Amended_Solicitation_11232016.docx

FA8201-17-R-0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (Oct 2015)

Addendum to 52.212-1(c), Period for Acceptance of Offers. The paragraph is tailored as follows: “The offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for 120 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers.”

ADDENDA TO 52.212-1, PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

A. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of the proposal, the offeror must follow the instructions contained herein. The proposal must be complete, self-sufficient, and respond directly to the requirements of this solicitation. The response shall consist of three (3) separate parts (electronic files); Part I – Price Proposal, Part II – Technical Proposal, and Part III - Past Performance Information.

B. The contracting officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the contracting officer will review this determination and if, in the contracting officer's opinion, adequate price competition exists no additional data will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists; offerors may be required to submit cost data to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine the reasonableness and affordability of the price.

C. Specific Instructions:

1. PART I – PRICE PROPOSAL - Submit electronic as individual file attachment by email.

(a) Insert proposed unit and extended prices in the SF1449 CLIN Pricing. The amount must equal the whole dollar unit price multiplied by the number of units. The proposal must be submitted for a base year CLIN’s 0001 thru 0011 plus four (4) Option Years, CLIN’s 0101thru 0411. Up to six additional months may be added in accordance with FAR clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, if determined to be in the Government’s best interest.

(b) Complete the necessary fill-ins and certifications in provisions. The provision FAR 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications – Commercial Items, shall be returned along with the proposal.

(c) Estimating Techniques and Methods – When responding to the Price Proposal requirements in the solicitation, the Offeror may use any generally accepted estimating technique to develop their proposal. Provide a summary description of your standard estimating system or methods.

(d) Pricing Assumptions – Summarize all significant pricing assumptions, scope limitations and/or qualifications of the Price Proposal.

2. PART II – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL - Submit electronic as individual file attachment by email limited to no more than 100 pages.

General – The Technical Proposal shall be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity and coherence are important. Provide as specifically as possible, the actual methodology you would use for accomplishing/satisfying the Technical sub factors and all requirements found in the SOW. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. By your proposal submission, you are representing that your firm will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation. It is not necessary or desirable for you to tell us so in your proposal. It is necessary, however, to describe how you will accomplish/satisfy the requirements and specifically how that capability will be used for this effort. Do NOT merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation. There shall be no reference to rates or price in the Technical Proposal.

Technical Sub factor 1: Business Plan

Description: The offeror shall submit a Business Plan and overall approach to meeting the program requirements as required by the SOW. The Business Plan shall thoroughly substantiate all of the following:

1. Teaming/Organizational Structure – An organizational structure in the business plan for prime contractor and all teaming partners and subcontractors that demonstrates the staffing plan to be provided in accordance with SOW, Contractor Requirements, page 3. (see Addenda to 52.212-2, 2.3.3(a)).

1. Limitations on Subcontracting – The offeror shall state an overall approach that at least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for the prime contractor’s employees (FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting and 13 CFR 125.6). (see Addenda to 52.212-2, 2.3.3(b))

1. Recruitment of Health Care Workers (HCW) – The offeror shall state within the business plan, the recruiting methodology for finding, pre-screening, and submitting qualifying documentation against the SOW minimum requirements (SOW Appendix G) for both credentialed and non-credentialed health care workers (see Addenda to 52.212-2, 2.3.3(c)).

1. Qualification of Health Care Workers (HCW) – The offeror’s process to verify and validate candidate qualifications in accordance with SOW Appendix G and H, including, but not limited to, health, immunizations, complete background checks, and drug screenings. (see Addenda to 52.212-2, 2.3.3(d)).

1. Credentialed HCW – The offeror’s process to submit complete and accurate credentials packages for credentialed HCWs near the start of the contract transition period (see Addenda 52.212-2, 2.3.3(e)).

1. Professional Compensation Plan – The offeror’s process to ensure a professional compensation plan that provides uninterrupted services for recruitment, placement, and retention for credentialed providers (see Addenda 52.212-2(f)).

