AMENDMENT_0001-_21_NOV_2014.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to do the following:

1. CLIN 0005, 1005, 2005, 3005, and 4005 are removed.

2. Clause H-909-Over and Above Procedures is deleted.

3. A revised Performance Work Statement, dated 21 Nov 2014, is hereby incorporated and replaces the previous version.

4. A revised Attachment 6, dated 21 Nov 2014, is hereby incorporated and replaces the previous version.

5.The following is deleted from Section M: Paragraph D (iii)(a.) For Line Item X005 (FP/LH)

See the following pages for changes.

(NOTE: THE PROPOSAL DUE DATE REMAINS UNCHANGED. A SIGNED COPY OF THIS AMENDMENT MUST ACCOMPANY PROPOSAL

DUE NLT 16 DEC 2014, 2:30PM, EST. )

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 12

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 21-Nov-2014

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

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X FA8501-14-R-0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

04-Nov-2014

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

21-Nov-2014

CODE

AFSC/PZIOB

OPERATIONS SUPPORT

375 PERRY STREET

BLDG 255

ROBINS AFB GA 31098-1672

FA8501 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

BRANDI T. MORRIS, CONTRACTING OFFICER

brandi.morris@us.af.mil478-222-1494

FA8501-14-R-0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

I. SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0005

The CLIN type priced has been deleted.

The CLIN description has changed from Over & Above-Accident or Abuse to RESERVED.

CLIN 1005

The CLIN type priced has been deleted.

The CLIN description has changed from Over & Above-Accident or Abuse to RESERVED.

CLIN 2005

The CLIN type priced has been deleted.

The CLIN description has changed from Over & Above-Accident or Abuse to RESERVED.

CLIN 3005

The CLIN type priced has been deleted.

The CLIN description has changed from Over & Above-Accident or Abuse to RESERVED.

CLIN 4005

The CLIN type priced has been deleted.

The CLIN description has changed from Over & Above-Accident or Abuse to RESERVED.

II. The following clause is deleted:

H-909 OVER AND ABOVE PROCEDURES-(APPLICABLE TO CLIN X005)

III. SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The underlined items below been modified and incorporated:

SECTION J- LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

FORM TITLE DATE # OF PAGES

Section L Attachments- 16 Sep 2014 Attach 1- Facts Sheet 5 Attach 2- Client Authorization Letter 3 Attach 3- Transmittal Ltr 2 Attach 4- Subct/Partner Consent Form 1 Attach 5- Performance Questionnaire 4

Attach 6- Pricing Spreadsheet 21 Nov 2014 6

Performance Work Statement 21 Sep 2014 51 for Vehicle Maintenance Services at Robins AFB, GA

DD 1423 Contract Data Requirement List 18 Sep 2013 A001- Weekly Status Reports 3 B001- Monthly Status Report 3 C001- Annual Status Report 3 D001- Mission Essential Services 3 Contingency Plan E001- Quality Control Plan 3 F001- Safety Plan 3

DOL Wage Determination 13 Aug 2014 1

WD# 2014-6886

Collective Bargaining Agreement 1 Aug 2014 31 Vehicle Operations and Maintenance

DD 254 Department of Defense Contract 29 Sep 2014 2 Security Classification Specification

IV. The following paragraph was deleted from Section M-900 Para D(Cost/Price Proposal Factor)(iii)(a):

a. For Line Item X005 (FP/LH): Firm Fixed Price Labor Hour Rates will be proposed for the required skill classifications as defined in the PWS. The hours listed above are an estimate of the Government’s requirements and do not represent a minimum or maximum number of hours. Failure of the Government to utilize the estimated labor hours above shall not entitle the contractor to an equitable adjustment in price under the contract. The evaluated price for each Line Item will be calculated by multiplying each skill classification’s labor hour rate by its corresponding Evaluation Quantity (EQ) as listed in Attachment 6. For each Line Item, the evaluated totals for each skill classification will be added together to arrive at an evaluated price.

