FA8224-17-R-0044.docx

FA822417R0044

Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices

A-10 Maintenance Stands

FFP

1 Set of A-10 Maintenance Stands IAW Purchase Spec and A-10-12-001 Rev G.

FOB: Destination

SIGNAL CODE: A

NET AMT

FSC CD: 5450

Section E - Inspection and Acceptance

INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE TERMS

Supplies/services will be inspected/accepted at:

Section F - Deliveries or Performance

DELIVERY INFORMATION

FOB: Destination

Section G - Contract Administration Data

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT

252.232-7006 WIDE AREA WORKFLOW PAYMENT INSTRUCTIONS (MAY 2013)

(a) Definitions. As used in this clause--

Department of Defense Activity Address Code (DoDAAC) is a six position code that uniquely identifies a unit, activity, or organization.

Document type means the type of payment request or receiving report available for creation in Wide Area WorkFlow (WAWF).

Local processing office (LPO) is the office responsible for payment certification when payment certification is done external to the entitlement system.

(b) Electronic invoicing. The WAWF system is the method to electronically process vendor payment requests and receiving reports, as authorized by DFARS 252.232-7003, Electronic Submission of Payment Requests and Receiving Reports.

(c) WAWF access. To access WAWF, the Contractor shall--

(1) Have a designated electronic business point of contact in the System for Award Management at https://www.acquisition.gov; and

(2) Be registered to use WAWF at https://wawf.eb.mil/ following the step-by-step procedures for self-registration available at this Web site.

(d) WAWF training. The Contractor should follow the training instructions of the WAWF Web-Based Training Course and use the Practice Training Site before submitting payment requests through WAWF. Both can be accessed by selecting the “Web Based Training” link on the WAWF home page at https://wawf.eb.mil/.

(e) WAWF methods of document submission. Document submissions may be via Web entry, Electronic Data Interchange, or File Transfer Protocol.

(f) WAWF payment instructions. The Contractor must use the following information when submitting payment requests and receiving reports in WAWF for this contract/order:

(1) Document type. The Contractor shall use the following document type(s).

(Contracting Officer: Insert applicable document type(s). Note: If a “Combo” document type is identified but not supportable by the Contractor's business systems, an “Invoice” (stand-alone) and “Receiving Report” (stand-alone) document type may be used instead.)

(2) Inspection/acceptance location. The Contractor shall select the following inspection/acceptance location(s) in WAWF, as specified by the contracting officer.

(Contracting Officer: Insert inspection and acceptance locations or “Not applicable”.)

(3) Document routing. The Contractor shall use the information in the Routing Data Table below only to fill in applicable fields in WAWF when creating payment requests and receiving reports in the system.

Routing Data Table* Field Name in WAWF Data to be entered in WAWF

(*Contracting Officer: Insert applicable DoDAAC information or “See schedule” if multiple ship to/acceptance locations apply, or “Not applicable.”)

(4) Payment request and supporting documentation. The Contractor shall ensure a payment request includes appropriate contract line item and subline item descriptions of the work performed or supplies delivered, unit price/cost per unit, fee (if applicable), and all relevant back-up documentation, as defined in DFARS Appendix F, (e.g. timesheets) in support of each payment request.

(5) WAWF email notifications. The Contractor shall enter the email address identified below in the “Send Additional Email Notifications” field of WAWF once a document is submitted in the system.

(Contracting Officer: Insert applicable email addresses or “Not applicable.”)

(g) WAWF point of contact. (1) The Contractor may obtain clarification regarding invoicing in WAWF from the following contracting activity's WAWF point of contact.

(Contracting Officer: Insert applicable information or “Not applicable.”)

(2) For technical WAWF help, contact the WAWF helpdesk at 866-618-5988.

(End of clause)

Section I - Contract Clauses

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT

5352.201-9101 OMBUDSMAN (APR 2014)

(a) An ombudsman has been appointed to hear and facilitate the resolution of concerns from offerors, potential offerors, and others for this acquisition. When requested, the ombudsman will maintain strict confidentiality as to the source of the concern. The existence of the ombudsman does not affect the authority of the program manager, contracting officer, or source selection official. Further, the ombudsman does not participate in the evaluation of proposals, the source selection process, or the adjudication of protests or formal contract disputes. The ombudsman may refer the interested party to another official who can resolve the concern.

(b) Before consulting with an ombudsman, interested parties must first address their concerns, issues, disagreements, and/or recommendations to the contracting officer for resolution. Consulting an ombudsman does not alter or postpone the timelines for any other processes (e.g., agency level bid protests, GAO bid protests, requests for debriefings, employee-employer actions, contests of OMB Circular A-76 competition performance decisions).

