalanced if there is a significant difference between proposed prices from year to year, including option years, such that they are above or below what would be considered a reasonable adjustment for inflation. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

5.5. Total Evaluated Price. Evaluation of proposed pricing will be based on review of prices provided in the

Bid Schedule. The offeror’s price proposal will be reviewed for compliance with Section L cost/price instructions. The total evaluated price will be calculated as the sum of the offeror’s price for all contract line item numbers, and all option periods. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The proposed Sample and Seed bid schedules, as described in Section L, paragraphs

5.5.3 and 7.2.1, will NOT be factored into the price evaluation.

6. TECHNICAL FACTOR. Each offeror’s written technical proposal will be evaluated, based on the subfactors identified in paragraphs 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the solicitation and General Requirements and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The technical proposal addresses each of the subfactors in sufficient detail. For each subfactor, the offeror identifies risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach.

6.1. Subfactor 1 – Program Management: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s management approach as it relates to key personnel capabilities and functions, subcontract management plan, and bonding capacity. The proposal shall be evaluated and rated to determine if the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a sound approach to executing and concurrently managing task orders under the resulting contract.

6.1.1. Key Personnel Capabilities and Functions. The Offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate the following:

6.1.1.1. A logical organizational and management structure;

6.1.1.2. Sufficient key personnel that meet the minimum standards (education and/or experience) for those positions in accordance with the SABER General Requirements (attachment 1), paragraph 2.7 and all subparagraphs;

6.1.1.3. An effective approach to ensure Project Superintendents, Quality Control Managers, and

Site Safety and Health Officer are not over saturated with the management and/or responsibilities associated with assigned active projects. Additionally, the approach must meet the Project

Superintendent requirements listed in the SABER General Requirements, paragraph 2.7.3.

6.1.1.4. An effective approach to ensure quality control and safety management are properly applied to each active project.

6.1.2. Subcontract Management Plan. The Offeror’s proposal shall communicate a plan that demonstrates the following:

6.1.2.1. An effective approach to ensure the successful use and management of subcontractors;

6.1.2.2. A thorough understanding of all trades/disciplines required under the resulting contract; the availability of an appropriate labor force; and the determination of in-house/organic versus subcontractor execution per trade/discipline;

6.1.2.3. The identification of appropriate A-E firms and professional engineering support.

6.1.2.4. An effective approach to provide sustained contract compliance during surges in workload and/or in number of concurrent active task orders.

6.1.3. Bonding Capacity. The Offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate the following:

6.1.3.1. Evidence that the offeror is able to obtain the maximum single award/task order performance and payment bonding capacity of $1M and a minimum aggregate bonding capacity of $3.5M, backed by a bonding surety with a certified Department of Treasury Surety, as listed in

FAR 28.202. The document(s) shall include the surety company’s name, address, phone number, and points of contact.

6.2. Subfactor 2 – Coefficient Rationale: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s Coefficient Rationale. The proposal shall be evaluated and rated to determine if the Offeror’s Coefficient Rationale reflects an understanding of contract requirements and evaluates the risk that a low coefficient poses to the quality of performance. Offeror’s proposal must demonstrate how the Offeror considered the below in formulating their proposed coefficients:

6.2.1. Understanding of local market pricing and conditions;

6.2.2. A thorough understanding of the perceived accuracy of the RSMeans pricing as it relates to the local market;

6.2.3. A thorough understanding of the application of the associated City Cost Index; and

6.2.4. An understanding of contract requirements as it relates to the expected volume of work.

6.3. Subfactor 3 – Sample Project: The proposal will be evaluated and rated to determine if the Offeror has adequately demonstrated:

6.3.1. The ability to provide detailed design narrative, plans, drawings, and specifications adequately addressing the items listed in Section L, paragraph 5.5.1.1 through paragraph 5.5.1.11; and

6.3.2. The ability to provide a detailed written scope adequately addressing the items listed in Section L, paragraph 5.5.2.1 through paragraph 5.5.2.7.

6.3.2.1. The Sample Project progress schedule and supporting narrative will be evaluated on how well the offeror captured the major line items of the project, how the percentages/value of these line items related to the cost proposal, identification of long lead time materials, how the contractor schedules/plots the work and how this coincides with the overall performance period for the task order.

6.3.2.2. The project schedule itself shall be in both AF 3064 and Gantt Chart format and will evaluated to determine if it adequately and visually depicts and addresses each of the following elements:

6.3.2.2.1. Identification of separate work elements;

6.3.2.2.2. Order of work elements;

6.3.2.2.3. Number of days for each work element;

6.3.2.2.4. Identification of Long Lead Time Materials (Long lead items such as major equipment, electrical equipment, pre-engineered piping, etc., must be specifically identified in the technical proposal. If there are no Long Lead Time Materials, the proposal must state that there are no Long Lead Time Materials.); and

6.3.2.2.5. Identification of work elements in the critical path.

6.3.2.3. The Sample Project progress report will be evaluated on how well the offeror transfers the data from the project schedule to the progress report to show work completed at the end of week

4.

