Contract_Sections_L_and_M_Inline_Chillers__3546.pdf

F-35 In-Line Chiller and Auto Hydraulic Hose Reels

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 design, prototype, production and installation of Portable In-line Chillers (PICUs), Mounted

In-line Chillers (MICs) and Automatic Winding Hose Reels (AWHR) located at 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

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 received at the contracting office by the due date. Proposals shall be delivered to:

AFSC OL:H/PZIMA

Jesse Ball

Contracting Officer

6038 ASPEN AVE, Bldg 1289

Hill AFB, Utah 84056-5838 jesse.ball.1@us.af.mil

Or

AFSC OL:H /PZIMA

Alysha Caldwell

Contracting Specialist

6038 ASPEN AVE, Bldg 1289

Hill AFB, Utah 84056-5838

Alysha.caldwell@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

VOLUME VOLUME TITLE COPIES

*(see note)

PAGE

LIMIT

FILE SIZE

I Price Proposal (Factor 1) – must be entered in the model solicitation to be considered responsive

1 Electronic

OR 1 hard copy same as schedule B

II Technical Proposal (Factor 2) (consists of the following appendices)

1 Electronic

OR 1 hard copy

18 total pages for

Tech Prop

> 10MB break files in to smaller sizes

Appendix 1 - Sub-factor A: Reduce

Temperature Capabilities

Appendix 2 - Sub-factor B: Design and

Prototype Capabilities

Appendix 3 – Sub-factor D: Staging and

Implementation Capabilities

Appendix 4 – Sub-factor E: Pressure in

Ductwork and Evaporator Capabilities

III Past Performance (Factor 3) ** See below

END

Note: Hard copies must be received by the contracting office NLT solicitation closing date and time.

mailto:jesse.ball.1@us.af.mil mailto:Alysha.caldwell@us.af.mil

2.3.1 Each volume shall be written on a stand-alone 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 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, if CD’s are used 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 sub factor 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) or email submission using Microsoft word, MS PowerPoint, or PDF format. Re-writable

CDs (i.e. CD-RW) shall NOT be used. Each volume shall be on a separate CD if provided on

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 or MS Word 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).”

Proposals shall consist of the following volume(s) and document(s):

a. VOLUME I: PRICE

Page Limit: Equal to the sum of document page limits

REQUIRED DOCUMENT(S):

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.

3.1.3 PRICE SPREADSHEET

Page Limit: 1

A. The offeror shall prepare a spreadsheet similar to the example portrayed below

(all example quantities and prices are arbitrary). The offeror shall propose a unit price and extended price for each CLIN that requests pricing. A “No

Charge” or $0.00 unit price is not acceptable unless for a not separately priced line item (NSP). The offeror shall sum the extended prices and provide the government with a Total Proposal Price.

Example:

CLIN TITLE QTY UNIT PRICE EXTENDED

PRICE

0001 Maintenance Services 12 Months $1,000

TOTAL PROPOSED PRICE: $1,000

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 the statement of work 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: Reducing Temperature Capabilities:

4.2.1. Proposal shall demonstrate offeror’s approach to reducing temperatures of 100 to 82 degrees

F down to a range of 50 +/- 0 degrees F to 40 +/- 4 degrees F , meeting the same specifications of the current portable in-line chiller and demonstrate a clear understanding of SOW paragraph 3.1.1.

If offeror has previous experience, provide examples.

4.3 Sub-Factor B: Design and Prototype Capabilities:

4.4.3 Proposal shall describe offeror’s approach and demonstrate a clear understanding of the design and prototype of the Mounted In-Line Chiller (MIC) (both converted and new build) and

Auto Wind Hose Reels (AWHR) within the first 3 months upon contract award IAW SOW 3.4 and the delivery schedule of the solicitation.

4.4 Sub-Factor C: Staging and Implementation Capabilities:

4.4.1 Proposal shall describe offeror’s approach to staging and implementation for each Operator

Control Console (OCC) during the one week timeframe as indicated in the SOW sections 3.7.1.1, 3.7.1.2, and demonstrate a clear understanding and approach to meeting the requirements within the constraints listed in section 3.7.2. Proposal shall requirements.

4.5 Sub-Factor D: Pressure conformance of ductwork connecting OCC to Evaporator coil housing during avionics testing.

4.5.1 Proposal shall describe offeror’s approach to ensuring the ductwork and evaporator coils housing can handle the 5.5 psi and demonstrate and clear understanding and approach to accomplishing SOW Section 3.1.11, 3.2.14 .

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), 1 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/will not 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

SOW, 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 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

1.1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded:

The Government intends to award to one offeror. 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 o Sub-factor A: Reducing Temperature Capabilities o Sub-factor B: Design and Prototype Capabilities o Sub-factor C: Staging and Implementation Capabilities o Sub-factor D: Pressure in Ductwork and Evaporator Capabilities

Factor 3: Past Performance

2. Evaluation Methodology http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P25_3805

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 two proposals are 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

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 sub factor 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 I: Price Proposal (Factor 1)

2.2.1 The pricing criteria used for evaluation are (1) completeness, (2) price reasonableness, (3) price realism

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.

2.2.4 Price Realism—Unrealistically high, low or unbalanced prices may serve as a basis for rejection of the proposal IAW FAR 15.404-1(d). The price evaluation will document the reasonableness and completeness of the total evaluated price.

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: Reducing Temperature Capabilities:

Proposal shall demonstrate offeror’s approach to reducing temperatures of 100 to 82 degrees F down to a range of 50 +/- 0 degrees F to 40 +/- 4 degrees F , meeting the same specifications of the current portable in-line chiller and demonstrate a clear understanding of SOW paragraph 3.1.1. If offeror has previous experience, provide examples.

2.3.2 Sub-Factor B: Design and Prototype Capabilities:

Proposal shall describe offeror’s approach and demonstrate a clear understanding of the design and prototype of the Mounted In-Line Chiller (MIC) (both converted and new build) and Auto Wind

Hose Reels (AWHR) within the first 3 months upon contract award IAW SOW 3.4 and the delivery schedule of the solicitation.

2.3.3 Sub-Factor C: Staging and Implementation Capabilities:

Proposal shall describe offeror’s approach to staging and implementation for each Operator

Control Console (OCC) during the one week timeframe as indicated in the SOW sections 3.7.1.1, 3.7.1.2, and demonstrate a clear understanding and approach to meeting the requirements within the constraints listed in section 3.7.2. Proposal shall requirements.

2.3.4 Sub-Factor D: Pressure conformance of ductwork connecting OCC to Evaporator coil housing during avionics testing.

Proposal shall describe offeror’s approach to ensuring the ductwork and evaporator coils housing can handle the 5.5 psi and demonstrate and clear understanding and approach to accomplishing

SOW Section 3.1.11, 3.2.14 .

2.4 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

Rating Description

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 5 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 sub factors and Price factor. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, 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). 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.1 The past performance information forms (PIFs) and

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

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.”

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm 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:

TABLE 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved similar 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.

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 sub factors 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

Quality Assessment/Color Description

SATISFACTORY (S)/GREEN During the contract period, contractor performance is substantially meeting (or substantially met) contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

UNSATISFACTORY(U)/RED During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/dfars/dfars215.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/dfars/dfars215.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_215.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_215.htm marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented.

Customer involvement was required.

NOT AVAILABLE(N)/WHITE Quality and/or performance information is not available.

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 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.