Attachment_2_Instructions_to_Offerors_and_Evaluation_Criteria.pdf

RFP #FA7014-18-R-1029 Attachment #2 (Addendum ITO and Eval Criteria)

ADDENDUM TO FAR PROVISION FAR 52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

(ITO) – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

TYPE OF CONTRACT

The Government contemplates the award of a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract NAICS code

541611 via Fedbizopps (FBO). This is a competitive 8(a) set aside contract for Business Process

Reengineering and Policy Development for Materiel Management and Ground Transportation.

1.0 NOTICE TO OFFERORS

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without interchanges with offerors. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical and price standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct interchanges with the offeror if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be in the best interests of the

Government.

1.1 FAILURE TO SUBMIT

Failure to submit any of the information requested by this solicitation may be cause for unfavorable consideration or proposal rejection.

2.0 INFORMATION PROTECTION

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and its amendments have resulted in an increasing number of requests from outside the Government for copies of contract qualifications and proposals submitted to federal agencies. If an Offeror’s submissions contain information that he/she believes should be withheld from such requestors under FOIA on the grounds that they contain “trade secrets and commercial or financial information” [5 USC§552(b)(4)], the Offeror should mark its submissions in the following manner:

The following notice should be placed on the title page: “Some parts of this document, as identified on individual pages, are considered by the submitter to be privileged or confidential trade secrets or commercial or financial information not subject to mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Material considered privileged or confidential on such grounds is contained on page(s) _______.”

Each individual item considered privileged or confidential under FOIA should be marked with the following notice: “The data or information is considered confidential or privileged, and is not subject to mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.”

3.0 SOLICITATION RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS

3.1 GENERAL

The Offeror shall submit documentation illustrating their approach for satisfying the requirements of this solicitation. Proposals must be clear, coherent, and prepared in sufficient detail for effective evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal against the evaluation criteria. This documentation shall cover all aspects of this solicitation and include the Offeror’s approach for providing all personnel, equipment, supplies, transportation, tools, materials, supervision, and other items and non-personal services necessary to provide services in support of the Business

Process Reengineering and Policy Development for Materiel Management and Ground

Transportation requirement. Proposals must clearly demonstrate how the Offeror intends to accomplish the requirements and must include convincing rationale and substantiation of all claims. The written proposals must include all requested information in the RFP including information requested in full text and IBR clauses (To be included in Volume 1). Unnecessarily elaborate brochures or other presentations beyond those sufficient to present a complete effective response to the solicitation are not desired. Instructions for content in the proposals should be followed in accordance with this document.

All correspondence in conjunction with this solicitation should be directed to the Government

CO and Contract Specialist (CS) identified below:

Michelle L. Pederson, Contracting Officer

E-mail address: michelle.l.pederson2.civ@mail.mil

Paula Schwenk, Contract Specialist

E-mail address: paula.s.schwenk.civ@mail.mil

3.2 PROPOSAL VOLUME REQUIREMENTS

The proposal shall be accompanied by a cover letter prepared on the company’s letterhead stationery. The cover letter shall identify all enclosures being transmitted and shall be used only to transmit the proposal and shall include no other information. The cover letter shall be a separate document and will not be counted in the page limitations. Only proposals submitted in accordance with these instructions will be accepted. The following are further descriptions of the information that shall be provided with the proposal.

Volume Section

Reference

Elec.

Copies Page/Slide Limit

I. Technical Approach - Written 3.4 2 NTE 30 pages (NOT inclusive of all supplements)

II. Past Performance 3.5 2 5 References, 15 pages maximum

III. Price 3.6 2 N/A

3.2.1 Page Limitations of Written Proposal

The cover letter, title page, table of contents, table of figures, list of tables and glossary of abbreviations & acronyms for each volume and resumes do not count against page count limitations. Proposal contents that exceed the stated page limitations will be removed from the proposal by the CO, prior to turning the proposal over to the Government evaluation teams, and will not be considered in the evaluation. The total page count of the written technical submission should not exceed 30 pages (page limit does not include resumes, graphs and any other supplemental pages.