Technical Sub factor 2: Performance Management Plan

Description: The offeror shall submit a Performance Management Plan that describes in writing, and illustrates, how the offeror satisfies the following requirements:

1. Manage Workforce – The offeror’s proposed approach to:

1. Maintain a minimum of 99% of all HCW positions filled at any given time.

1. Maintain a minimum of 85% of all Provider positions filled at any given time.

1. Continuity of services during the replacement of permanent and temporary absences for both credentialed and non-credentialed HCWs such that position vacancies do not exceed 30 calendar days.

1. Maintain HCW qualifications (e.g., immunizations, security, certification, licensure, credentials, etc.) before expiration without government oversight, additional cost, or intervention.

(see Addenda to 52.212-2, 2.3.4(a))

1. Resolve Performance Issues – The offeror’s process to adequately review, track, monitor, and respond to Occupational Medicine Clinic (OMC) and patient complaints using appropriate action to resolve all issues that satisfy Government concerns (see Addenda to 52.212-2, 2.3.4(b)).

Technical Sub factor 3: Quality and Safety Management Plan

Description: The offeror shall provide an approach to Quality and Safety Management. The proposed approach shall thoroughly substantiate a Safety and Health Plan that meets the minimum requirements outlined in the SOW, Appendix C (see Addenda to 52.212-2, 2.3.5).

3. PART III – PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION - Only references for recent and relevant contracts are desired. Submit electronic as individual file attachment by email. 30 page limit.

(a) Performance Surveys: The government will evaluate the quality and extent of offeror's performance deemed relevant to the requirements of this RFP. The government will use information submitted by the offeror and any other sources of information available to the Government to assess past performance. Provide a list of no more than three (3) of the most relevant contracts performed for Federal agencies and commercial customers within the last three (3) years. Relevant contracts include individual contracts that are similar, in whole or in part, to this solicitation, including contracts performed by a teaming partner or subcontractor. The evaluation of past performance information will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors/teaming partners that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. Furnish the following information for each contract listed:

(viii) Comments regarding compliance with contract terms and conditions

(ix) Comments regarding any known performance deemed unacceptable to the customer, or not in accordance with the contract terms and conditions.

If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent past performance information on previous teaming arrangements with same partner. If this is a first time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of past relevant contracts.

(b) Quality and Satisfaction Rating for Contracts Completed in the Past Three Years: Provide any information currently available (letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc.) which demonstrates customer satisfaction with overall job performance and quality of completed product for relevant past efforts/contracts (similar in scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires). In addition, explain corrective actions taken in the past, if any, for substandard performance and any current performance problems such as cost overruns, extended performance periods, numerous warranty calls, etc.

(c) Along with the information required in Part III, the offeror shall 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 (see Attachment 1). 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 (see Attachment 2).

D. General Information

1. Documents submitted in response to this solicitation must be fully responsive to and consistent with the following:

a. Requirements of the solicitation (Item Numbers) and Statement of Work (SOW), and government standards and regulations pertaining to the SOW.

b. Evaluation Factors for Award.

2. SUBMISSION, MODIFICATION, REVISION AND WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSALS - Proposals and modifications to proposals shall be submitted to the CO via electronic submission not exceeding 10MB with a courtesy copy to the BUYER frank.volk@us.af.mil A delivery receipt should be requested to ensure the proposal has been received. Proposals shall be delivered no later than the time and date specified for receipt, and shall clearly be marked with the solicitation number, name, address, and telephone number of the offeror. Late proposals will be processed in accordance with FAR 52.212-1(f) “Late submission, modifications, revisions, and withdrawals of offers.”

3. PAGE LIMITATIONS - Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal. Each page shall be counted except the following: blank pages, title pages, tables of contents, tabs, and glossaries and those parts of the Proposal noted as unlimited.

4. 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. Pages shall be single-spaced. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be no less than 12 points Times New Roman Font. 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 3/4 inch side margins. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume.

Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated and shall not exceed 8.5 x 11 inches in size. For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 10 point.

