HDEC03-11-R-0001 SCIP III Amend 9.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions ofthe 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 as follow s:

A. Add Paragraph E. Use of Contractor Support Services in Section L.

B. Correct Performance Confidence Assessment Table in Section M.

C. All other termins and conditions remain the same.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 13

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 30-Aug-2011

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 HDEC03-11-R-0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

30-Jun-2011

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 ofOffer 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 ofthe following methods:

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

or (c) By separate letter or telegramwhich 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. Ifby virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegramor letter, provided each telegramor 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.(Ifapplicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

30-Aug-2011

CODE

DEFENSE COMMISSARY AGENCY

CONSTRUCTION - DESIGN BRANCH

2250 FOULOIS STREET, SUITE 3

LACKLAND AFB TX 78236

HDEC03 7. ADMINISTERED BY (Ifother than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

HDEC03-11-R-0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

Addendum to 52.215-1

PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

I. GENERAL. These instructions prescribe the format of the proposal and describe the approach for the development and presentation of proposal data. These instructions are designed to ensure the submission of necessary information and to provide for the understanding and comprehensive evaluation of proposals. Carefully review this section and its relationship to Section M prior to commencing proposal preparation. All solicitation amendments must be acknowledged in accordance with Section L, FAR 52.215-1, Instruction to Offerors--Competitive Acquisition.

A. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Taking exception to any provision in the solicitation may render the proposal ineligible for award. The proposal in response to this solicitation shall consist of three (3) separate parts; Part I - Price Proposal, Part II - Technical Proposal, and Part III - Past Performance Information. All documents submitted in response to this RFP must be fully responsive to and consistent with the requirements of the RFP.

To be considered, a complete proposal package must be received not later than 4:00 PM Central Time on 30/Aug/2011 at DeCA/AMDF, Attn: Derek Dansby, 2250 Foulois Street Suite 3, Building 8400, Lackland AFB TX 78236. Proposal packages received after 4:00 PM on 30/Aug/2011 will be late and will be handled IAW provision 52.215-1. All proposal packages must be in English. Fax or email proposal packages will not be considered.

Contractors requiring access to Lackland AFB, TX to submit proposals need to provide the information on the Request for Visitor Pass document (Atch 23) to Tracy Blake at tracy.blake@deca.mil 72 hours prior to the closing date and time of the solicitation in order to ensure entry.

Format for proposal shall be as follows:

1. The proposals will be on 8 1/2” x 11” paper except for fold-outs used for charts, tables, or diagrams, which may not exceed 11” x 17.”

2. Typing shall not be less than 12 pitch.

3. Elaborate formats, bindings or color presentations will not enhance the rating of the proposals.

4. Total length of proposal may not exceed 90 pages (45 for duplex). Excess pages will be discarded beginning with page 91(46 for duplex).

B. The contracting officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the contracting officer will review this determination and if, in the contracting officer's opinion, adequate price competition exists no additional cost information will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists; offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine the reasonableness of the price.

C. Pre-Proposal Conference:

(a) A pre-proposal conference will be conducted at Tommy B’s Community Activities Center, Liberty Room, Bldg 2705 East Arnold Ave, McGuire AFB, NJ 08641-5308 on 14 Jul 11 at 09:00 am local time for the purpose of reviewing the contractual and technical requirements of this request for purchase and to visit the project site.

(b) Submit the names and all pertinent information of all attendees to Derek Dansby at derek.dansby@deca.mil , Tracy Blake at tracy.blake@deca.mil and Brie Crum at brie.crum@deca.mil on the Entry Authority List Letter (Atch 6). This information must be provided in advance in order to ensure access to the military base/conference site and adequate seating for the conference attendees. The Entry Authority List Letter with the names and information must be submitted not later than 0900 hrs on 11 Jul 11.

(c) Offerors are requested to submit questions to the point of contact noted above not later than 04:00 pm CST on 08 Aug 11. Information provided at this conference shall not qualify the terms and conditions of the solicitation and specifications. Terms of the solicitation and specifications remain unchanged unless the solicitation is amended in writing. If an amendment is issued, normal procedures relating to the acknowledgment and receipt of solicitation amendments shall apply.