3.2.2 Format of Written Proposal

Text shall be single-spaced, on 8½” x 11” paper (except as specifically noted), with a minimum one-inch margin all around. Pages shall be numbered consecutively. A page printed on both sides shall be counted as two pages. Print shall be of a minimum 12-point Times New Roman font size. Headers and Footers may use a font size smaller than 12-point as long they are easily readable. Bolding, underlining, and italics may be used to identify topic demarcations or points of emphasis. Graphic presentations, including tables, while not subject to the same font size and spacing requirements, shall have spacing and text that is easily readable. Each volume in the proposal shall include a title page and table of contents. The table of contents shall list sections, subsections and page numbers. Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used and listing of tables, drawings, diagrams and/or figures. Each acronym used shall be spelled out in the text the first time it appears in each proposal volume. Requested dd254 information is not included in the overall page count of the proposal.

3.2.3 Submission Address

It is the responsibility of the Offeror to verify receipt of proposals with the CO or CS. No hand deliveries will be accepted. The Government will accept multiple emails if the file size exceeds the Government’s file size limit.

Complete proposals shall be emailed to:

Michelle L. Pederson, Contracting Officer

E-mail address: michelle.l.pederson2.civ@mail.mil

Paula Schwenk, Contract Specialist

E-mail address: paula.s.schwenk.civ@mail.mil

3.2.4 Submission Due Dates

Proposals must be received IAW date and time stated in Block 8 of FA7014-18-R-1029, sf 1449.

Late submissions will not be accepted.

3.2.5 Electronic Copies of Proposal

Text and graphics portions of the electronic copies shall be in a format readable by Microsoft

(MS) Word 2013 and/or Adobe Acrobat XI Pro. Visual presentation material shall be readable by MS Office 2013. The Offeror must ensure that the submission is readable, in the format specified in the solicitation, and has been verified free of computer viruses. Prior to any evaluation, the Government will check all files for viruses and ensure that all information is readable. In the event that any files are corrupted or unreadable, the Government may request the Offeror to resubmit the electronic media.

Two 2 electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted, one shall be un-redacted and one shall be redacted. The second, redacted, electronic copy of Volumes I, II, and III shall remove all references to company names and all other identifying markings (i.e., logos, slogans, individual’s names, phone numbers, addresses, emails, CAGE and DUNS codes, etc.).

The removal of the stated markings in the preceding paragraph is adequate to be considered redacted.

3.2.6 Organizational Conflicts of Interest Avoidance

Offerors are required to identify any actual or potential Conflict of Interest in their written proposals (Volume I), and may be required to submit a mitigation plan during the proposal period. The successful Offeror shall prepare an OCI mitigation plan, if required. Mitigation

Plans, if required, will be evaluated IAW FAR 9.5.

3.2.7 Attachments to RFP Memo

The Offeror shall utilize the following attachments included in the solicitation package in development of the proposal:

a. Attachment 1 – RFP #FA7014-18-R-1029

b. Attachment 2 – Instructions to Offerors and Evaluation Criteria

c. Attachment 3 – Performance Work Statement (PWS)

d. Attachment 4 – Past Performance Questionnaire

3.3 Communications

Offerors may e-mail written inquiries clarification of the RFP to the Contract Specialist, at:

paula.s.schwenk.civ@mail.mil. The Government will answer questions received by the date specified in the RFP Memo (Cover Letter) and will provide responses to all parties through FBO.

Questions received after this date may be considered and answered if time permits at the discretion of the CO.

3.4 FACTOR I: TECHNICAL APPROACH

Technical Proposal

The written technical proposal should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. Offeror’s responses will be evaluated as defined in the Evaluation Criteria. The proposal should not merely reiterate or rephrase the objectives or reformulate the Government’s requirements specified in the solicitation but shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume 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.