5. ELECTRONIC COPIES - Indicate on each document the volume number and title. Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including sub factors, exhibits, appendices and attachments, if any. The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by 2010 version of Microsoft (MS) Word®, MS Excel®, and MS-Power Point as applicable.

6. JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENTS - Joint Ventures are allowable on competitive 8(a) set-asides, however, the joint venture agreement must be received by SBA prior to proposal due date and approved before award of any resulting contract. If you are contemplating a joint venture on this project, you must advise your assigned SBA Business Opportunity Specialist (BOS) as soon as possible. It is also recommended that the agreement be submitted as soon as practicable to ensure compliance with established regulations. Any corrections and/or changes needed can be made only when your BOS has adequate time for a thorough review before the proposal due date. NO CORRECTIONS AND/OR CHANGES ARE ALLOWED AFTER TIME OF SUBMISSION OF PROPOSAL OR BIDS.

ATTACHMENT 1: SUBCONTRACTOR/TEAMING PARTNER CONSENT LETTER FOR THE RELEASE OF PAST AND PRESENT PERFORMANCE INFORMATION TO THE PRIME CONTRACTOR Past performance information concerning subcontractors and teaming partners cannot be disclosed to a private party without the subcontractor’s or teaming partner’s consent. Because a prime contractor is a private party, the Government will need that consent before disclosing subcontractor/teaming partner past and present performance information to the prime contractor during exchanges. In an effort to assist the Government in assessing your past performance relevancy and acceptability, we request that the following consent letter be completed for the major subcontractors/teaming partners identified in your proposal. The completed consent letters should be submitted as part of your Present/Past Performance submission.

SAMPLE

Dear “Contracting Officer:”

We are participating as a (subcontractor/teaming partner) with (prime contractor or name of entity providing proposal) in responding to the Department of the Air Force, Hill Air Force Base, Request for Proposal FA8201-16-R-0021, for the acquisition of Occupational Medicine Clinic Services in support of 75 MDSS.

We understand that the Government is placing increased emphasis on past performance in order to obtain best value in source selections. In order to facilitate the past performance assessment process we are signing this consent letter to allow you to discuss our past and present performance information with the prime contractor during the source selection process.

(Signature and title of individual who has the authority to sign for and legally bind the company)

Company Name:

Address:

ATTACHMENT 2: CLIENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER

Past performance information concerning private sector contractors, subcontractors and joint venture partners cannot be disclosed to the government without their consent. Client authorization letters are required for each identified effort for a commercial customer. This letter will authorize release to the Government of requested information on the offeror's performance. The government will need that consent before contacting commercial customers to assess the offeror’s past performance. In an effort to assist the Government in assessing your past performance relevancy and acceptability, we request that the following client authorization letter be completed for any commercial customers identified in your proposal. The completed client authorization letters should be submitted as part of your Present/Past Performance submission.

Offerors should send with their list of references a letter similar to the following authorizing the reference to provide past performance information to the Government.

Dear “Client:”

We are responding to a Department of the Air Force, Hill Air Force Base, Request for Proposal FA8201-16-R-0021, for the acquisition of Occupational Medicine Clinic Services in support of 75 MDSS.

In their acquisitions, the government is placing increased emphasis on past performance as a source selection factor. They are requiring those clients of entities responding to their solicitation to be identified, and their participation in the evaluation process is requested. In the event that you are contacted for information on work performed, you are hereby authorized to respond to those inquiries.

We have identified Mr./Ms.____________________________ of your organization as the point of contact based on his/her knowledge of our work. Your cooperation is appreciated. Any questions may be directed to .

Sincerely, (End of provision)

52.212-2 EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (Oct 2014)

ADDENDA TO 52.212-2, EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARDS

This acquisition will utilize Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2, as supplemented. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. Award will be made to the acceptable Offeror with the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP), which is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements. The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the Instruction to Offeror’s within this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined to be in the Government’s best interest by the Source Selection Authority (SSA).

