Section M Step 1 Eval for Prequal 13 Oct 17.pdf

Step 1 - Section M – Evaluation Factors for Prequalification of Sources Repair Cadet Chapel, FA8903-17-R-0071

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR REPAIR

USAFA CADET CHAPEL, UNITED STATES AIR

FORCE ACADEMY, CO

SOLICITATION NO. FA8903-17-R-0071

STEP ONE

PREQUALIFICATION OF SOURCES

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR

PREQUALIFICATION

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR PREQUALIFICATION

OTHER SOLICITATION PROVISIONS IN FULL TEXT

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

1.0 Overview

The Government will utilize a two-step evaluation process to award a single contract to the Offeror who provides the best value to the Government considering cost and non-cost factors.

(a) Step 1 will be a prequalification of sources in accordance with DFARS 236.272. In Step 1, the Government will ask for qualifications/past performance in order to evaluate and prequalify sources to perform the Repair Cadet Chapel. Price will not be evaluated as part of Step 1. The Government will shortlist up to five (5) of the most competitive Step 1 Offerors to compete for contract award in Step 2.

(b) In Step 2 of the two-step selection procedure, the Offerors that were prequalified in Step 1 will receive an Amendment to the RFP. The Amendment will request the prequalified Offerors to submit proposals that include technical and price information. In Step 2, the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) will award one (1) contract to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and who is judged, based on the evaluation factors to represent the best value to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical and/or overall business approach of the higher price Offeror outweighs the cost difference. Step 2 will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Source Selection Procedures, Guidance and Information Subpart 215.3, and Air Force Federal Acquisition Supplement (AFFARS) Subpart 5315.3.

2.0 Basis for Prequalification

(a) Offerors shall submit all Volumes in accordance with Step 1 - Section L to be prequalified.

(b) While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the evaluation process is subjective by nature and professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

(c) Each factor will be evaluated on a stand-alone basis submitted for each individual factor will only be evaluated for the factor for which it was submitted (no-cross referencing).

3.0 Prequalification without Interchanges

During the prequalification process (Step 1), interchanges with industry may be conducted. Interchanges are fluid interaction(s) between the PCO and the Offerors that may address any aspect of the prequalification proposal. The Government intends to make a prequalification decision based on the initial proposal submissions without conducting interchanges. Therefore, each offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical standpoint. Offeror responses to interchanges will be considered in making the prequalification decision. The Government is not required to conduct interchanges with any or all Offerors responding to the prequalification RFP. For the purposes of making the prequalification decision without interchanges, all initial proposals that are rated technically Unacceptable on any Factor may not be shortlisted.

Additionally, Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) will be reviewed and included in the responsibility determination for all Offerors selected to progress to Step 2. Initial proposals with unmitigatable OCI may not be shortlisted.

4.0 Number of Contracts to be Prequalified

The Government will shortlist up to five (5) of the most competitive Step 1 Offerors to compete for contract award in Step 2.

M002 STEP 1 EVALUATION FACTORS

5.0 Step 1 Evaluation Factors

(a) The following evaluation factors will be used to prequalify up to five (5) of the most highly qualified Offerors that propose the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

Technical Factor 1: Prime Contractor Corporate Experience Technical Factor 2: Team Experience for Specialized Scope Elements Technical Factor 3: Past Performance (same projects as Prime Contractor Corporate Experience) Technical Factor 4: Staffing Plan/Experience and Qualifications of Key Personnel Technical Factor 5: Safety

(b) Relative Importance of Factors. Factors are listed in descending order of importance as shown in Table 1 below:

TABLE 1/STEP 1. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF STEP 1 FACTORS

VOLUME FACTOR TITLE

RELATIVE

IMPORTANCE

II 1 Prime Contractor Corporate Experience Most Important II 2 Team Experience for Specialized Scope Elements Second most important III 3 Past Performance Third most important II 4 Staffing Plan/Experience and Qualifications of

Key Personnel Fourth most important

II 5 Safety Least important

5.1 Technical/ Risk Rating (Step 1 FACTOR 1, 2, 4, and 5)

The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. The color/adjectival rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the technical factor requirements. Each technical factor will receive one of the combined technical/risk ratings described below in Table 2.

TABLE 2/STEP 1. COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATING METHOD

Color Rating Adjectival

Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS DEFINITIONS

Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unacceptable (not eligible for prequalification).