The technical proposal should include a staffing plan that demonstrates an offeror’s capability to properly allocate resources in accordance with the PWS. The offeror shall provide a Staffing Plan that describes the capability to staff, recruit, retain and replace personnel with the experience and expertise required to perform the entire range of tasks in the PWS (for both Base and Full

Requirement). The offeror shall submit resumes for the Key Personnel (for both Base and Full

Requirement) for review to show the offerors understanding of the requirement.

The technical proposal should demonstrate an offeror’s capability to properly manage subcontractors/teaming partners (if applicable) in accordance with the PWS. The offeror shall demonstrate the capability to provides a management plan detailing how they will manage their personnel and potential subcontractors/teaming partners (if applicable), which will fully describe teaming and subcontractor arrangements, approach to efficiently and proactively manage the PWS requirements, and provide the Government visibility into the work.

The technical proposal shall include a transition for the beginning of the contract. The offeror shall submit a plan to transition in. The transition period shall be no longer than thirty (30) calendar days after contract award date.

3.5 FACTOR II: PAST PERFORMANCE

Past Performance: The offeror shall provide past performance information on no more than five (5) contracts/ work efforts. Offeror should consider subcontractor past performance submission if their proposal includes substantial subcontracting efforts. To be recent, the contract (or subcontract) must have been performed within the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation and for a minimum of a six (6) month period. Past Performance outside this given timeframe will not be evaluated. Offeror’s proposal shall provide examples of past performance that indicates a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. The evaluation of past performance information will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the acquisition.

Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment 4) shall be sent by the offeror to the offeror’s points of contact. The offeror should make its best effort to send out a sufficient number of past performance questionnaires to reasonably expect the CO will receive at least one questionnaire on each cited contract/work effort. The questionnaire recipient will e-mail completed questionnaires directly to the contracting office listed on the questionnaire. Offerors shall not complete any information in the Past Performance Questionnaire and questionnaires received directly from offerors will not be evaluated. Past Performance Questionnaires are requested to be received in the issuing office by the date and time the proposals are due.

3.6 FACTOR III: PRICE

This section is to assist offerors in submitting data other than certified cost or pricing data that is required to evaluate fairness and reasonableness of your proposed price. Compliance with these requirements is mandatory and failure to comply may result in rejection of your proposal. Proposals should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their fairness and reasonableness. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed prices rests with the offeror.

This volume will include a completed SF 1449, Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial

Items, and any other information required to complete the contract.

The Offeror agrees to hold the prices in its proposal firm for 60 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of proposals, unless another time period is specified in an amendment to the solicitation.

Compliance with these requirements is mandatory and failure to comply may result in rejection of the Offeror’s proposal.

3.6.1 Price Volume Organization

The Price Volume shall be organized as follows:

a. Section 1 – Table of Contents

b. Section 2 – Cost and Pricing Schedule (contractor format).

3.6.2 Supporting Fixed-Price Data

Price proposals must adhere to the pricing structure established in the CLINs of the solicitation. Each Offeror’s price proposal must be based on the Offeror’s own technical proposal, the Government’s specifications, and other contractual requirements. If the prices are to be based on established market price, not otherwise published, or if prices are applicable only to the proposed contract, the Offeror shall so state.

a. Pricing shall be completed by the Offeror in accordance with the following:

i. Proposed prices shall be provided reflecting the established CLINs.

ii. All prices contained in the pricing schedule reflect total compensation for the services detailed therein and are fully inclusive of all costs including labor (workers, management, aids, assistants, and operators), overhead, general and administrative

(G&A) expenses, and profit.

iii. Travel CLINs shall be proposed as NTE for the amounts stated in the RFP.

iv. Price proposals shall be evaluated for the presence of “unbalanced pricing”. The

Contracting Officer will perform a price proposal analysis to determine balanced pricing. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to reject an offer if it is determined that the lack of balanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the