D. Specific Instructions:

1. PART I – PRICE PROPOSAL - Submit original and three (3) copies

(a) Offerors shall include:

i. Section A - In its entirety, complete the "Offeror" portion of the Standard Form 1442 (i.e. page 1). An official having the authority to contractually bind your company must sign the SF 1442 in accordance with FAR 4.102. One copy of the SF 1442 must bear an original signature. Include Offer Guarantee.

ii. Section B - Insert the price(s) in the amounts column.

2. PART II – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL Submit original and three (3) copies.

(a) Technical Acceptability. Mission Capability: As part of the proposal, furnish technical data based on meeting the requirements of the solicitation, the Scope of Work for the seed project, and referenced regulations and codes. The technical data shall consists of a narrative of how your organization will support the requirements of the multiple projects in geographically separated locations, how your organization will support multiple, concurrent task orders, and a preliminary phased project schedule, which will become a part of the seed project task order. Submittal requirements for this Part are provided below:

i. Technical Subfactor 1: Capability to Successfully Manage Multiple, Concurrent Task Orders: The offeror shall describe the organizational strategy for managing multiple, concurrent task orders. Provide an organizational chart clearly identifying all key positions and their relationship to other positions shown on the organizational chart. Provide narratives describing the minimum qualifications, minimum level of education, any professional licenses, technical certifications and or qualifications required for each key position depicted in the organizational chart. Provide a narrative describing the offeror’s management approach for successful accomplishment of multiple, concurrent task orders. Include in the narrative a quantifiable analysis of other Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contracts and the potential workload associated with them. Also include a description of all other, known projects the offeror plans to propose on, for as far into the future as possible. The organizational chart is limited to one (1) page. The minimum qualifications narrative for key positions is limited to one

(1) page per position. The management approach narrative is limited to three (3) pages.

ii. Technical Subfactor 2: Capability to Successfully Manage Task Orders at Multiple Locations: Provide a narrative to describe key home and field office capabilities, resources, technical and availability to successfully support the contract and multiple ongoing task orders at various geographical locations. The narrative shall describe how scheduling and an acceptable level of quality will be maintained through design (for design-build projects), construction, final acceptance, and post warranty work. The narrative is limited to three (3) pages.

iii. Technical Subfactor 3: Phased Project Schedule: Provide a preliminary schedule. Demonstrate a clear understanding of the entire project and establish the performance period. Submit the schedule as an Excel spreadsheet, using the electronic file provided by the Contracting Officer.

3. PART III – PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION Submit original and three (3) copies. Provide a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) of the most relevant contracts performed within the last five (5) years. Contractor shall provide a copy of the attached Past Performance Questionnaire to each submitted source. Instruct each source to complete and return the questionnaire directly to the Contracting Officer for this acquisition.

Sources shall not return questionnaire to the offeror. For each submitted source provide the following:

(a) Acquisition information:

• Contracting agency

• Company/division name

• Contract number

• Product/Service Provided

• Contract dollar value

• Period of performance (Contract start and completion date)

• Contact information for Contracting Officer/Administrator

Point of Contact:

Address:

Fax number:

Phone number:

Email address:

• If contract was with another government agency, provide final Contractor Construction Appraisal Support System (CCASS) Rating for the contract

• Comments regarding compliance with contract terms and conditions

• Comments regarding any known performance deemed unacceptable to the customer, or not in accordance with the contract terms and conditions

(b) Statement of Relevancy: Provide a complete description of the work involved and total dollar value. Include rationale as to why and how the acquisition meets the relevancy definitions for this acquisition.

(c) Quality and Satisfaction Rating for Contracts Completed in the Past Five Years: Provide any information currently available (letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc.), which demonstrates customer satisfaction with overall job performance and quality of completed product for same or similar type contract. In addition, explain corrective actions taken in the past, if any, for substandard performance and any current performance problems such as cost overruns, construction performance slippage, timely response to warranty calls, etc.