TABLE 2.1/STEP 1 DEFINITIONS

Strength An aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

6.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

6.1 Technical Factor 1 - Prime Contractor Corporate Experience: The Government will evaluate the Offerors’ construction experience on relevant projects as follows:

(a) The Government will evaluate the complete project portfolio to ensure that it meets the mandatory submission requirements in Section L including recency and relevancy. All requirements specified in the submittal requirements for Factor 1 in Section L must be met in order to be acceptable.

(b) The Government may give greater consideration in the evaluation for projects that further demonstrate multiple aspects of prime contractor’s corporate experience in the execution of projects of similar scope and technical challenges to the Repair Cadet Chapel, potentially including but not limited to:

(1) Similarity in facility type (historic as previously defined) most comparable to the Repair Cadet Chapel project.

(2) Replace existing building exterior envelope (with greater complexity than just a roof replacement);

(3) Physical access constraints requiring complex scaffolding solutions;

(4) Complex Phasing/Multiple construction trades performing work in a constrained space requiring coordination of shared access during construction;

(5) High rise with exterior envelope modifications (greater than five (5) above grade stories);

(6) Construction value greater than $50M; and/or

(7) Limited / controlled site and staging areas;

(8) DoD Projects subject to FAR part 22.4;

(c) Taking into consideration the complexities of all the projects submitted, JVs and/or Teaming Arrangement that have worked together previously on a similarly complex project may receive greater consideration.

6.2 Technical Factor 2 - Team Experience for Specialized Scope Elements

(a) The Government will evaluate the complete project portfolio to ensure that it meets the mandatory submission requirements in Section L including recency and relevancy. All requirements specified in the submittal requirements for Factor 1 in Section L/Step 1 must be met in order to be acceptable.

(b) The Government may give greater consideration for projects completed by multiple members of the offering team together. The Government is interested in the success of the team in reaching creative solutions through the synergy of their multiple talents and skill sets.

(c) The Government will evaluate the extent of construction experience of the Offeror, considering recency and relevancy to this project. Project submissions will be evaluated as follows:

(1) An acceptable project will demonstrate experience in fabrication of all the elements necessary for the exterior metal envelope for which the teaming partner will be responsible, including Cladding Panels and Trim, Weather-Resistant Panel Systems and Pipe Anchors, as defined in Specification 07 42 13. The teaming member may demonstrate experience in the fabrication of Pipe Anchors through experience in custom extrusion of aluminum profiles and assemblies used for load transfer and support of exterior wall panels. The Government may give greater consideration for projects demonstrating:

(i) experience in new custom exterior (visible) panels fabricated to match dimensions, fit, and appearance of existing panels, and/or

(ii) projects demonstrating experience in fabrication of exterior metal envelope elements in new construction with similar complexity as the scope on the Repair Cadet Chapel project.

(2) An acceptable project will demonstrate experience as described in Specification 09 22 00, 09 22 36 and 09 23 00 for the installation of plaster that replicates existing wall plaster, including the installation of supports and lath as well as plaster application. The Government may give greater consideration for projects demonstrating experience in the inconspicuous application of plaster and supporting structures that replicates existing plaster form, color, and surface texture with similar complexity as the plaster scope in the Repair Cadet Chapel project.

(3) An acceptable project will demonstrate experience in the fabrication or replication of Dallas de Verre glazing in facilities (not free standing art pieces) described in Specifications 08 01 80.

Offeror will have demonstrated that the studio holds an accredited professional membership in the Stained Glass Association of America (SGAA) and that the studio has been a member in good standing for a minimum of 10 years as of the date of the solicitation. The Government may give greater consideration for projects demonstrating:

i. fabrication of Dallas de Verre glazing with removal, restoration, and reinstallation preferably in a historic building as defined in this solicitation,

ii. accurate replication of existing Dallas de Verre glazing and framing in size, detailing, color, faceting, and other aesthetic qualities, and/or

iii. previous experience by same craftsman proposed for this project.

(4) An acceptable project will demonstrate experience in custom fabricated glazing to match existing glazing dimensions, colors, finish, and overall aesthetic appearance as described in Specification 08 41 18, 08 44 00, and 08 81 00. The Government may give greater consideration for projects demonstrating experience:

(i) in the accurate aesthetic replication of existing glazing in historic facilities, and/or

(ii) experience in replication of existing glazing in historic facilities that included replacement with blast resistant glazing.

(5) An acceptable project will demonstrate how the project was planned and sequenced to provide extensive protective measures and retention of the existing structure as described in Specification 02 41 00, 02 42 91 and 01 76 00. The Government may give greater consideration for projects demonstrating:

(i) experience in glazing and metals dismantling and salvage in historic facilities similar in size and scope as this project, and/or

(ii) experience in extraordinary complexity of demolition and protection scope.

(6) An acceptable project will demonstrate the ability of the team member(s) to dismantle, protect, restore, and reinstall both a 4,000 and a 2,000 pipe organ in a manner that follows the Organ Historical Society’s (OHS) Conservation Guidelines and as described in Specification 01 35 91, 02 42 91, 12 01 91 and 12 01 92. The Government may give greater consideration to projects demonstrating:

(i) experience in restoration of organs designed by Mathias Peter Moller Pipe Organ Company, and/or

(ii) experience in restoration of an organ included within the scope of a larger ongoing construction project.

(7) An acceptable project will demonstrate the ability of the team member to safely remove and authentically restore ornamental wood furniture or interior architectural woodwork to match the original finish appearance without damaging the wood as described in Specification 01 35 91, 02 42 91, and 12 01 50. Projects demonstrating restoration of painted woodwork or painted furniture, including repainting, or stripping paint to apply finishes or stains, will not be considered. Projects for furniture or architectural woodwork originally manufactured after 1975 will not be considered. Greater consideration may be given to projects which demonstrate:

(i) cleaning of architectural woodwork, conserving the existing or original finish or surface coating with no alteration to finish color, gloss, or other visual qualities,

(ii) wood restoration including refinishing with no damage to wood, no gouges or ridges, and matching the original finish appearance including color, gloss, and other surface characteristics, and/or

(iii) inconspicuous wood patching or repair with no damage to sound wood, blending with original wood in color, grain character, finish, and other visual qualities

Note: When an Offeror submits its proposal in response to the Request for Proposal (RFP), and the name of a specific subcontractor is a required submittal, then that subcontractor who is offered will be the same subcontractor who will actually perform the specified work on the project. If, during performance of the contract, it becomes necessary for the contractor to substitute a subcontractor for one of those whose qualifications were the basis for evaluation of the offer and award of the contract, the contractor shall submit to the Procuring Contracting Officer the same information that was required in the initial proposal regarding the proposed substitute subcontractor. The Procuring Contracting Officer shall have the right to review the qualifications of the proposed substitute subcontractor and to approve or disapprove its qualifications. If the proposed substitute subcontractor's qualifications are disapproved by the Procuring Contracting Officer, the contractor will propose another subcontractor who does possess equivalent qualifications. Specific subcontractors evaluated as part of solicitation process will be incorporated and included in the final contract (Attachment 3 – Key Personnel, Specialty Scope Subcontractors, Proposed Betterments).

6.3 Technical Factor 4 - Staffing Plan/Experience and Qualifications of Key Personnel

(a) A staffing plan that includes all of the information required in Section L/Step 1 and provides experienced key personnel to cover all required tasks and responsibilities of the project will be considered acceptable.

(b) Critical key personnel narratives that demonstrate minimum experience and qualifications for each person identified as key personnel as described in Section L will be considered acceptable. Greater consideration may be given to narratives demonstrating that:

(1) key personnel proposed for this project had same role on one or more of the projects determined to be relevant from Factor 1,

(2) key personnel proposed for this project have worked together as a team on one or more of the projects determined to be relevant from Factor 1, and/or

(3) key personnel proposed for this project have worked together as a team previously on similarly complex projects not included in Factor 1.

(c) Offeror’s that provide reasonable evidence as described in Section L/Step 1 that the project team will have consistent leadership and staff that will stay with the project over the expected duration of its implementation will be considered acceptable.

Note: When an Offeror submits its proposal in response to the RFP and a staffing plan, including the names and qualifications of key personnel who are proposed to work on the project is required to be submitted, those personnel who are offered will be the same personnel who will actually perform on the project. If, during performance of the contract, it becomes necessary for the contractor to substitute personnel for one of those whose qualifications were the basis for evaluation of the offer and award of the contract, the contractor shall submit to the Procuring Contracting Officer the same information that was required in the initial proposal regarding the proposed substitute employee. The Procuring Contracting Officer shall have the right to review the qualifications of the proposed substitute employee and to approve or disapprove his or her qualifications. If the proposed substitute employee's qualifications are disapproved by the Procuring Contracting Officer, the contractor will propose another employee who does possess equivalent qualifications. Key personnel evaluated as part of solicitation process will be incorporated and included in the final contract (Attachment 3 – Key Personnel, Specialty Scope Subcontractors, Proposed Betterments).