Government in accordance with FAR Part 15.404-1(g). The offeror and first-tier subcontractors proposal must include a Professional Employee Compensation Plan

(PECP) IAW FAR 52.222-46 and the addendum to FAR 52.212-2 of this solicitation. The offeror’s proposal must identify ONLY the professional labor categories, unburdened rates and the fringe benefits for the National Capital Region

(NCR). The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s and first-tier subcontractor’s

PECPs for realism by assessing the compatibility of the proposed price with the proposal’s scope and effort in accordance with FAR 52.222-46. For the PECP to be realistic, it must reflect what it would cost the Offeror to perform the effort, if performed with reasonable economy and efficiency in the National Capital Region (NCR) (U.S.

Postal Code 20330). The Government may utilize government civilian rates, similar contract labor rates, salary.com, other similar or relevant websites, or anything else it deems appropriate or beneficial in its evaluation of realism. For the PECP to be realistic, it must demonstrate the contractor’s ability to successfully recruit and retain qualified professional employees in the geographical areas where the work is being performed.

*Subcontractors shall submit this information directly to the Government Points of

Contact identified in this RFP.

b. The Government expects that this contract will be awarded based upon adequate price competition.

3.6.3 Rounding Methodology

All dollar amounts provided shall be rounded to the nearest penny. All labor rates shall be rounded to the nearest penny.

ADDENDUM FOR FAR PROVISION FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION -- COMMERCIAL

ITEMS

1.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

The basis for award will be a best value past performance/price trade-off that will allow the

Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal to achieve a best- value contract award. The Technical Approach, when combined with past performance is more important than price. More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence

Assessment than less recent or relevant efforts. A strong record of relevant past performance will be considered more advantageous to the Government. Only Offerors with a past performance confidence rating of “Substantial” or “Satisfactory” will move on to be evaluated under Factor 3, Price. Award will be made to the offeror who is Technically Acceptable, has a

Past Performance rating of ‘Substantial’or ‘Satisfactory’ and has a reasonable, fair, balanced, complete and realistic price.

This contract is a competitive unrestrictive procurement. The Government intends to award one

(1) contract for the Business Process Reengineering and Policy Development for Materiel

Management and Ground Transportation requirement, however, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all. This acquisition will result in a Firm Fixed Price contract.

Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the

Government based upon an assessment of the evaluation factors described in this document.

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an assessment of the evaluation factors described in section 2.0.

Factor I: Technical Approach (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

Factor II: Past Performance

Factor III: Price

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATING METHODOLOGY

2.1 EVALUATION FACTOR OVERVIEW

Evaluation Process and Relative Importance of Factors. The Government will review the proposals for responsiveness; if a proposal is non-responsive then it will not be evaluated. The

Government will evaluate proposals of the responsive offerors for Factor I, Technical

Approach on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis. Only proposals that receive an Acceptable rating for Factor I (Technical Approach) will proceed to Factor II, Past Performance. Factor II, Past Performance, will be assessed at the overall factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent (within 5 years) past performance focusing on performance that is relevant to the requirements outlined in the Performance Work Statement and to the actual functional areas of the requirement. Only those proposals that receive a Past Performance rating of ‘Substantial’ or

‘Satisfactory’will move on to Factor III, Price. Price will be evaluated for reasonableness and fairness. Award will be made to the offeror who is Technically Acceptable, has at least a past performance rating of “Satisfactory” or “Substantial” and has a reasonable, fair, balanced, complete and realistic price.

The Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract without interchanges with offerors. Therefore, the offeror's initial offer should contain the offeror's best terms from a price, technical and past performance standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct interchanges with the offeror if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be in the best interests of the Government.