0. Number of Contracts to be Awarded:

The Government intends to select one 8(a) contractor for the Occupational Medicine Clinic Services Program. However, the Government reserves the right to award to more than one contractor or no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

0. Rejection of Unrealistic Offers:

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in price when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

0. Correction Potential of Proposals:

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any proposal part that is unclear. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror's proposal not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable without a major re-write, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS:

The Government will evaluate the factors and sub factors described below:

Factor 1 – Price

Factor 2 – Technical Acceptability Sub factor 1- Business Plan Sub factor 2- Performance Management Plan Sub factor 3- Quality and Safety Plan

Factor 3 – Past Performance

2.1 Evaluation Methodology:

0. A price evaluation will be performed on all offers in accordance with Section 2.2 and proposals will be ranked from lowest to highest price based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

0. Next, a technical and past performance evaluation will be performed beginning with the lowest priced Offeror. Only those Offerors determined to be technically acceptable with an acceptable past performance rating, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. Then the evaluation team will proceed to the next lowest offeror and determine if the proposal is technically acceptable and meets all other requirements of this solicitation. The evaluation team will continue to evaluate proposals until two are considered technically acceptable and fulfill the requirements of this solicitation. Once two proposals have been deemed technically acceptable and have fulfilled all conditions set forth in this solicitation, then FAR 6.1 is satisfied and the lowest technically acceptable offeror may receive the award. If the lowest priced evaluated proposal is not technically acceptable, then the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror is judged to be technically acceptable or until all offerors are evaluated. Under the scenarios described above, it is possible that higher priced proposals will not be evaluated for technical acceptability. It is possible that higher priced proposal(s) may receive an award if lower priced proposal(s) are not technically acceptable. Technical evaluation of an Offeror does not ensure inclusion in a competitive range, if one is set. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions therefore, each initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

0. Award will be made to the lowest evaluated priced proposal meeting the acceptability standards for the non-cost factors.

1. Price Factor:

1. The Government shall rank all offers by price, including option prices. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the total evaluated price (TEP), calculated as stated in paragraph 2.2.6 below. The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror’s proposed use of GFP.

1. Cost or Pricing Information Requirements – In accordance with FAR 15.402, 15.403-1(b) and 15.403(a), “Information other than cost or pricing data” may be required to support price reasonableness. If, after receipt of proposals, it is determined that there is insufficient information available to determine the reasonableness of the proposed pricing the Offeror shall be required to submit additional information other than cost or pricing data. If, during the source selection process, the CO determines that adequate competition no longer exists, then cost and pricing data may be required.

1. Unrealistically low prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition based upon an apparent lack of understanding of the requirement.

1. The Government may also determine a proposal unacceptable should the proposed prices, be materially unbalanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques.

1. Reasonableness. The proposed prices (solicitation line items) will be evaluated for reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it shall represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

1. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) – The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the offeror’s proposed prices, CLINS 0X01-0X11, for the base year and all option years, and prices for the six month period covered by FAR clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, allows the Government to extend services for up to six months at any time during task order performance and will be priced at the current rate if exercised. FOR EVAUATION PURPOSES ONLY: The contractor shall not propose a price for the six month option; however, the option price will be evaluated by calculating six months at the monthly rates proposed for the CLINs addressed in Option Year 4. This amount will be calculated by the Government Pricing Team and will be included as part of the TEP. Evaluation of the six-month extension option shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option. All prices that comprise the TEP are contractually binding and thus all prices (base year plus option years 1-4) must be populated. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. An omitted rate may result in proposal elimination.

1. Technical Factor: (To be conducted in accordance with the criteria set forth in 2.1 Evaluation Methodology)

2. Technical proposals will be evaluated for acceptability in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section. The Offeror’s technical proposal must convey to the Government that the Offeror is capable, possesses adequate technical expertise and experience, possesses sufficient resources, and is able to plan, organize, and use those resources in a coordinated and timely fashion to meet the needs of the Government. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical proposal to ensure that the offeror can sufficiently perform the requirements within the SOW adequately with emphasis on the elements of the technical sub factors listed below. The technical proposal shall explain how the contractor will accomplish/satisfy the requirements.