Below is the revised Section M in its entirety:

M-900 EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

1. Basis for Contract Award.

A. This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. Among those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable and have acceptable Small Business Concern Utilization, tradeoffs may be made between past performance and cost/price. Past performance is significantly more important than cost/price. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable, conforms to all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, technical requirements, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation described in paragraph 2 below.

B. The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

2. Proposal Evaluation. The Tradeoff source selection evaluation process will be accomplished as follows.

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability, but will not rank the proposals by the non- price factors or subfactors.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Transition Planning Subfactor 2: Staffing Approach Subfactor 3: Vehicle Maintenance

Subfactor 4: Continuation of Essential Contractor Services

Factor 2: Small Business Concern Utilization

Factor 3: Past Performance

Factor 4: Pricing

A. Technical Factor.

Pursuant to evaluation of all subfactors hereunder, the Technical factor will receive an overall rating of either “Acceptable,” or “Unacceptable” using the rating and descriptions in the table below:

The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is cautioned that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Transition Planning (Performance Work Statement (PWS paragraph 4.19)

This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposed Transition Plan adequately provides a comprehensive and sound approach to staffing, management, equipment, supplies, and security considerations with a comprehensive and sound approach to the following:

A plan for ensuring that personnel have the required clearances and qualification at the beginning of the period(s) of performance.

Management structure (organizational chart), to include identification and qualifications of key positions.

Recruitment processes (incentives and benefits) for acquiring and retaining qualified personnel, and continued training. Describes the number of personnel required, duty position titles, and a narrative of qualifications of each duty position title for the vehicle management areas.

Subfactor 2: Staffing Approach

This subfactor is met when offeror’s organizational chart adequately illustrates a clear understanding of the staffing requirements necessary for each of the following VM functions: Vehicle Management & Analysis, Fleet Management, Quality Control and Safety. (PWS Paragraph 1.0, 1.1, 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 4.8, 4.16) The organizational chart :

Describes the number of personnel required, duty position titles, and a narrative of qualifications of each duty position title for the vehicle management areas.

Subfactor 3: Vehicle Maintenance

The subfactor is met when the offeror adequately provides a clear and complete narrative of how the offeror intends to execute Vehicle Management and Vehicle Management Programs IAW PWS by:

Explaining how the offeror intends to provide personnel to operate the vehicle maintenance/management function that have qualifications and certifications required;

PWS 4.12.2

Describing the offeror’s planned execution of hazardous material management program;

PWS 4.14

Describing the offeror’s approach, to include utilization of On-Line Vehicle Integrated

Management System (OLVIMS), in providing maintenance and fleet management to meet mission capable rates, authorization/utilization analysis, mission essential levels to minimize vehicle downtime; PWS 1.1.1.1, 1.1.1.2, 1.1.1.2.1, 1.1.1.4

Defining the offeror’s approach toward Vehicle and Equipment Management Support

Office (VEMSO) interface utilizing Logistics, Installations, Mission- Support Enterprise View (LIMS-EV). PWS 1.1.2, 1.1.2.2

Describing the offeror’s process to obtain parts/materials to meet mission demands; PWS

1.1.6.2

Describing the offeror’s approach to the execution of the Technical Order Distribution office; PWS 1.1.8.

Describing the offeror’s method of maintaining shop equipment and documentation;

PWS 3.2

Subfactor 4: Continuation of Essential Contractor Services (PWS paragraph 4.9, 4.10)

This subfactor is met when offeror’s proposed Continuation of Essential Contractor Services Plan adequately provides a comprehensive and sound approach by identifying provisions made for the acquisition of essential personnel and resources, if necessary, for continuity of operations for up to 30 days or until normal operations can be resumed. At a minimum, the plan identifies:

Challenges associated with maintaining essential contractor services during an extended event, such as a pandemic that occurs in repeated waves

Time lapse associated with initiation of essential personnel and resource acquisition and actual availability on site

The components, processes, and requirements for identification, training, and preparedness of personnel who are capable of relocating to alternate facilities or performing work from home

Any established alert and notification procedures for mobilizing identified

“essential contractor service” personnel

The approach for communicating expectations to contractor employees regarding their roles and responsibilities during a crisis

B. Small Business Concern Utilization Factor. A rating of “acceptable” or “unacceptable” shall be assigned to this factor utilizing the ratings and descriptions identified below. The description of the subcontracted work to be performed by proposed small businesses along with the associated goals expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned subcontracted dollars shall be identified. The evaluation will consider the extent to which:

i) An adequate description of the extent of participation of proposed Small Businesses (SB) when subcontracting possibilities exist is provided; and,

ii) An adequate description of the subcontracted work to be performed by small businesses the company names/CAGE codes along with the associated goals expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned subcontracted dollars is provided; and,

iii) Adequate rationale is provided if limited or no subcontracting possibilities exist for these socio-economic entities. Offerors are cautioned against only acknowledging a goal is not met, if applicable. Adequate rationale includes specific reasons why a goal is unmet and any actions being taken to increase any unmet goals.

iv) The associated goals in paragraph ii above in the offeror’s Small Busines Utilization Plan will be evaluated against the FY14 DoD Small Business Subcontracting goals:

The DoD FY 2014 goals are as follows:

Business Size Sub Small Business 36.7%

Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

C. Past Performance Factor. The past performance assessment will assess the confidence in the offeror’s/joint venture member’s ability (which includes, if applicable, the extent of its critical subcontractors’ involvement) to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming contractor) other than the offeror itself that will perform more than 30% of the work as described in the Performance Work Statement. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture member’s and if applicable, the critical subcontractors’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. More recent and more relevant performance usually has a greater impact in the confidence assessment than less recent and less relevant performance. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent three (3) submitted contracts. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s Volume IV of its proposal:

VERY RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. A single contract must have included:

Vehicle Maintenance management IAW Air Force procedures for at least 850 vehicles AND ALL OF

THE FOLLOWING:

A required in-commission rate of at least 90% Perform scheduled and unscheduled maintenance on emergency response, material handling, construction and general purpose vehicles.

Perform fleet management of at least 1,100 vehicles Required an 0-24 vehicle turn around rate of 60% Material Control functions (ordering parts, inventory and tracking) IAW the Performance Work

Statement Operation of a HAZMAT Pharmacy Perform Corrosion control/Allied Trades services

RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. A single contract must have included:

A Department of Defense (DoD) Vehicle Maintenance/Management for at least 850 vehicles AND at least five (5) of the following seven (7) functions:

A required in-commission rate of at least 90% construction and general purpose vehicles.

Perform fleet management of at least 1,100 vehicles

Required an 0-24 vehicle turn around rate of 60%

Material Control functions (ordering parts, inventory and tracking) IAW the Performance Work Statement

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. A single contract must have included:

Vehicle Maintenance/management for at least 500 vehicles AND at least four (4) of the following seven

(7) functions:

A required in-commission rate of at least 70% construction and general purpose vehicles.

Perform fleet management of at least 850 vehicles

Required an 0-24 vehicle turn around rate of 50%

Material Control functions (ordering parts, inventory and tracking) IAW the Performance Work Statement

NOT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

(i). The Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume. Present/Past performance information shall be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

(ii). Offerors/joint venture members/critical subcontractors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The confidence assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

(iii). For offerors/joint venture members or critical subcontractors that are newly formed entities (in existence less than three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation) who either have no prior contracts or do not possess relevant corporate past performance, but have key personnel with relevant past performance while employed by another company, the quality of such key personnel’s performance as verified by the Past Performance Team will be considered if the submitted contract involves the key personnel performing the same role currently being proposed on the instant acquisition and this performance occurred during the past three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. Any such key personnel must already be employed by the offeror/joint venture member, or in the case of a critical subcontractor, must already be employed by the critical subcontractor.) The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

(iv). The Government may consider an offeror’s/joint venture member’s/critical subcontractor’s contracts in the aggregate in the assessment of a confidence assessment rating, should the present and past performance lend itself to this approach. That is, an offeror’s/joint venture member’s/critical subcontractor’s three (3) contracts may by definition represent only a rating less than very relevant when each contract is considered as a stand-alone effort. However, when these contracts are performed concurrently (in part or in whole) and are assessed in the aggregate, the work may reflect greater magnitude of complexities and/or magnitude of effort and such may be reflected in the confidence assessment. The Government may consider a critical subcontractor’s submitted contracts in the aggregate in this same manner if their submitted efforts were performed concurrently (in part or in whole). Then considering the offeror’s /joint venture member’s respective role and their work in aggregate as well as the critical subcontractor(s) role and their work in aggregate, a confidence assessment rating will be assigned for the team as a whole.