2.2. EVALUATION FACTORS

2.2.1 – Factor I: Technical Approach

The Government will evaluate the total technical proposals on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable as defined below. Proposals must be submitted in accordance with the Instructions to Offerors

Acceptable – Proposal must both 1) clearly meet the minimum requirements and 2) indicate an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Unacceptable – Proposal does not 1) clearly meet the minimum requirements, 2) does not indicate an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and 3) is not awardable

Proposals must include a Staffing Plan. The Staffing Plan describes the capability to staff, recruit, retain, and replace personnel with the experience and expertise required to perform the entire range of tasks and FTEs (Base and Full Requirement) in the PWS.

Measure of Merit: The following elements will be considered in the overall acceptability determination.

• Details their approach and ability to staff, including their recruitment approaches/capabilities

• Details method(s) in which the company replaces personnel

• Details methods in which the company retains current employees

• Details their capability to provide a sufficient number of trained, qualified, cleared personnel with appropriate security clearances to accomplish the requirements of the PWS at start date of the base period of performance.

The Proposal must include a management plan detailing how they will manage their personnel and subcontractors/teaming partners’ (if applicable), their approach to efficiently and proactively manage the PWS requirements, and how they will provide the Government visibility into the PWS tasks.

• Detailed plans for each of the teaming and subcontractor arrangements (if applicable)

• Detailed rationale in how management and control policies will be implemented

• Detailed rationale in how work will be controlled, reported, and reviewed

The proposal must provide a Phase-In Transition Plan that demonstrate the offerors ability to transition in for assuming responsibility for the PWS requirements no longer than thirty (30) calendar days after contract award date. The Government will evaluate the offerors approach and plan for a smooth transition in the turnover of work.

• On-boarding Key transition personnel as soon as possible within 30 days

• On-boarding all FTEs by the end of the transition period (30 days)

• A reasonable schedule for the transfer of duties

• Understanding of current workload and milestones

• Minimizing disruption to ongoing projects and mitigating any potential disruptions

• Communication with key stakeholders (e.g., incumbent/successor Offeror management and staff, COR and PCO)

• Shall demonstrate the management of any program risk to include loss of continuity for the task areas. The Offeror shall provide a robust/well defined mitigation plan that will address any type of risk or unknown risk for the mission.

Only Technically Acceptable Proposals will proceed to Factor II.

2.2.2 – Factor II: Past Performance

Past Performance will be assessed at the overall factor level after evaluating aspects of the

Offeror’s recent (within 5 yrs.) past performance focusing on performance that is relevant. The

Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments based on the recency, relevancy, and quality assessment ratings per the stated criteria in this document.

Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment 4) shall be sent to the offeror’s points of contact.

The offeror should make its best effort to send out a sufficient number of past performance questionnaires to reasonably expect the CO will receive at least one questionnaire on each cited contract/work effort. The questionnaire recipient will e-mail completed questionnaires directly to the contracting office listed on the questionnaire. Offerors shall not complete any information in the Past Performance Questionnaire and questionnaires received directly from offerors will not be evaluated. Past Performance Questionnaires are requested to be received in the issuing office by the date and time the proposals are due.

1. Recency. The Past Performance will be reviewed for recency. Recent past performance is determined to be projects completed within the last 5 years. Anything later than 5 years is determined to be not recent. Only past performance records deemed to be recent move on to relevancy.

Recent Performance within the last 5 years

Not Recent Performance is previous to the last 5 years

Only past performance records deemed to be recent move on to relevancy.

2. Relevancy. Relevancy will be determined based on the definition provided in Table below. Each contract under each performance category will receive a relevancy rating.

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.

3. Quality Assessment Rating. The Government will consider the performance of quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). The quality assessment consists of an evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source. Each submission will receive a quality assessment rating based on the table below. A quality assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine the quality of the performance for each of the references. Each submission will receiving an individual rating. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse findings is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

The Government reserves the right to obtain information relative to present and past performance on its own, in addition to information provided by the Offeror. The quality of an Offeror’s past performance may be reviewed and evaluated through the use of systems such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contract

Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System

(eSRS), questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition or other sources or databases known to the Government. Interviews may be conducted with Program

Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials, Defense Contract

Management Agency or other sources known to the Government.