2. Technical proposal will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis and assigned one of the following ratings:

2. Technical Sub factor 1: Business Plan

Description: This sub factor evaluates the offeror’s proposed Business Plan and overall approach to meeting the program requirements as required by the SOW.

This sub factor is met when the offeror demonstrates:

a) Teaming/Organizational Structure -

1. Through their proposed organizational structure the ability to recruit the full range of health care workers (HCW) at OO-ALC. (SOW, 1.2).

1. Through formal written business and/or teaming arrangements, with partners and subcontractors, the capacity and capability to establish formal control processes in those agreements, to ensure the prime contractor remains responsible for all aspects of contract performance.

1. Limitations on Subcontracting - That at least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for the prime contractor’s employees (FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting and 13 CFR 125.6).

1. Recruitment of Health Care Workers (HCW) - Methods for finding and applying prescreening criteria against the Government minimum requirements, for education, experience, certifications, and licensure (SOW Appendix G).

1. Qualification of Health Care Workers (HCW) - Methods for obtaining the necessary qualifying documentation to meet the requirements for both credentialed and non-credentialed HCWs, which is demonstrated through a complete process (SOW Appendix G and H).

1. Credentialed HCW - An approach that ensures credentialing packages are complete with all paperwork, primary source verification documents, reference letters, work history, and application forms required by the Occupational Medicine Clinic (OMC) credentialing office (SOW Appendix G).

1. Professional Compensation Plan - A sound management approach, which sets forth salaries and fringe benefits that are supported by information from recognized national and regional compensation surveys for all credentialed providers (SOW Appendix G, section 1.1, 1.2 and 52.222-42 Statement of Equivalent Rates).

2. Technical Sub factor 2: Performance Management Plan

Description: This sub factor evaluates the offeror’s Performance Management Plan.

The sub factor is met when the offeror demonstrates:

1. Manage Workforce –

· An ability to provide consistent service with an effective approach to monitor overall fill rate and ensure compliance through the use of communication networks, flowcharts, timelines, tracking and monitoring systems, critical decision points, and/or milestones showing the maintenance of the overall fill rate throughout the life of the contract (SOW 1.3.1-3).

· A commitment to providing continuity of services during the replacement of permanent and temporary absences for both credentialed and non-credentialed HCWs such that position vacancies do not exceed 30 calendar days (SOW 1.3.1.1).

· A sound tracking and monitoring system for every HCW qualification requiring renewal (SOW Appendix G).

1. Resolve Performance Issues - A sound, effective, and structured approach to review, track, monitor, and resolve OMC and patient complaints, from notification to resolution approval by the Government (SOW 1.3.15).

2. Technical Sub factor 3: Quality and Safety Management Plan

This sub factor is met when the offeror’s proposal provides a Safety and Health Plan, that will be approved by the Hill AFB Safety Office that is completed as outlined in the SOW, Appendix C.

0. Past Performance Factor:

0. Aspects of Past Performance Evaluation. The past performance evaluation results is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertains to the services outlined in the solicitation requirements.

0. Ratings. The past performance factor will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis and assigned one of the following ratings:

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

0. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. First, an evaluation of whether the offeror’s present/past performance is both recent and relevant to the effort to be acquired. In establishing what is relevant, consideration will be given to the aspects of an offeror’s contract history that will give the most confidence that the offeror will satisfy this solicitation.

0. Recency – To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past 3 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition may not be evaluated.

0. Relevancy – The relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the technical sub factors and price factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to service similarity (e.g. staffing, medical), type of effort, and contract scope and type. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. Past performance information that fails this condition may not be evaluated.

0. Second, an evaluation to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of this source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

0. Past performance information shall be obtained from any sources available to the Government to include, but not limited to, PPIRS or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, the Defense Contract Management Agency, and commercial clients.

0. Any unacceptable rating given to a small business will be referred to the Small Business Administration pursuant to FAR 15.101-2(b)(1) for treatment.

1. DISCUSSIONS:

It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions; therefore, it is imperative that Offerors submit their best terms initially. However, 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 Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

1. SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS:

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements detailed in the SOW, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

(End of provision)

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf