Attachment_11_-_Instructions_and_Evaluations_Criteria_-_Final.pdf

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS (ITO) – COMMERCIAL SERVICE

NOTE: All proposal preparation cost will be the sole responsibility of the Offeror. The Government will not reimburse any firm for their proposal preparation.

Period for acceptance of offers: The Offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm until 180 days after proposal due date.

1. General Instructions

(a) This section of the ITO provides general guidance for preparing proposals as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the proposal. The offeror's proposal must include all data and information requested by the ITO and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

Non-conformance with the instructions provided in this ITO may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

(b) The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror's proposal.

(c) Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed art work, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired. Similarly, for oral presentations, elaborate productions are unnecessary and not desired.

(d) 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 extra copies of such unsuccessful proposals.

2.1 General Information

2.1.1 Point of Contact

The Contracting Officer (CO) and the Contract Administrator (CA) are the sole points of contact for this acquisition. Address any questions or concerns you may have to the CO or CA.

2.1.3 Electronic Reference Documents

All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) web site at http://www.fedbizopps.gov. Potential offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real-time e-mail notifications when information has been posted to the website for this solicitation.

2.1.4 Communications

Exchanges of source selection information between Government and offerors will be controlled by the Contracting Officer. Email may be used to transmit such information to offerors only if the email can be sent and received encrypted and includes “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 & 3.104” in the

Subject line. Otherwise, source selection information will be transmitted via proposals (USPS, FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc.) and must be sent to the following address:

AFLCMC/PZIOBA

Attn: TSgt Jason T. Wilkin 1940 Allbrook Drive, Room 109 Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-5344

2.2 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits

The offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table (Table 2.2 below).

The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits and with the number of copies as specified in Table 2.2. The attachments identified in the table shall be separately bound in three-ring, loose-leaf binders, as necessary. The contents of each proposal volume are described in the ITO paragraph as noted in the table below.

Table 2.2 - Proposal Organization

VOLUME ITO Paragraph Number

VOLUME TITLE COPIES PAGE LIMIT

I 3.0 Technical 2 * 20 pages II 4.0 Past Performance 2 * 20 pages III 5.0 Price/Contracts 2 * 10 pages**

* One (1) hard copy original and one (1) CD-ROM **Does not include solicitation

2.2.1 Page Limitations

Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal and excess paper copies will be returned to the offeror as soon as practicable. Page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs). The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the offerors.

2.2.1.1 Page Size and Format

(a) A page is defined as each face of a sheet of paper containing information. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages. Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, not including foldouts. Pages shall be single spaced/typed with single line spacing (as demonstrated in this paragraph). Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be no less than 11 point Calibri or Times New Roman font. Tracking, kerning, and leading values shall not be changed from the default values of the word processing or page layout software. Use at least 1 inch margins on the top and bottom and ¾-inch side margins. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. Page format restrictions shall apply to responses to ENs.

(b) 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 by 17 inches in size. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume and 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 font.

2.2.2 Cross-Referencing

To the greatest extent possible, each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with a minimum of cross referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation which 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 where its use would conserve space without impairing clarity.

2.2.3 Indexing

Each volume shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections. Tab indexes do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

2.2.4 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, and with an explanation for each. Glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

2.2.5 Binding and Labeling

Each volume of the proposal should be separately bound in a three-ring, loose leaf binder permitting the volume to lie flat when open. Staples shall not be used. A cover sheet should be bound in each book, clearly marked as to volume number, title, copy number, solicitation identification, and the offeror's name. The same identifying data should be placed on the spine of each binder. Be sure to apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed in accordance with FAR 3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information. A separate CD (electronic copy) shall be provided for each volume. Electronic copies on CD may be included in the appropriate volume binder or bound together separately.

2.3 Distribution

INFORMATION REGARDING SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS: We will not accept emailed or faxed proposals. The sealed envelope or package used to submit your proposal must show the time and date for receipt, the Solicitation Number, and the name and address of the Offeror. The "original" proposal shall be identified. Mailed proposals (USPS, FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc.) shall be addressed to the Contracting Officer and mailed or hand carried to:

AFLCMC/PZIOBA

Attn: TSgt Jason T. Wilkin 1940 Allbrook Drive, Bldg 1, Room 109 Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-5344