The Quality Assessment Rating for each evaluated contract will be based on the following definitions.

Quality Assessment Ratings

Rating Description

Exceptional During the entire period, the contractor met and exceeded many of the requirements of the contract and consistently performed at a superior level. Performance was accomplished with very few minor problems, and the contractor took immediate and effective corrective actions for those problems that did occur.

Very Good During the entire period, the contractor met and exceeded some of the requirements of the contract and consistently performed very well.

Performance was accomplished with some minor problems, and the contractor took timely and effective corrective action for those problems that did occur.

Satisfactory During the entire period, the contractor met the requirements of the contract and consistently performed at an acceptable level.

Performance was accomplished with some problems, and the contractor took effective corrective action for those problems that did occur.

Marginal During the entire period, the contractor did not always meet some of the requirements of the contract and intervention was required to continue performance. There were instances where performance was at a less than acceptable level; performance was accomplished with some problems and some corrective actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory During the entire period, the contractor did not meet the requirements of the contract and performance was at an unacceptable level. There were a number of serious problems that required extensive oversight and involvement, and corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent.

Not Applicable Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect, or information was not available. Do not know.

4. Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. As a result of the recency, relevancy, and quality ratings for all the submissions and evaluated past performance data, offerors will receive one integrated overall performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical 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 receive an “Unknown Confidence” rating for the Performance

Confidence Assessment Rating.

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 will be considered more advantageous to the Government. 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.

The performance confidence assessment may result in positive or adverse findings.

Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following performance confidence ratings when assessing recent, relevant efforts.

Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

Rating Description

Substantial

Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent, relevant, and quality ratings in all three performance categories, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory

Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent, relevant, and quality ratings in all three performance categories, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent, relevant, and quality ratings in all three performance categories, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent, relevant, and quality ratings in all three performance categories, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence

(Neutral)

No qualified performance record is available or the offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Offerors receiving a “Substantial” or “Satisfactory” Performance Assessment Confidence rating will move to Factor III.

2.2.3 – Factor III: Price

The proposals will be evaluated for award purposes based upon the total evaluated price (TEP), which includes the base period and all option periods. The six month extension under FAR

52.217-8 will be evaluated however it will not count toward the TEP. Evaluation of the option period prices shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. Price will be evaluated for fairness, reasonableness, balance and completeness. For additional information see FAR

31.102 Fixed-Price Contracts.

The Professional Employee Compensation Plan (PECP) will be evaluated IAW FR 52.222-46 for realism. The Government reserves the right to eliminate a proposal from further evaluation due to unacceptable risk if the evaluated prices are unreasonable, unbalanced, incomplete or if the

PECP is unrealistic. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s and first-tier subcontractor’s

PECPs for realism by assessing the compatibility of the proposed price with the proposal’s scope and effort in accordance with FAR 52.222-46. For the PECP to be realistic, it must reflect what it would cost the Offeror to perform the effort, if performed with reasonable economy and efficiency in the National Capital Region (NCR) (U.S. Postal Code 20330). The Government may utilize government civilian rates, similar contract labor rates, salary.com, other similar or relevant websites, or anything else it deems appropriate or beneficial in its evaluation of realism.

For the PECP to be realistic, it must demonstrate the contractor’s ability to successfully recruit and retain qualified professional employees in the geographical areas where the work is being performed.

The Price Proposal shall contain a completed copy of the SF 1449, Solicitation/Contract/Order for

Commercial Items.

The Government shall select the source whose proposal offers the best value in accordance with the established criteria. Award will be made to the responsible offeror who is Technically

Acceptable, has a Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating of ‘Substantial’ or

‘Satisfactory’ and has a reasonable, fair, balanced, complete and realistic price.