Amendment 0004.pdf

NAVFACSYSCOM MID-ATLANTIC

PWD NORFOLK

FACILITIES ENGINEERING & ACQ DIV

9324 VIRGINIA AVENUE

NORFOLK VA 23511-3624

ACQR5950671

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

GROUNDS MAINTENANCE AND LANDSCAPING SERVICES AT NORFOLK NAVAL STATION NORFOLK, VIRGINIA

This amendment is issued to incorporate a revised section J- attachment J-0200000-07 ELINS and M.1- Basis for aw ard, Factor 3- Safety. In addition, provide Pre-Proposal Inquiries and responses related to the solicitation.

All other terms and conditions remain the same.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 11

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 17-Aug-2023

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 N4008523R2569

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

13-Jul-2023

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

17-Aug-2023

CODE

NAVFACSYSCOM MID-ATLANTIC

CONTRACTING CORE

9324 VIRGINIA AVENUE

NORFOLK VA 23511-3095

N40085 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE N40085

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N4008523R2569

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0004

Pre-Proposal Inquiries & Responses

40. "Projects submitted for the Offeror shall be ongoing (having been performed for a period of at least one year from the date of issuance of this solicitation) or completed within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this solicitation. Projects with periods of performance beyond one year shall be clearly defined as multi-year contracts or as base contracts with option periods. If the project has option periods, state which contract period is in progress (Base, 1st option, etc.). If the Corporate Experience Form does not clearly demonstrate that the project meets the above requirements, the Government may deem the project not relevant. Past Performance Evaluation is limited to within the past three years." This is too restrictive on small businesses. This language is most favorable to the incumbent contractor. The incumbent has more than enough advantages to compete without adding these restrictions. The government can assure competition and assurance of great performance with the technical requirements, staffing and experience of the Corporate Management including Key Personnel. You have requirements for Financial Responsibility already included. I am requesting this restriction be changed to past performance within the past 8 years. Allow the offeror's management team personnel's experience be allowed in addition to corporate only. Our abilities can best benefit the government with this change.

Response: The language for corporate experience will remain the same.

41. A. In looking at the entire workbook there is no formula to calculate the total, subtotal for individual customers, or grand total for individual pages. Normally the contractor is to only insert pricing under the unit price section. Does the government want us to calculate total pricing, Subtotal price, and Total page price? Does the contractor need to fill out the Summary Page? As an example, we have entered just unit prices into Clin A0001 CNRMA (N62688) Grounds:

Response: There are no formulas. The contractor must enter their own unit pricing, extended totals, subtotals and grand totals. Yes, fill out the summary page.

B. In looking at the pages for ELINs – Base Period-Non recurring and correlating option periods we believe there is an error in the formatting of the workbook. The workbook is locked for any changes by the contractor. When we enter a price into the unit price column of an ELIN, it is only showing the number without any data after the decimal. As an example, below we have entered the number 125.29 as our unit price. Because of the formatting it is showing only the 125, the .29 is not being shown. Our question is that if we want to bid something in less than a whole dollar, it does not show the number correctly. This becomes a problem when we try to calculate our extended price. It also hides the decimal in the unit pricing.

Response: See amendment 0004, Section J revised attachment J-0200000-07 ELINS

42. In reviewing Addendum/Modification number 0002 for solicitation number

N4008523R2569 for Grounds Maintenance and Landscape Service at Norfolk Naval Station, Virginia it extended the proposal due date to August 23, 2023 and established a date for the site visit on 15 August 2023. In the same modification under L.2 inquiries, it states that, “All questions must be submitted at least 10 days before proposals are due.”

Most likely after the site visit, prospective bidders including ourselves, will have questions regarding the solicitation. As the due date for the solicitation is 23 August, 8 days after the site visit, questions cannot be submitted within the 10 day requirement. It is hereby requested that the proposal due date be extended.

Response: In accordance with B.19, this is the most sufficient way that we make sure all questions are answered however, you may still submit questions after the 10 days but they may not be answered before the proposal due date.

43. Who is the current incumbent on the contract?

Response: See amendment 0001, question 4.