3.0 Volume I - Technical Volume - Submit original plus one (1) electronic copy on CD-ROM.

3.1 General

The Technical Volume should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. Your responses will be evaluated against the Technical Subfactors defined in Evaluation Criteria – Commercial. Using the instructions provided below, provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology you would use for accomplishing/satisfying these Subfactors. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. By your proposal submission, you are representing that your firm will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

3.2 Format and Specific Content

3.2.1 Technical

In the Technical volume, address your proposed approach to meeting the minimum performance or capability requirements of each technical Subfactor:

Subfactor 1: Management Approach Subfactor 2: Procurement Approach

The offeror’s technical information as requested in Technical Subfactors 1-2 of Evaluation Criteria para

6.0 below shall be organized and submitted in an orderly fashion by Subfactor and Element. No Pricing information shall be addressed in this volume. The Technical Volume shall be clear, concise with sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The offeror should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but instead provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to fulfill the requirements

4.0 Volume II - Past Performance - Submit original plus one (1) electronic copy on CD-ROM.

4.1 General Instructions

Each offeror shall submit a past performance volume with its proposal containing past performance information in accordance with the information contained in this section. Offerors are cautioned that the Government will use data provided by each offeror in this volume and data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance.

Along with the information required in this paragraph, the offeror shall submit a consent letter executed by each significant subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the offeror so the offeror can respond to such information.

See attachment 14 to the RFP for example consent letter.

4.2 Early Proposal Information

Upon receipt of the RFP, offerors must send the past performance questionnaire, Attachment 10 to the RFP, directly to customer points of contract for all recent contracts you provide information on in this volume. The Past Performance Questionnaires completed by the Offeror’s reference sources are not considered part of the Past Performance Volume page limitation.

A cover letter sent by the Offeror with the Past Performance Questionnaire should request the reference to complete the questionnaire and mail it to AFLCMC/PZIO, Attn: TSgt Jason Wilkin, 1940 Allbrook Drive, Room 109, Wright Patterson AFB, 45433-5344 or email to jason.wilkin@us.af.mil and scott.macdonald.2@us.af.mil. Questionnaires should be received no later than 4:30 PM EST on 4 August 2017. Offerors are responsible for ensuring their reference sources receive the questionnaires in time to complete and return the questionnaire to AFLCMC/PZIO and be received no later than the proposal due date.

4.3 Relevant Contracts

Submit Past Performance Information on a minimum of three (3) but not to exceed five (5) of your most recent contracts that you consider most relevant in demonstrating your ability to perform the proposed effort. Recent past performance is defined as any relevant work completed within the past five (5) years to include on-going contracts from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information on recent contracts performed by teaming partners and significant subcontractors (those performing 10% or more of effort) may be included however the prime contractor’s past performance will be weighted as significantly more important than that of other teaming partners and/or subcontractors. Include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance. For a description of the characteristics or aspects the Government will consider in determining relevance, see Evaluation Criteria. However, relevancy assessments made by the Government are not limited to the elements described in the Evaluation Criteria.

4.4 Specific Content

Offerors are required to explain what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate. At a minimum, the contractor shall furnish the following information for each contract listed:

(a) Contracting Agency/Customer

(b) Location of work performed

(c) Contract Number

(d) Contract type

(e) Project title and brief description of contract effort

(f) Period of performance

(g) Contract value at time of award

(h) Current value, including all changes and exercised options

(i) Types and quantities of equipment (real property, lab equipment etc.) maintained and repaired.

(j) Frequency of maintenance and repairs/replacement

(k) Types and quantities of material/equipment purchased

Additionally, the contractor may include a discussion of efforts accomplished by the offeror to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risk.

Likewise, any information currently available (letters, metrics, customer surveys etc.) which demonstrates customer satisfaction and overall job performance and quality of completed services for relevant past efforts/contracts (similar in scope and magnitude and complexities this solicitation requires).

Merely having problems does not automatically equate to a limited or no confidence rating, since the problems encountered may have been on a more complex program, or an offeror may have subsequently demonstrated the ability to overcome the problems encountered. The offeror is required to clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. This may allow the offeror to be considered a higher confidence candidate. For example, submittal of quality performance indicators or other management indicators that clearly support that an offeror has overcome past problems is required.

The Government will consider this information as well as information obtained from any other sources when evaluating the Offeror’s past performance information.

5.0 Volume III - Price Proposal - Submit original plus one (1) electronic copy on CD-ROM.

5.1 General Instructions

5.1.1 Price Reasonableness

This section is to assist you in submitting information that is required to evaluate the reasonableness and balance of your proposed price. Compliance with these requirements is mandatory and failure to comply may result in rejection of your proposal. Note that unrealistically low or high proposed prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement or has submitted an unrealistic proposal.