(d) Teaming Arrangements: If a teaming arrangement (i.e. Joint Venture) is contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent past performance information on previous teaming arrangements with same partner. If this is a first time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of past and present relevant contracts. Past experience of one team member will be considered past experience of all team members for purposes of evaluation.

(e) Subcontractor Consent: Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor’s consent.

Provide with the proposal a letter from all subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor.

E. Use of Contractor Support Services: Prospective offerors are hereby notified that the Defense Commissary Agency are currently utilizing the following contractors for official advisory purposes for this source selection evaluation:

P3S 13750 San Pedro, Suite 640 San Antonio, TX 78232

Parsons 100 W. Walnut St.

Pasadena, CA 91124-0001

Offerors objecting to the release of their proposal information to these contractors shall inform the contracting officer prior to the date for receipt of proposals. Contractor personnel have signed non-disclosure statements.

F. Subcontracting Plan:

FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS 252.219-7003 are included in this solicitation and will be incorporated into any resultant contract. A subcontracting plan is required from all large businesses. The plan shall be submitted with the initial proposal and will be negotiated prior to the award of any contract when an offeror is identified as an “apparent successful offeror”. If a cost proposal is required by this solicitation, it must relate to, and substantiate, the submissions under FAR 52.219-9(d). The offeror's submission must provide sufficient information to support the contracting officer's review of the subcontracting plan to determine if it is acceptable (otherwise an offeror may be ineligible to receive the contract award).

If a subcontracting plan is required by FAR 19.7, offerors must:

Describe their corporate commitment in providing subcontracting opportunities for small business, small disadvantaged business, women-owned small business, HUBZone small business, veteran-owned small business and service disabled veteran-owned small business concerns and Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI). Describe the strength and specificity of each corporate commitment (i.e., what type of commitment, how binding is the commitment, how specific is the commitment to this proposed effort, and what types of tasks are included in these subcontracting opportunities).

Contractors who have been selected for participation in the DoD test program authorized by Section 834 of Public Law 101-189 who have approved comprehensive subcontracting plans are not generally required to negotiate subcontracting plans on an individual contract basis.

However, if the Defense Commissary Agency has developed subcontracting criteria, and/or performance evaluation processes specific for this acquisition, any offeror/contractor participating in the Comprehensive Subcontracting Test Program or utilizing a Master or a Commercial Subcontracting Plan shall submit with their proposal a Subcontracting Performance Plan (SPP) or equivalent to specifically address this acquisition’s/contract’s requirements. The contractor’s SPP or equivalent shall include a copy of its approved subcontracting plan and adequate documentation to demonstrate in detail how the existing subcontracting plan (Comprehensive, Master or Commercial) will be amended to incorporate the scope and breadth of the SCIP III contract subcontracting requirements and overall objectives. Any contract resulting from this solicitation which includes a comprehensive subcontracting plan will include the clause at 252.219-7004, Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business Subcontracting Plan (Test Program), in lieu of the clauses at FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS 252.219-7003.

Goals/Targets.

Describe how your subcontracting plan for your current/past Construction proposal compares to the Defense Commissary Agency’s goals (e.g. meets, exceeds, or does not meet). Any failure to meet a goal specified below must have complete rationale explaining why the specific goal(s) cannot be met.

Small Business 34.27% Small Disadvantaged Business 10.99% HUBZone Business 0.1% Woman Owned Small Business 3.68% Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business 0.1%

Describe how you will meet specific subcontracting percentages and goals for the contract expressed in dollars and in percentages of your total proposed subcontracting dollars for subcontracting in each category above.

Provide your targets regarding the total extent of participation of SDB concerns expressed as dollars and percentage of the value of the total acquisition.

The Subcontracting Plan submitted for this contract is not required for evaluation in the source selection, but rather, a requirement for award to a Large Business and it will be incorporated into any resultant contract and will be evaluated during an apparently successful offeror’s responsibility determination IAW FAR part 9.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

Introduction: This is a competitive, best value, multiple award source selection that will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR Part 15.3), Department of Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS 215.3), and Defense Commissary Agency Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DeCAARS 15.3).