44. What was the previous contract award amount?

45. Could you provide details regarding the previous contract like duration and yearly?

Response: The contract was awarded for a base and 4 years. See amendment 0001, question 4 for additional information.

46. In both the original ELINS spreadsheet, as well as the new ELINS spreadsheet provided in Amendment 3, under the tabs for Non-Recurring Services, the Unit Price column is not in accounting format. Therefore, when the unit price is entered, it is rounded to the nearest whole number, not indicating the actual unit price. Can the government please provide an updated ELINS spreadsheet correcting this issue?

Response: See amendment 0004, Section J revised attachment J-0200000-07 ELINS

47. Who's the incumbent?

48. What was the contract price for FY 2021 & FY 2022?

49. Is this a set aside?

Response: In accordance with section B-General information, B.4 - Set-aside:

HUBZone Small Business Set-Aside Competitive Procurement. Refer to Section I, FAR Clause 52.219-6, Notice of Total Small Business Set-Aside.

50. Is there any bonding limits on the contract?

Response: In accordance with section B-General information, B.7-Bid Guarantee/Bonding Requirements: NOT REQUIRED for this procurement.

51. When are task orders issued? What is the process? I understand the Naval Base sometimes does not have funds available?

Response: Task orders are issued on non-recurring work. Non-recurring work is ordered on an as needed basis.

52. Phase in cost is to be included on what line item?

Response: There is not a separate line item for phase in cost. Your price proposal for each year should include the cost of doing business.

53. What is the government's range for the solicitation?

Response: NAVFAC MIDLANT does not provide a range for Facility Support Contracts.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

BASIS FOR AWARD

M.1 Basis for Award:

1. The Government will select the lowest price technically acceptable at a reasonable cost to the Government.

M.2 Evaluation Factors:

1. The solicitation requires the evaluation of price and the following non-cost/price factors:

Factor 1– Technical/Management Approach

Factor 2 – Corporate Experience

Factor 3– Safety Factor 4 – Past Performance

Offeror MUST be evaluated as techinally ACCEPTABLE under Factors 1,2,3 and 4 in order to be considered technically acceptable overall

NOTE: The distinction between experience and past performance is that experience pertains to the volume of work completed by a contractor that are comparable to the types of work described under the definition of recent, relevant projects, in terms of size, scope, and complexity. Past performance pertains to both the relevance of recent efforts and how well a contractor has performed on the contracts.

In order to permit efficient competition, the Navy will utilize the following methodology: Proposals will initially be screened for price and placed in order of price (lowest price to highest price). The Navy will then evaluate the technical factors of the lowest priced proposal. The Navy will make award to the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal. However, if the lowest priced proposal is not found to be technically acceptable, the Navy, at its sole discretion, reserves the right to increase the number of proposals it will review, until the Government identifies a technically acceptable proposal. Accordingly, under this methodology, the technical factors of some proposals may not be evaluated by the Navy. If discussions are deemed necessary by the Contracting Officer, all proposals will be evaluated (both technical and price) for the purpose of establishing a competitive range.

An overall non-price factors rating must be atleast “ACCEPTABLE” in order to be eligible for award. An “UNACCEPTABLE” rating in any factor results in the overall non-price factors proposal being rated “UNACCEPTABLE” unless corrected through discussions. An overall non-price factors rating of “UNACCEPTABLE” makes a proposal ineligible for award.

2. Basis of Evaluation and Submittal Requirements for Each Factor.

(a) Technical Factors:

(1) Factor 1, Technical Approach/Management:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The offeror shall submit a narrative response that clearly demonstrates its understanding of and approach to accomplishing the complexity and magnitude of service requirements set forth in the performance objectives and standards of the Performance Work Statement. Each of the topics below must be included in the narrative, tabbed in the non-price/cost proposal and discussed separately.

a. Phase-In Transition Plan. The phase-in transition period is 30 calendar days, per F.2 of the RFP. Describe what you will do to “start-up” for performance in accordance with the contract requirements.

(1) Include a schedule of key events, personnel actions/staffing, and responsibilities regarding employees at all levels to ensure fully compliant contract performance on the start date of the performance period. The schedule of key events shall include addressing the Section F Deliverables submission requirements.