Additionally, unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal. Offers should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their reasonableness.

The burden of proof for credibility of proposed prices rests with the offeror.

5.1.2 Format and Specific Content

In the price/contracts proposal volume, the offeror shall provide the following information:

(a) Provide a cover letter with Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code, Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number, and Tax Identification number. In the cover letter, provide the name(s), title(s), telephone number(s), email address(es), and fax number(s) of the individual(s) authorized to, make decisions on behalf of the offeror regarding the offer submitted, negotiate with the Government, and who can obligate the offeror contractually.

Provide in the cover letter a statement that the offer and prices will remain in effect for 180 days after the proposal due date.

(b) Provide signed 1449 cover sheet. Fill in blocks 17a, 30a, 30b and 30c.

(c) Fill in unit price and amount for all CLINs except for Not Separately Priced (NSP) CDRL CLINs. For CLINs 0001, 1001, 2001, 3001, 4001, and 5001 in the SF1449 the UNIT PRICE (Monthly) is the AMOUNT divided by 12. For all other CLINs excluding NSP CLINs, the UNIT PRICE (Lot) and AMOUNT will be the same. This must align with numbers you input in the Bid Schedule.

(d) Fully completed Bid Schedule. See instructions inside Bid Schedule for completing.

(e) Acknowledge any and all amendments to the solicitation.

(f) Provide completed Provisions, Representations, Certifications, Acknowledgements, and Other Statements of Offerors. If you are registered in System for Award Management (SAM), please annotate your “Representations and Certifications” can be found at this site. Please note that 52.212-1(e), Multiple Offerors, is deleted from the solicitation and marked RESERVED.

6.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA – COMMERCIAL SERVICE

6.1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a FAR 12 competitive best value source selection with tradeoffs. There are three Evaluation Factors – Technical, Price, and Past Performance. Evaluation of the Technical Factor consists of a technical acceptability rating and technical risk rating at the Subfactor level. Evaluation of the Price Factor consists of evaluating the Total Evaluated Price, price reasonableness, completeness and balance of the offerors’ TEP. Evaluation of the Past Performance

Factor consists of a recency determination, relevancy rating and performance quality rating that are rolled up into an overall Performance Confidence Assessment rating at the Factor level.

The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government. Offerors' technical risk (assessed under the Technical Factor) and past performance, when combined, will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price. However, price will contribute substantially to the source selection decision.

6.1.1 If the lowest priced technically acceptable offeror is evaluated as low technical risk for both Subfactors and judged to have Substantial confidence under the Past Performance Factor, that offer represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops at this point.

6.1.2 In the event that the Government does not make an award pursuant to para 6.1.1, the Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offer based on an integrated assessment of Technical, Past Performance, and Price Factors made by the Source Selection Authority.

6.1.3 By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation Factors or Subfactors.

6.1.4 All technically acceptable offers will be considered equal. The tradeoff will occur between technical risk and past performance with price. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows in paragraphs below. Though the process below is step-by-step, the Government reserves the right to perform evaluation steps concurrently when it is in the best interest of the Government to do so.

6.2 Technical Factor Evaluation. FIRST, the Government technical evaluation team will evaluate all proposals for technical acceptability and technical risk and assign a rating for each at the Subfactor level.

Each Subfactor will receive a technical acceptability rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable and a technical risk rating of Low, Moderate, High, or Unacceptable. In determining the technical risk rating the order of importance is as follows: Subfactor one, Management Approach is considered more important than Subfactor two, Procurement Approach. Technical acceptability will be rated in accordance with table A- 1 below. Technical risk will be rated in accordance with table A-2 below. Proposals that have a Technical Acceptability Rating of “Unacceptable” at the Subfactor level and/or a Technical Risk Rating of “High” or “Unacceptable” at the Subfactor level are unawardable.

TABLE A-1 – Technical Acceptability Rating

TABLE A-2 – Technical Risk Rating

6.2.1 Subfactors being evaluated for technical acceptability and technical risk are as follows:

6.2.1.1 Subfactor 1: Management Approach

Offeror must provide clear, logical and sufficient approach to managing the contract. At a minimum, the proposed approach shall thoroughly address all of the elements below:

Element 1: Management approach/tools used in scheduling appropriate staff for timely and quality completion of maintenance, repair/replace and operations requirements.

Element 2: Staffing plan to include organizational chart/matrix of all management and non-management employees. Include experience/duty description of each management and non-management employee included in the organization chart/matrix. Include clear description and/or depiction of lines of authority. Include labor hours and/or FTE(s)/ percentage of FTE(s) designated per labor category, correlated to the prices in the bid schedule

Element 3: Management practices for recruiting, hiring and retaining qualified employees at beginning of and throughout life of contract. Include a description of compensation package(s) used to attract and retain employees as well as overall retention rate of employees in your company’s division or business segment that will support these requirements.

Element 4: Approach to training new and/or replacement employees at beginning of and throughout life of contract.

Element 5: A transition plan detailing how the Offeror plans to minimize disruption of maintenance/repair activities and ensure the Offeror is fully staffed and performing efficiently within 30 days of contract award.

6.2.1.2. Subfactor 2: Procurement Approach

Offeror must provide a clear approach to procuring proper and timely materials and services in support of preventative maintenance, repair/replacement and operations requirements. At a minimum, the proposed approach shall thoroughly address all of the elements below:

Element 1: A plan describing how the offeror intends to procure recurring preventative maintenance parts/materials as well as parts/materials for repair and replacement activities. This plan shall include the timeframe(s) to solicit and obtain quotes from various outside vendors for approval by the Government.

Element 2: A description of any maintenance, repair/replace, and/or operations requirements that will be subcontracted out and process for ensuring services will be performed to Government PWS standards.

6.3 Price Factor Evaluation. SECOND, offerors rated technically acceptable for both Subfactors and rated either low technical risk for both Subfactors or a combination of Low and Moderate technical risk for both Subfactors shall be ranked according to total evaluated price from lowest to highest. The price evaluation will consider the completeness and reasonableness of the proposed total evaluated price (TEP) as submitted in the Bid Schedule. Offerors whose TEP is unreasonable (in accordance with FAR 15.404), or unbalanced (in accordance with FAR 15.404-1) may not be considered for award.

6.4 Past Performance Factor Evaluation. THIRD, the Government team will seek recent and relevant performance information on the lowest priced, low risk offeror’s past performance based on (1) the past efforts provided by the Offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. The Past Performance evaluation consists of a recency determination (see para 6.4.1), relevancy rating (see para 6.4.2) and performance quality rating (see para 6.4.3) for each contract under review. The evaluation will result in an overall Performance Confidence Assessment Rating for each offeror. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance Factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical Subfactors and Cost/Price Factor. 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; Past Performance questionnaires, interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, etc.

The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence as defined in Table C-1 below. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will not be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal Offeror.

TABLE C-1 - Performance Confidence Assessment

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has an expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the

No Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the

Unknown Confidence

No performance record is identifiable or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonable assigned.

6.4.1 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 five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated. The Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed more recent.

6.4.2 Relevancy Assessment The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to this acquisition. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts that are similar in scope, magnitude and complexity including, but not limited to, the items listed in paragraph 4.4 (a-k).

A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance, including joint ventures, significant subcontractors and/or teaming partners will be made. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, joint venture or teaming partner whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government will use Table C-2 below of relevancy definitions in assigning relevancy ratings. In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFP.

TABLE C-2 – Relevancy Rating

Rating Definition VERY RELEVANT Present/Past Performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT Present/Past Performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT Present/Past Performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT Present/Past Performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

6.4.3 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 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). In assessing performance quality the order of importance is as follows: Subfactor one, Management Approach is considered more important than Subfactor two, Procurement Approach. Subfactor two, Procurement Approach is considered more important than Price. This will result in an overall performance quality rating at the individual contract level. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of the source. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

TABLE C-3 – Performance Quality Rating Color Rating Quality Assessment

Rating Description

Blue Exceptional (E) During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) most. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

Purple Very Good (VG) During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) at least one. Only minor problems encountered. Contractor took timely and effective corrective action.

Green Satisfactory (S) During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

Yellow Marginal (M) During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) at least one contract requirements.

For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented.

Customer involvement was required.

Red Unsatisfactory (U) During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or fail) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

White Not Applicable (N) Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

6.5 Discussions and Clarifications. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in the Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Service. Offeror’s may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the Contracting Officer reserves the right to award a contract without discussions. 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. If the Offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as Acceptable with Low or Moderate risk at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal ratings be changed to Unacceptable and/or High or Unacceptable technical risk, making the offeror ineligible for award.