6.4 Technical Factor 5 - Safety

(a) The Government is seeking to determine that the Offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to safety and that the Offeror plans to properly manage and implement safety procedures for itself and its subcontractors. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall safety record, the Offeror’s plan to select and monitor subcontractors, and any innovative safety methods that the Offeror plans to implement for this project. The Government’s sources of information for evaluating safety may include, but are not limited to, OSHA, NAVFAC’s Enterprise Safety Applications Management System (ESAMS), and other related databases. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete safety information regarding these submittal requirements rests with the Offeror.

(1) Experience Modification Rate (EMR):

The Government will evaluate evidence of the EMR for past three (3) years to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any upward or downward trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rating. Average EMR for last three (3) years must be less than 1.5 (acceptable). Lower EMRs will be given greater consideration in the evaluation.

(2) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate:

The Government will evaluate the evidence and OSHA DART Rate to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any upward or downward trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rates. Average Dart Rate for last three (3) years must be less than 2.00 (acceptable). Lower OSHA DART Rates will be given greater consideration in the evaluation.

(3) Technical Approach to Safety:

The Government will evaluate the narrative to determine the degree to which subcontractor safety performance will be considered in the selection of all levels of subcontractors on the upcoming project. An acceptable plan will include Offeror’s planned methodology to evaluate safety performance of potential subcontractors for all levels of subcontractors. The Government will also evaluate the narrative to determine the degree to which innovations are being proposed that may enhance safety on this project. Those Offerors whose plan demonstrates a commitment to hire subcontractors with a culture of safety and who propose innovative methods to enhance a safe working environment may be given greater consideration in the evaluation.

6.5 Factor 3 - Past Performance

(a) General: The past performance assessment will assess the Offeror’s/Joint Venture or team members’ ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the Offeror’s demonstrated past work record. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s/Joint Venture or team members’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying construction services that meet user’s needs, including quality, 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. 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.

(b) Past Performance Assessment: The Past Performance evaluation is an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the Offeror’s record of recent, relevant and overall quality of past performance information that pertains to the product or services outlined in the solicitation requirements.

(1) Ratings: The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described below in Table 3:

(2) Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated record of recent, relevant, and overall quality of past performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance,.

The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. 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

TABLE 3/STEP 1. PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

Rating Description

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

(NEUTRAL)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Procuring Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency, and commercial sources.

(i) Recency: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. Projects that have achieved substantial completion (defined as owner occupied) within the last ten (10) years from the date of the solicitation will be considered recent. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(ii) Relevance: The Government will use the relevancy definitions shown in Table 4 below when assessing recent contracts. The Government will evaluate past performance for the recent/relevant projects submitted under Factor 1. For purposes of this requirement, relevant past performance is defined as Construction Services performed by a Prime Contractor, JV and/or TA for the renovation, restoration, or alteration of existing facilities where the Prime Contractor, JV and/or TA utilized in-house resources to perform the roles of the full time onsite key personnel (with the exception of the Historic Treatment Specialist (HTS)). The Government MAY give higher relevancy in the evaluation for projects that further demonstrate multiple aspects of past performance in execution of projects of similar scope and technical challenges, including but not limited to:

a) Similarity in facility type (historic as previously defined) most comparable to the Repair Cadet Chapel project.

b) Replace existing building exterior envelope (with greater complexity than just a roof replacement);

c) Physical access constraints requiring complex scaffolding solutions;

d) Complex Phasing/Multiple construction trades performing work in a constrained space requiring coordination of shared access during construction;

e) High rise with exterior envelope modifications (greater than five (5) above grade stories);

f) Construction value greater than $50M; and/or

g) Limited / controlled site and staging areas;

h) DoD Projects subject to FAR part 22.4;

TABLE 4/STEP 1. PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant Past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(iii) If interchanges are held, Offerors may be afforded the opportunity to respond to adverse comments made by references to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. In this case, comments will be extracted and provided to the Offeror. Copies of the questionnaires will not be furnished to the Offeror and will remain confidential.

Offeror responses to interchanges will be considered in making the prequalification decision.

(3) Assigning Performance Confidence Assessments Rating. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s demonstrated record of recent, relevant, and overall quality of past performance Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating at the factor level (see Table 3/Step 1 above). The performance confidence assessment rating represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

(4) More recent or relevant performance may have a greater impact on the performance confidence rating than less relevant or recent efforts. A strong record of recent and relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating. Likewise, an overall higher quality past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than an overall lower quality record of performance.

(5) Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L.

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. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

M003 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 factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for prequalification. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.

(b) In Step 2 of the two-step selection procedure, the Offerors that were prequalified in Step 1 will receive an Amendment to the RFP. The Amendment will request the prequalified Offerors to submit proposals that include technical and price informati...