(2) Provide a phase-in transition plan narrative that includes, but is not limited to:

a) The roles and responsibilities of personnel involved in the phase-in period;

b) The roles and responsibilities of personnel involved in the phase-in period;

c) The roles and responsibilities of personnel involved in the phase-in period.

b. Workforce Management. For each of the following, clearly:

(3) Describe the relationship between overall management (corporate and on-site), key personnel, administration, and subcontractors. Your description shall include the lines of management authority, supervision, span of control, and accountability.

(4) Describe your plan to recruit and maintain a qualified workforce.

(5) Decribe your plan to manage competing priorities, including surges, at various locations in this contract.

(6) Describe the work to be performed as the prime contractor (self-performed) as well as work to be performed by each subcontractor proposed. Additionally, Offerors shall submit completed Attachment J-0200000-09 as part of this factor since the awardee will be required to meet the requirements of FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting, during contract performance. NOTE: The Offerors shall clearly state in their narrative if they plan to self-perform 100% of the work as the prime.

c. Quality Management. Provide a summary of your “Quality Management System” (QMS). Your summary shall be no more than six (6) single-sided pages (or three (3) double-sided pages). Your summary shall address the practices and resources you will use to ensure full compliance with all Performance Objectives and Performance Standards as described in (0200000-C) Management and Administration). Additionally, your summary shall address your plan to audit, surveil, and inspect work performance and your strategy for taking corrective action when necessary.

(ii). Basis of Evaluation and Submittal Requirements for Each Factor.

Basis of Evaluation: The Technical Approach/Management factor shall be evaluated based upon the following criteria:

a. The proposal demonstrates an acceptable understanding of the performance objectives and standards.

b. The proposal demonstrates a plan for having equipment and personnel in place to commence work on the contract start date. In addition, the proposal clearly defines the controls and/or processes that are in place to ensure continuity of services.

c. The proposal provides a feasible technical approach with the capability to, at least, meet solicitation performance objectives and standards.

(2) Factor 2, Corporate Experience:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The Offeror shall submit the following information:

Submit a minimum of one (1) up to a maximum of five (5) relevant projects demonstrating prime contractor experience of the Offeror and/or the Offeror’s corporate affiliate(s) that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the work requirements specified in the solicitation. Experience of the Offeror or its corporate affiliate(s) as a subcontractor will not be considered.

For the purposes of this solicitation, a relevant project is further defined as follows:

Size: A project with a yearly value of at least $600,000.00 for recurring services.

Scope: Offer must have provided all labor, management, supervision, tools, materials, and equipment to provide Grounds Maintenance and Landscaping Services such as those described in the Performance Work Statement

(PWS).

Complexity: Offeror must have been responsible for responding simultaneously to requirements for several customers or installations.

The attached Corporate Experience Data Sheet (J-0200000-11) is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider information submitted in addition to this form nor will the Government consider information submitted via any other medium. Individual blocks on this form nor will the Government may be expanded; however, total length for each project data sheet shall not exceed three (3) single-sided pages (or one double-sided page and one (1) single-sided page).

Projects submitted for the Offeror shall be ongoing (having been performed for a period of at least one year from the date of issuance of this solicitation) or completed within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this solicitation. Projects with periods of performance beyond one year shall be clearly defined as multi-year contracts or as base contracts with option periods. If the project has option periods, state which contract period is in progress (Base, 1st option, etc.). If the Corporate Experience Form does not clearly demonstrate that the project meets the above requirements, the Government may deem the project not relevant.

For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the scope of work performed and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP as it relates to size, scope, and complexity as defined above, or the Government may consider the project not relevant. If an Offeror intends to submit recurring work completed/issued off an Indefinite Quantity/Indefinite Delivery (IDIQ) contract as a qualifying project, the Offeror is limited to submitting the IDIQ contract itself. The Government will not consider or evaluate any task orders whether submitted individually or collectively.