As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one confidence assessment rating as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below.

Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s (Neutral) performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Offerors without a record of past performance or for whom information is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an “Unknown Confidence” rating. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an “Unknown Confidence” rating.

(v). Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated the offeror’s/joint venture member’s and critical subcontractor’s compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, when these clauses were contained in the submitted contracts. That is, on the three

(3) respective contracts submitted for evaluation by the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor, when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor award subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. (Please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL offerors, whereas FAR 52.219-9 only applies to large businesses.) If none of the contracts submitted by the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor included these clauses, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror’s/joint venture member’s and critical subcontractor’s policy to utilize small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

D. Cost/Price Proposal Factor. The Government will evaluate each offeror's proposed prices submitted in Volume V (VM pricing spreadsheet-Attachment 6), for reasonableness and balance as discussed in the following paragraphs (i) and (ii). Offerors are reminded that in order to maintain reasonable/balanced pricing, the Government will not accept “Not Separately Priced (NSP),” No Charge (NC), $0, etc. on any line items other than those already designated as “NSP” in the Schedule. Offerors are advised to review all data items to ensure that they are proposing to the specific data requirements and level of effort involved. For data items, where the quantity of one (1) lot is specified, the quantity of one (1) one shall be used. The Government will calculate a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for each offeror’s proposed prices in accordance with paragraph (iii) below.

(i) Reasonableness: The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained and/or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.4 may be required to support the proposed price.

(ii) Balance: Unbalanced Pricing Exists When, Despite an Acceptable Total Evaluated Price, the Price of One or More Contract Line Items is Significantly Overstated or Understated due to an illogical progression of unit prices from program year to program year, unit prices that do not take into account quantity variations, or front-loading CLINs that do not represent the true cost of that CLIN. The definition of "Front-Loading" is to concentrate costs in an early period. Front-Loading will be viewed as materially unbalanced since acceptance of the proposal would result in an advance payment. The Government will analyze the proposed prices to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced line items or sub-line items. Prices submitted will be compared and evaluated to assure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each offeror's response to the pricing structure in the Schedule. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing; offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(iii) Total Evaluated Price (TEP): Prices shall be proposed on Attachment 6 per instructions in the Schedule and Section L. All unit prices should be rounded to the nearest whole dollar. A Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated for evaluation purposes only. The TEP will be calculated based on the total price proposed for the basic requirements (basic award) and all options and will be calculated as follows:

a. For Line Item X008 (Cost Reimbursable-No Fee Material / Fixed Price Material Handling Factor):

Multiply the evaluation quantity for Material Dollars as identified in Attachment 6 by your proposed fixed price material handling factor. The factor should be expressed without any rounding as follows:

1.XXXX (up to 4 decimal places may be used). The fixed price material handling factor shall exclude profit, yet include all appropriate indirect costs allocated to direct materials per the contractor’s usual accounting practices, consistent with FAR Part 31.

b. For all remaining Line Items/Sub Line Items (FFP): Multiply the contract Schedule B quantity times the proposed unit price.

The sum of the evaluated prices for each line item and sub-line item (including the Basic and Option periods) will represent the total evaluated price. Offerors are reminded that the evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the options.

For data items, where the quantity of (1) one lot or set is specified, the quantity of (1) one shall be used.

In order to maintain line item integrity and balanced pricing, the Government will not accept Not Separately Priced (NSP), No Charge (NC), $0, etc. on any line items or sub-line items other than those already designated as “NSP” or “TBN” in the Schedule. Offerors are advised to review all CLINs and ensure that they are quoting to the specific CLIN identified and the level of effort involved.

(End of Summary of Changes)