1. The government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the technically acceptable responsible offeror whose proposal conforming to the solicitation offers the best value to the

Government, with past performance greater in importance than price considerations. The Government intends to award approximately ten (10) contracts. It is the Government’s intent to award the respective seed project to the proposal with the overall best value.

2. For the purpose of this source selection the Technical and Past Performance when combined are considered more important that Price.

3. Proposals will be evaluated as follows:

A. Technical Acceptability: The Government will first evaluate the technical acceptability of all proposals. Mission Capability provides an assessment of the offeror’s capability to satisfy the government’s requirements. Each subfactor within the Mission Capability factor shall receive a color rating based on the combined technical/risk assessed on strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies and risks of the offeror's proposal. Features or aspects of a proposal that exceed the standard for acceptability in a manner that is beneficial to the Government will be given higher consideration in the best value source selection decision. To be eligible for award an offeror’s proposal must be technically acceptable. To be acceptable all technical factors must be rated technically acceptable. The agency will not further evaluate or consider for award any proposal found technically unacceptable. The following technical factors will be evaluated:

1) Technical Evaluation, Subfactor 1: Capability to Successfully Manage Multiple, Concurrent Task Orders: The organizational chart and key position requirements will be evaluated for completeness, logic and appropriateness of the organizational chart and associated key position requirements. Strong organizational structures will not include conflicts of interest in the chain of command and will include enough positions to adequately manage the basic contract and subsequent, concurrent projects in multiple locations. The management approach will be evaluated for realism given the organizational structure and other workload, both existing and potential.

2) Technical Subfactor 2: Capability to Successfully Manage TaskOrders at Multiple Locations: Capabilities will be evaluated for logic, completeness and realism.

3) Technical Subfactor 3: Phased Project Schedule: The proposed schedule will be evaluated for completeness, the overall performance period, compared to the Government’s estimated 15 month performance period, and the schedule logic. Logic will be evaluated in terms of date sequencing, constrained activity analysis, float analysis, resource loading, open ended activities, and ties between activities. Strong proposals will have performance periods less than 15 months, reasonable average float values and float ratios, include dollar values for each activity, few or no activities without at least one predecessor and one successor, and few or no activities with excessive float. Proposals will be rated Unacceptable (Red) if the performance period is greater than 20 months, regardless of the number of additional deficiencies. In this case, the proposal does not meet requirements and is unawardable.

Each proposal will receive one of the technical/risk ratings listed below:

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Definition BLUE OUTSTANDING Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

PURPLE GOOD Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

GREEN ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

YELLOW MARGINAL Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has no demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

RED UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

NOTE: The Mission Capability Evaluation Subfactors are listed above. Subfactors 1, 2 and 3 are of equal importance. For the technical proposal to be rated as acceptable, all technical subfactors must be rated acceptable. If a proposal receives a different rating for any technical factor the overall proposal will receive the rate of the lowest rated technical factor. Only technically acceptable proposals are eligible for award.

B. Price Evaluation. Next, the Government will rank all Technically Acceptable offers by evaluated price.

1) Prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. Reasonableness will be determined based on prices submitted by the competition, current market conditions, and comparison with the Government estimate and prior acquisitions, if applicable. Prices will be evaluated to determine if they are unbalanced. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the prices are significantly unbalanced.

2) An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in the schedule of Supplies/Services by the proposed fixed-unit price for each CLIN to confirm the extended amount for each. The proposed extended amounts shown for each CLIN are then totaled to confirm a total proposed price. Unrealistically low (or high) prices submitted, either initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.

Evaluation of options shall not obligate the government to exercise the option(s).

C. Performance Confidence Assessment. The government will then rank all Technically Acceptable offers by evaluated price starting with the lowest overall price and continuing to the highest overall price. The government will begin past performance evaluation with the proposal with the lowest evaluated price. Using questionnaires and/or data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources, the contracting officer will evaluate relevant and recent past performance information of all offerors based on (1) the past efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from Government and commercial sources. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in this RFP, based on the offeror’s demonstrated past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence or Unknown Confidence. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history shall receive the rating "Unknown Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. Past or present performance effort will be evaluated for recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

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.