(c) If resolution cannot be made by the contracting officer, the interested party may contact the ombudsman, [Mr Kevin Flinders AFMC OL_H/PZC 801-777-6549, kevin.flinders@us.af.mil. Concerns, issues, disagreements, and recommendations that cannot be resolved at the Center/MAJCOM/DRU/HQ AFICA/AFISRA/SMC ombudsman level, may be brought by the interested party for further consideration to the Air Force ombudsman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary (ADAS) (Contracting), SAF/AQC, 1060 Air Force Pentagon, Washington DC 20330-1060, phone number (571) 256-2395, facsimile number (571) 256-2431. (INTERIM CHANGE: See Policy Memo 14-C-05)

(d) The ombudsman has no authority to render a decision that binds the agency.

(e) Do not contact the ombudsman to request copies of the solicitation, verify offer due date, or clarify technical requirements. Such inquiries shall be directed to the Contracting Officer.

(End of clause)

Section J - List of Documents, Exhibits and Other Attachments

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

15-JAN-2015

02-APR-2012

Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFEROR

SECTION L: INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFEROR (ITO) FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION USING LOWEST PRICE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE (LPTA) PROCEDURES

1. General Instructions

1.1 Instructions to Offerors (ITO): This section of the ITO provides general guidance for preparing proposals as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the proposal for the purchase of an A-10 Stand to be used to support Hill Air Force Base. The Offeror’s proposal must include all data and information requested by the ITO and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. Non-conformance with the instructions provided in the ITO may result in rejection of a proposal.

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

1.3. The Government intends to award one (1) Contract requirement in accordance with the paragraph 1.1 stated above; however, the Government reserves the right to split the award or cancel the solicitation.

1.4. The Government reserves the right to award some, none or all of the line items in the solicitation.

1.5. The Government intends and reserves the right to award a contract without discussions; therefore, it is imperative that offerors submit its best pricing and proposal 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 Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

2. General Information

2.1. Points of Contact: The Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) and the contract buyer are the sole points of contact for this acquisition. Written requests for clarification shall be sent to the PCO. Address any questions or concerns to the individual identified on Page 1 of this solicitation.

2.2. Distribution of Proposals: the "original" proposal shall be so designated and signed by the Offeror’s authorized representative. Any electronic copies must be received by the due date identified on the front page of the RFP, while hard copies must be postmarked by the due date. Proposals shall be delivered to:

OO-ALC/PZIMA

David Bryan Contracting Officer 6038 ASPEN AVE, Bldg 1289 Hill AFB, Utah 84056-5838 David.bryan.8@us.af.mil

Or

OO-ALC/PZIMA

Kyle Kozlowski Contracting Specialist 6038 ASPEN AVE, Bldg 1289 Hill AFB, Utah 84056-5838 kyle.kozlowski@us.af.mil

2.3. The Offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table (Table 1). The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in the following table.

Table 1 - Proposal Organization

*(see note)

Appendix 1 - Sub-factor A: Welding Capabilities

Appendix 2 - Sub-factor B: Machining Capabilities

Appendix 3 – Sub-factor C: Assembly Capabilities

Appendix 4 – Sub-factor D: Shipping capabilities

** See below

END

· Note: Hard copies must be postmarked NLT solicitation closing date and time.

· The 12 pages are inclusive of the appendices.

2.3.1 Each volume shall be written on a standalone basis so that its contents may be evaluated without cross-referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation that is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal. Cross-referencing within a proposal volume is permitted.

2.4. If submission exceeds page limit, then excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal.

2.5. Labeling: Each volume of the proposal should be clearly marked as to volume number, title, solicitation identification, and the Offeror’s name. Be sure to apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(e), Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data, and 3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Offeror Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information.

2.6 Page Size and Format a page is defined as each face of a sheet of paper containing information. Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, shall not include any foldouts, and shall be printed on both sides. Sheets shall be double-sided which will count as two pages. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text shall be Times New Roman and font size shall be no less than 12 points and lines shall be single spaced. 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, bottom, and both sides. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. These page format restrictions shall apply to responses to ENs. These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals.

2.7 Format Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible and shall not exceed 11 x 17 inches in size. Foldout pages may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams and schematics; not for pages of text. For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 10 point; however, tables shall be used sparingly and shall not be used in place of text. Tables and Charts will not count against the page count. These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals.