If the offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), relevant experience should be submitted for projects completed by the JV entity. If the Joint Venture does not have shared experience, projects may be submitted for each Joint Venture member. However, shared JV experience of the Offeror is not required in order to meet the requirements of the Factor. If the Offeror is submitting experience for individual JV partners in which the company was a partner in a different JV entity, the Offeror must specifically address what portion of the work under the submitted project was performed by the JV partner offering on this contract and demonstrate that the work meets the Size, Scope, and Complexity as defined above, or the project will not be considered relevant. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined. Offeror proposing as Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures shall submit the signed and U.S.

Small Business Administration (SBA) approved Mentor-Protégé agreement. All other Offerors proposing as a JV shall submit a signed JV agreement.

Offerors that are not submitting as a JV may submit a project where it performed as a JV with another entity, but must clearly demonstrate how it works on that project met Size, Scope, and Complexity, as defined above.

If an Offeror is utilizing the prime contractor experience of a corporate affiliate (e.g., subsidiaries, sister companies, predecessor companies, and parent companies), the proposal shall include a teaming agreement signed by the Offeror and the corporate affiliate(s) or letter of commitment signed by the corporate affiliate(s) on the corporate affiliate’s(s’) letterhead. In order for the experience to be considered, the Offeror is also required to clearly demonstrate that the corporate affiliate(s) will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract by identifying the personnel or resources from the corporate affiliate(s) that will be dedicated to the contract.

Basis of Evaluation:

The assessment of the Offeror’s relevant Corporate Experience will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the Offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP as defined above. The minimum standard for this Factor has been met when the Offeror has demonstrated adequate experience by submitting at least one relevant project of similar size, scope, and complexity, as defined above, on which it was the prime contractor. The at least one relevant project shall also meet the compliance requirements of this Factor as defined above.

Projects completed by the offeror, or, if permitted as discussed above, its corporate affiliate(s) (e.g., subsidiaries, sister companies, and parent companies), in any capacity other than as a prime contractor will be considered Not Relevant.

(3) Factor 3, Safety:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit the following information: The Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate, Total Case Rate (TCR) and OSHA 300A for the specified five (5) Calendar Years (CY) as well as a safety narrative, as described below. For a partnership or joint venture, the Offeror shall submit separate DART, TCR rates and OSHA 300A for the specified five (5) CY for each contractor who is part of the partnership/joint venture; however, only one safety narrative is required. Any fatalities experienced within this 5-year timeframe must be explained in detail, to include root cause and corrective actions.

NOTE: DART, TCR and OSHA 300A shall not be submitted for subcontractors

1. DART Rate: Submit five (5) previous complete calendar years’ worth of data (not an overall average). If the Offeror has no DART rate, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why.

Should a negative trend occur above moderate risk levels, an acceptable/detailed explanation is required that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

a. DART cases include injuries or illnesses resulting in death, days away from work, and/or restricted work or transfer to another job days beyond the day of injury/illness.

b. Calculation of DART rate: Multiply the total number of DART cases by 200,000 and then divide by the number of employee labor hours worked.

DART RATE = Number of DART Incidents x 200,000 , Total Number of Employee Labor Hours Worked

2. TCR Rate: Submit five (5) previous complete calendar years’ worth of data (not an overall average). If the Offeror has no TCR rate, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why.

Should a negative trend occur above moderate risk levels, an acceptable/detailed explanation is required that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

a. TCR cases include injuries or illnesses resulting in death, days away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job days beyond the day of injury/illness, medical treatment beyond first aid, or loss of consciousness.

b. Calculation of TCR rate: Multiply the total number of TCR incidents by 200,000, and then divide by the number of employee labor hours worked.

TCR RATE = Number of TCR Incidents x 200,000 , Total Number of Employee Labor Hours Worked

3. Offeror shall submit a separate OSHA 300A (Attachement J-02000000-10) form for each of the last five previous complete calendar years.

4. Technical Approach for Safety: The Technical Approach to Safety narrative shall be limited to six

(6) single-sided pages or three (3) double-sided pages and shall addresses the following:

a. Describe the Offeror’s approach to implementing and executing a Safety Management System (SMS) including Management/Leadership involvement, Employee involvement, Hazard prevention, Hazard control, Worksite analysis, and Safety and health training, to include the standard(s) used to benchmark the SMS.

b. Describe the evaluation process used to select potential subcontractors.

c. Describe the processes of how the Offeror will oversee safety compliance of subcontractors at all levels throughout performance of the contract (to include the Offeror’s own in-house workforce).