1. Very Relevant - Very relevant performance carries more weight than relevant or somewhat relevant. To qualify as very relevant the past performance effort must meet all of the following. (1) The dollar value for the life of the contract must meet or exceed $10 million dollars, (2) Performance must have been for construction of a new, or addition and/or alteration of existing commercial grocery store, supermarket, military commissary, or similar sustainment project, (3) Project must have required phasing of new construction and/or phasing allowing continued operation of an occupied retail/resale facility, (4) Project shall have included installation or replacement of complete supermarket product refrigeration systems and refrigeration systems monitoring and controls system, (5) *LARGE BUSINESSES ONLY* If the project utilized a subcontracting plan as required by FAR 19.7 then the plan must have been accepted and the goals met to the approval of the Contracting Officer responsible for the project.

2. Relevant - Relevant performance fails to meet all requirements for very relevant performance but meets all of the following. (1) The dollar value for the life of the contract must meet or exceed $6 million dollars, (2) Performance must have been for construction of a new, or addition and/or alteration of existing commercial grocery store, supermarket, military commissary, or similar sustainment project, (3) Project must have required phasing of new construction and/or phasing allowing continued operation of an occupied retail/resale facility, (4) Project shall have included installation or replacement of complete supermarket product refrigeration systems and refrigeration systems monitoring and controls system. (5) *LARGE BUSINESSES ONLY* If the project utilized a subcontracting plan as required by FAR 19.7 then the plan must have been accepted and the goals met to the approval of the Contracting Officer responsible for the project.

3. Somewhat Relevant – Somewhat relevant performance does not meet all requirements for very relevant or relevant but meets all of the following: (1) The dollar value for the life of the contract must meet or exceed $3 million dollars, (2) Performance must have been for construction of a new, or addition and/or alteration of existing commercial grocery store, supermarket, military commissary, or similar sustainment project, (3) Project shall have included installation or replacement of complete heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems (HVAC) and controls. (4) *LARGE BUSINESSES ONLY* If the project utilized a subcontracting plan as required by FAR 19.7 then the plan must have been accepted and the goals met to the approval of the Contracting Officer responsible for the project.

4. Not Relevant – Not relevant performance is all performance that fails to meet one of the three relevancy categories above.

Quality of Performance - Performance efforts that qualify as recent and meet one of the three relevancy criteria (very relevant, relevant, or somewhat relevant) will be evaluated for quality of performance. Each evaluated effort will receive one of the following performance ratings:

Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory Neutral

Based on the evaluation of past performance the government will develop one of the following performance confidence assessments for all offeror’s whose past performance was evaluated.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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.

SATSIFACTORY Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance

CONFIDENCE 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 performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The Government reserves the right to down grade the performance confidence assessment of any offeror based on lack of relevant performance information. 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 or present performance effort that is rated less than satisfactory overall or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

D. General Basis for Award: The government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. If discussions are to be conducted they will be held with all offerors whose proposal is within the competitive range. Prior to establishing the competitive range the government will evaluate all offerors against all factors in the solicitation. In this event award will be based on an integrated best value assessment of all proposals remaining in the competitive range. As stated earlier, Technical and Past Performance when combined are considered more important that Price.

In using this best value approach, the Government will award up to ten (10) contracts to the offerors who give the Defense Commissary Agency the greatest confidence that it will best meet our requirements. To arrive at a source selection decision, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will integrate the source selection team’s assessment of the evaluation factors. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and therefore professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. This may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the SSA reasonably determines that the Past Performance, of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference.

The government anticipates an award of up to ten (10) contracts from this solicitation. The government intends to award to at least three (3) 8(a) Small Businesses. However, the Government is not required to award a minimum number of contracts or award to a certain number of any particular socioeconomic group.

E. Award: A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise, furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

F. RESPONSIBILITY: In addition to the evaluation factors noted above, the offeror must be determined responsible according to the standards in FAR Subpart 9.1 Responsible Prospective Contractors.

(End of Summary of Changes)