2.8 Electronic Offers - The content and page size of electronic copies must be identical to the hard copies. In the event there is a discrepancy between the hard copy and electronic copy, the hard copy shall take precedence. For electronic copies, indicate on each CD the volume number and title. Use separate files for each volume to permit rapid location of all portions of the proposal, including subfactor required plans, exhibits, annexes, and attachments, if any. The offeror shall submit Volumes I - III in electronic format, using read only CDs (i.e. CD-R). Re-writable CDs (i.e. CD-RW) shall NOT be used. Each volume shall be on a separate CD. If files are compressed, the necessary decompression program must be included. The electronic copies of the proposal, as applicable, shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Word 2010, MS Excel 2010, and MS PowerPoint 2010, or in a “word searchable” PDF format. However, the Price volume tables and charts shall be in MS Excel 2010 format. Word documents - Set “save as type” to “Word Document (*docx)” only. Excel spreadsheets - Set “Save as type” to Microsoft Excel Workbook (*xlsx).” PowerPoint presentation - Set “Save as type” to “Microsoft PowerPoint 2010 Presentation (*.pptx).”

3. Volume I: Price Proposal (Factor 1)

3.1 General Instructions:

3.1.2 The price proposal will be the price information provided in Schedule B of the model solicitation. Prices for all CLINs must be filled in, including unit and extended pricing in order to develop the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors should review Section M criteria to ensure the minimum requirements are met.

3.2 Total Evaluated Price:

3.2.1 Cost or Pricing Information Requirements – In accordance with FAR 15.402, 15.403-1(b) and 15.403-3(a), “information other than certified cost or pricing data” may be required to support price reasonableness. If after receipt of proposals, the CO determines that there is insufficient information available to determine the reasonableness of the proposed pricing the Offeror may be required to submit additional information other than certified cost or pricing data. If, during the source selection process, the CO determines that adequate competition no longer exists, then certified cost and pricing data may be required.

3.2.2 Pricing Assumptions - Summarize all significant pricing assumptions, scope limitations and/or qualifications of the Price proposal.

3.2.3 Estimating Techniques and Methods – Offerors shall use generally accepted estimating techniques to develop their estimates for the category rates in the TEP.

4. Volume II: Technical Proposal (Factor 2)

4.1. General: The technical proposal shall be clear, concise, complete, and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. The proposal shall not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather shall provide convincing documentation to address how the Offeror will meet these requirements. There will be no reference to rates or price in this volume. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their certifications, facilities and/or structural, mechanical, and electronics capabilities, and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror’s proposal. Offerors’ responses will be evaluated against the factors and sub-factor defined below. Using the instructions provided below, provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology the Offeror would use for accomplishing and satisfying the factors and sub-factor. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. By the Offeror’s proposal submission, the Offeror is representing that the company/firm will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

4.1.1. If after award of a contract, it is discovered that changes made during discussions (if held) were not incorporated into the Purchase Specification (PS) and/or technical proposal, such changes to the contract documentation shall be considered administrative and shall be made by unilateral modification to the order, at no change in cost or price or other terms and conditions.

4.2. Sub-Factor A: Welding Capabilities:

4.2.1. Provide written capability with certifications showing capability to weld both steel and aluminum.

4.3 Sub-Factor B: Machining Capabilities:

4.4.3 Provide a list of equipment to be used in order to properly manufacture the A-10 test stand.

4.4 Sub-Factor C: Assembly Capabilities:

4.4.1 Provide your process for assembling large stands. This shall include a list of equipment used to assemble these stands.

4.5 Sub-Factor D: Shipping capabilities:

4.5.1 Provide your processes and or policy for shipping oversize items cross country. Show that you have performed this task on similar size items and shipping distance.

5. VOLUME III: Past Performance (Factor 3)

5.1 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.

5.2 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 ten (10), of the most relevant contracts performed for Federal agencies and commercial customers within the last three (3) years. Provide pictures of projects if available. The evaluation of past performance information will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors 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:

(i) Company/Division name

(ii) Product/Service

(iii) Contracting Agency/Customer

(iv) Contract Number

(v) Contract Dollar Value

(vi) Period of Performance

(vii) Verified, up-to-date name, address, FAX & telephone number of the contracting officer

(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.

5.3 Subcontractor Consent: Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor’s consent. Provide with the proposal a letter from all subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor.

6. Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements

6.1 Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors should clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Each exception shall be specifically related to each paragraph and specific part of the solicitation to which the exception is taken. Provide rationale in support of the exception and fully explain its impact, if any, on the performance, schedule, cost, and specific requirements of the solicitation. This information shall be provided in the format and content of the following Table:

Solicitation Exceptions

SOLICITATION

Document Page/ Paragraph Requirement/ Portion

Rationale

PWS, Model Contract/Solicitation, ITO, etc.

Applicable Page and Paragraph Numbers

Identify the requirement or portion to which exception is taken

Describe why the requirement will not be met

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

EVALUATION CRITERIA

SECTION M: EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. General Information

1.1. Basis for Award

1.1.1 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 evaluated price, that is deemed responsible in accordance with the 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 Section L of this solicitation.

1.1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded:

The Government intends to select one Offeror to award for the manufacture of the A-10 Stand. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, if the SSA determines it is in the Government’s best interest.

1.1.3 Major Proposal Revisions:

If a proposal receives an “Unacceptable” rating after initial evaluation and will require major revisions in order to meet the technical requirement, the Government reserves the right to exclude the Offeror from the competitive range. The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any proposal uncertainty. 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, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1.2. Evaluation Factors and Sub-factor

The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used. Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is deemed lowest price technically acceptable.

· Factor 1: Price Proposal

· Factor 2: Technical Proposal

· Sub-factor A: Welding Capabilities

· Sub-factor B: Machining Capabilities

· Sub-factor C: Assembly Capabilities

· Sub-factor D: Shipping capabilities

· Factor 3: Past Performance

2. Evaluation Methodology

2.1. Price shall be evaluated on all offers and the proposals will be listed from lowest to highest price based on the total evaluated price. Then technical acceptability will be evaluated starting with the proposal with the lowest total evaluated price until one proposal is determined to be acceptable.

2.1.1. Acceptable – Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

2.1.3 The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals by assigning ratings of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. The technical factor as a whole will be rated “Unacceptable” if any single subfactor is rated “Unacceptable.”

2.1.4 Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The offeror is reminded that the Government intends to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions. However, the Government may hold discussions if necessary.

2.2 Volume II: Price Proposal (Factor 1)

2.2.1 The pricing criteria used for evaluation are (1) completeness, (2) price reasonableness

2.2.2 Completeness – The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L of the RFP. Incomplete price submissions may not be evaluated and the proposal may be eliminated from the competition.

2.2.3 Price Reasonableness – The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 (Proposal Analysis Techniques). Based on the level of interest for this requirement, it is anticipated that adequate price competition will satisfy the criteria for price reasonableness.

2.3. Volume II: Technical Proposal (Factor 2)

2.3.1.1. Technical Approach

The Government’s technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals against the following sub-factors. Failure to meet the minimum requirements for any one sub-factor will be will result in Offeror’s proposal deemed unacceptable.

2.3.1. Sub-factor A: Welding Capabilities

Description: This sub-factor evaluates the contractor’s ability to weld steel and aluminum.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal shows that they are capable and certified to welding steel and aluminum with a low risk of unsuccessful contract performance IAW AWS D1.1 and 1.2.

2.3.2 Sub-factor B: Machining Capabilities

Description: This sub-factor evaluates the contractor’s ability to fabricate the stand.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when a list of equipment is provided that will allow for the stands to be built properly and to specifications.

2.3.4 Sub-factor C: Assembly Capabilities

Description: This sub-factor evaluates the contractor’s ability to assemble these stands

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the contractor shows the ability to assemble large stands. This shall include a list of equipment used to assemble these stands.

2.3.5 Sub-factor D: Shipping Capabilities

Description: This sub-factor evaluates the contractor’s ability to ship large stands cross country.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the contractor shows the ability to pack, and ship the stands cross country with no damage to the stands.

0. Volume III: Past Performance (Factor 3)

2.4.1 The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Offerors must receive a past performance rating of “Acceptable” to be eligible for award.

(1) Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the ratings described below.

TABLE 2- PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 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 (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

2.4.2 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 solicitation requirements. 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; and interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

2.4.3 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 3 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.4.4 Relevancy Assessment: The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price factor. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). 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, subcontractor or teaming partner.[footnoteRef:1] The past performance information forms (PIFs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts: [1: ]

TABLE 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

2.4.5 Performance Quality Assessment: The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will also consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and/or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports an unsatisfactory 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 quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

TABLE 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENT

2.4.6 Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated past performance rating at the factor level (see Table 2). More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Past Performance rating than less recent effort.

3.0 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.

4.0 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 evaluation factors or subfactors. 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.

image1.wmf