6.3.2.4. The work time analysis will be evaluated on what miscellaneous or preparatory items are identified, the actual construction period, and how a combination of these correlate to an overall period of performance for the associated task order.

6.3.2.5. The submittal register will be evaluated on how well the offeror captured submittals associated with the Sample Project. Must include both ‘S’ and ‘T’ submittals per the General

Requirements.

6.3.3. A clear understanding of the contract requirements and the ability to develop a proposed bid schedule associated with the Sample project described in Section L, paragraph 5.5. The proposed bid schedule shall be in accordance with SABER General Requirements, paragraphs 1.12 and 5.14. The

Sample Project proposal will not be factored into the overall price evaluation. See Section M, paragraph 5 for price evaluation information.

6.4. Combined Technical/Technical Risk Rating. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degraded performance, the need for increased government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation shall address the Source Selection Team’s identification of any weakness as well as the offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation (if applicable) and document why that is or is not manageable.

6.4.1. Each Technical subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in DoD Source Selection

Procedures, Table 3 – Combined Technical/Risk Ratings, excerpted below, which focuses on the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 3 – Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Color

Rating

Adjectival

Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

6.4.1.1. The Technical Risk descriptions identified in the Combined Technical/Risk Rating description are further defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2B – Technical Risk

Descriptions, excerpted below. Factor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

7. PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR.

7.1. Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements.

Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical factors and

Cost/Price factor taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in Section M, paragraph

4.1. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information

Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers and

Contracting Officers; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

7.1.1. 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 issuance month of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

7.1.2. Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical factor and Cost/Price factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to contract performance consisting of information demonstrating construction and design experience with

Red Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

Proposal is unawardable.

DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2B – Technical Risk Descriptions

Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close

Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

contracts that have multiple projects/task orders containing work elements such as demolition, new construction, facility renovation, alteration and repair, heating ventilation and air conditioning

(HVAC), electrical, mechanical, and plumbing. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and teaming partners. 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 or teaming partner. The past performance questionnaires and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The relevancy of the projects will be assessed based on the past performance rating criteria described in the table following Section M, paragraph 7.1.2.1.

7.1.2.1. Work Elements.

E1 – Design

E2 – Demolition

E3 – New Construction

E4 – Facility Renovation, Alteration, and/or Repair

E5 – Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC)

E6 – Electrical

E7 – Mechanical

E8 – Plumbing

Past Performance Relevancy Rating Criteria

Adjectival Rating Definition

VERY RELEVANT

Past performance involving all work elements (E1 through E8) listed in

Section M, paragraph 7.1.2.1; demonstrates a minimum of 10 projects/task orders done simultaneously with costs totaling a minimum of $2M; and a minimum of 20 projects/task orders annually with a combined value of over

$2.5 M.

RELEVANT

Past performance involving all of the following work elements: E2, E4, E6, E7, and E8; or all work elements E4 through E8 listed in Section M, paragraph 7.1.2.1; demonstrates a minimum of 7 projects/task orders done simultaneously with costs totaling a minimum of $1.5M; and a minimum of

15 projects/task orders annually with a combined value of over $2.0M.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

Past performance involving all of the following work elements: E2, E4, E6, E7, and E8; or all work elements E4 through E8 listed in Section M, paragraph

7.1.2.1; and demonstrates a minimum of 3 projects/task orders done simultaneously with costs totaling a minimum of $1M.

NOT RELEVANT

Past performance efforts not involving any combination of the work elements defined in the other relevancy ratings, or not meeting the minimum thresholds as defined in the other relevancy ratings

7.1.3. The Past Performance evaluation will result in an overall performance confidence assessment as defined below. This performance confidence assessment represents the Government evaluation team's judgment of the probability of an offeror successfully accomplishing the proposed effort based on the offeror's demonstrated past and present performance. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 –

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method, excerpted below.

DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

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.

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. 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.

7.1.4. Quality of Past Performance. All recent past performance that is determined to be somewhat relevant, relevant, or very relevant will be reviewed to determine the quality of the offeror's performance, general trends, and the usefulness of the performance. This information will be used by the evaluation team in determining the overall performance confidence assessment rating.

7.1.5. Assigning Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and quality of the performance of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical factors and cost/price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

7.1.6. More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

7.1.7. If a Teaming Agreement is submitted as part of the proposal as outlined in Section L, paragraph

6.1.2, each teaming offeror’s past performance will be evaluated separately using the same evaluation methods described above. The Prime Contractor’s past performance will be weighted slightly more than equal based on their overall responsibility for contract management. The separate ratings of each party in the Teaming Agreement will be combined to determine an aggregate Performance Confidence

Assessment Rating as described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance

Confidence Assessments Rating Method.

8. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY. Once the apparent successful offeror is selected the Government will evaluate the offeror’s financial capabilities and the specified criteria at FAR 9.104. Attachment 38, Financial

Reference Worksheet will be forwarded to the financial institution and a determination will be made regarding the apparent successful offerors financial capabilities and overall contractor responsibility using the specified criteria at

FAR 9.104.

9. 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.

(End of Summary of Changes)