5. The Government reserves the right to review other available sources (public/Government internal) of information. These may include, but are not limited to OSHA data, NAVFAC’s Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Electronic Contract Management System (eCMS), etc.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: The evaluation will collectively consider the following:

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. To meet the minimum requirements, the Offeror must demonstrate the following:

1. DART rates at or below 2.99

2. TCR Rates at or below 4.49

NOTE: If the Offeror’s rates exceed the established levels above for any of the five (5) previous complete calendar years, it may result in a deficiency. For any rate that exceeds the minimum requirements above, the Offeror is required to provide a detailed explanation that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

3. Accuracy of the DART and TCR rates provided by submitting complete and separate OSHA 300A forms for each of the previous five complete calendar years.

Missing data without an explanation is considered a deficiency.

4. Technical Approach to Safety

a. Offeror describes a viable SMS that addresses elements; such as Management/Leadership involvement, Employee involvement, Hazard prevention, Hazard control, Worksite analysis, and Safety and health training, to include the standard(s) used to benchmark the SMS.

b. Offeror describes a methodical process of evaluating subcontractor’s safety performance in their selection process.

c. Offeror describes a logical management plan to hold both themselves and their subcontractors accountable for adhering to the safety requirements of the contract.

5. The Government reserves the right to review other available sources public/Government internal) of information. These may include, but are not limited to OSHA data, NAVFAC’s Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Electronic Contract Management System (eCMS), etc.

(4) Factor 4, Past Performance:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

For projects submitted for Factor 2, Corporate Experience:

a. IF CPARS EVALUATION ARE AVAILABLE, THEY SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE PROPOSAL. The Offeror shall submit all CPARS evaluations available for that project, not just the most recent.

b. IF THERE ARE NOT CPARS EVALUATIONS, the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in this solicitation is provided for the Offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each Factor 2 project. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment J- 0200000-08), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s).

Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, Ms. Asia Bracey, via email at asia.c.bracey.civ@us.navy.mil prior to proposal closing date.

Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

AN OFFEROR SHALL NOT SUBMIT A PPQ WHEN CPARS EVALATIONS ARE AVAILABLE.

The Offeor may include performance recognition documents received within the last five (5) years (from the date of issuance of the solicitation) such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to:

- Past performance information provided by the offeror, as solicited;

- Past performance information obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition; and

- Past performance information retrieved through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) for the Offeror’s team members (e.g., partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the proposal;

- Inquiries of owner representative(s);

- Interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and/or Fee Determining Officials;

- Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS);

- Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS); and

- Any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources; the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate, and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

A copy of the blank Past Performance Questionnaire to be used for requesting client references is included as Attachment J-0200000-08.

IMPORTANT: It is the responsibility of the Offeror to provide accurate points of contact for each identified contract and current telephone numbers and/or email addresses.

The Government reserves the right to contact references for verification or additional information.

Offerors may provide any information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken on projects submitted under Factor 2, Corporate Experience. Offerors may also address any adverse past performance issues.

Such explanations shall not exceed two (2) double-sided pages (or four (4) single-sided pages) in total.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

This evaluation focuses on the quality of performance on the relevant projects submitted under Factor 2, Corporate Experience, and past performance on other projects currently documented in known sources.

The degree to which past performance evaluations and all other past performance information reviewed by the Government (e.g., CPARS, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), performance recognition documents, and information obtained for any other source) reflect a trend of satisfactory performance considering:

- A pattern of successful completion of tasks;

- A pattern of deliverables that are timely and of good quality;

- A pattern of cooperativeness and teamwork with the Government at all levels (task managers, contracting officers, auditors, etc.);

The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in performance. This evaluation is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination. The assessment of past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the Offeror’s probability to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability a neutral rating shall be considered “Acceptable.”

(End of Summary of Changes)