22R1325_AMD05.pdf

RFP No. N6274222R1325 Amendment No. 0005

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

DOCUMENT 00 22 00, EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Delete pages 1 through 10 in its entirety and replace with the attached pages 1 through 10.

FY23 FHCON H-366, H-283, & H-375 REPLACE WON 1708755

ANDERSEN HOUSING PHASE IV, V, & VI, 1708756

NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY ANDERSEN, GUAM 1708758

RFP N62742-22-R-1325

Document 00 22 00

DOCUMENT 00 22 00

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I. GENERAL

1.1 INTENT TO SELECT/AWARD WITHOUT DICUSSSIONS

1.2 COMPETITIVE RANGE

1.3 ENFORCEABILITY OF PROPOSAL

PART II. EVALUATION FACTORS / RATING SCHEME

2.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARD

2.2 NON-PRICE EVALUATION FACTORS

2.3 RATING SCHEME

2.4 PHASE-TWO PRICE EVALUATION FACTOR

ATTACHMENTS:

(A) Construction Experience Project Data Sheet

(B) NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (Form PPQ-0)

(C) Small Business Participation Commitment Document

(D) Small Business Subcontracting Plan (template)

DOCUMENT 00 22 00

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

PART I. GENERAL

1.1 INTENT TO SELECT/AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

In phase-one, the Government intends to select the most highly qualified offerors (not-to-exceed five) to submit proposals for phase-two without conducting discussions with any offeror; therefore, the initial phase-one proposal shall conform to the solicitation requirements and shall contain the best offer.

The Government intends to evaluate phase-two proposals and award a contract without conducting discussions;

therefore, the initial phase-two proposal shall conform to the solicitation requirements and shall contain the best offer from a non-price and price standpoint.

1.2 COMPETITIVE RANGE

The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions during phase-one and/or phase-two if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines discussions are necessary, the Contracting Officer may conduct discussions with offerors determined to be in the competitive range. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

1.3 ENFORCEABILITY OF PROPOSAL

The Government shall consider the “offeror” to be the legal entity identified in Block 14 of the SF1442 of the phase-one proposal. The legal entity that submitted the phase-one offer shall not be changed, assigned, or otherwise substituted prior to award under any circumstances. The proposal must set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by this solicitation. The Government will rely on such information in the award of a contract.

By submission of the offer, the offeror agrees that all items proposed in response to the evaluation factors (including subcontractors with teaming agreements, project schedule, building design etc.) will be enforced for the duration of the contract. Any substitutions after contract award will be equal or better than as proposed and shall require Contracting Officer's approval prior to implementation.

PART II. EVALUATION FACTORS AND BASIS OF AWARD

2.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARD

In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 36.3, this acquisition is based upon two-phase design-build selection procedures. The term “technical factors” refers to any non-price factor other than past performance.

Factors 1-3 will be evaluated in phase-one and Factors 4-6 will be evaluated in phase-two. Factor 1 will be rated Acceptable or Unacceptable. If an Offeror is rated Unacceptable in Factor 1, then they will not be considered for phase-two. In making the best value award decision after phase-two, the Government will consider Factors 2-6 and price. The relative importance of evaluation factors 2-6 is as follows: Technical factors (Factors 2, 4, 5, and 6) are of equal importance to each other, and when combined, are equal in importance to the past performance factor (Factor 3). When the proposal is evaluated as a whole, the technical factors and past performance factor combined (i.e., the non-price evaluation factors) are approximately equal to price.

Amendment No. 0005

The contract resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to that responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, is determined to be the most advantageous to the Government considering price and non-price evaluation factors. Award may be made to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest non-price rated offeror. Business judgments and tradeoffs will be used to determine the proposal offering the best value to the Government. In determining the best value to the Government, the Government need not quantify the tradeoffs that led to the best value decision.

2.2 NON-PRICE EVALUATION FACTORS

Phase-One:

Factor 1: Technical Approach Factor 2: Experience Factor 3: Past Performance

Phase-Two:

Factor 4: Safety Factor 5: Site/Building Design Factor 6: Small Business Participation

PHASE-ONE

FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL APPROACH:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror (as identified on the SF1442) shall provide a narrative describing the general technical approach for accomplishing the requirements of this contract based on the General Requirements at Document 00 21 16, paragraph 1.1. The narrative shall include the roles and responsibilities of the offeror and the proposed lead design firm/Designer-of-Record. If the offeror is made up of more than one legal entity (e.g. Joint-Venture, Limited Liability Company, Limited Partnership, etc.), the narrative shall describe the roles and responsibilities of each legal entity(s) comprising the offeror. Provide an organizational chart, clearly depicting the offeror (including each legal entity comprising the offeror), the lead design firm/Designer-of-Record, and the lines of authority of the various entities. The narrative and organizational chart shall be limited to four (4) single-sided pages [or, two (2) double-sided pages], 8.5” x 11”, 1” margin left/right/top/bottom, and 10-point font or larger.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The Offeror’s technical approach will be used as a means to assess the Offeror’s understanding of the General Requirements of the contract and the roles and responsibilities of the Offeror and lead design firm to accomplish the requirements of the contract. This factor will be rated on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis.

FACTOR 2 – EXPERIENCE:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall complete the attached Construction and Design Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment A) for each construction and design project submitted and complete all individual blocks. Attachment A and all information therein is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to evaluate experience. The Government will evaluate only the information provided in Attachment A and all other information provided on other than Attachment A will not be considered. The Offeror may expand individual blocks on the Attachment A; however, Attachment A for each project submitted shall not exceed a total of four (4) single-sided pages [or, two (2) double-sided pages], 8.5” x 11”, 1” margin left/right/top/bottom, and 10-point font or larger. Attachment A

Amendment No. 0005 submittals that do not comply with these requirements will not be evaluated. For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP.

(1) Construction Experience

Submit a maximum of three (3) relevant construction projects that best demonstrates the Offeror’s construction experience that are similar in size, scope, and complexity as provided in the relevant construction project definition below. If the proposal submits more than three (3) projects for evaluation, the Government will evaluate the first three (3) projects submitted and will disregard any other project information after the first three (3). For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant construction project is defined as:

New construction of single-family or multi-family housing, consisting of fifty (50) or more one-and/or two-story units, approximately $10 million or more in dollar value, completed or substantially completed within fifteen (15) years of the date of issuance of this RFP. Substantially complete means at least 90% physical completion.

NOTES:

1. Building alteration, repair, renovation, conversion, and addition work will not be considered as relevant projects. In addition, buildings more than two stories will not be considered as relevant projects.

2. A relevant construction project is further defined as a construction project performed under a single task order or contract. For multiple award and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity type contracts, the contract as a whole shall not be submitted as a project; rather Offerors shall submit the work performed under a task order as a project.

3. There is a clear distinction between “experience” and “past performance.” Experience is related to the types and amounts of projects previously accomplished. Past performance relates to how well a firm has performed.

4. The “Offeror” is defined as the exact name in Block 14 of the Solicitation, Offer and Award (SF1442). If the Offeror is utilizing experience and past performance information of any entity other than (1) the Offeror; (2) if the Offeror is a joint venture, its joint venture partners jointly and severally liable for the contract; or (3) a firm that has been acquired by the Offeror and is now part of the Offeror, the Offeror shall provide in its proposal a fully-executed teaming agreement or other contractual agreement. The teaming agreement or other contractual agreement shall, at a minimum, (1) be signed by the Offeror and the other entity, (2) specifically reference this solicitation/contract, and (3) specify the work to be performed by the other entity such that it is clear that the other entity will be meaningfully involved in this contract in a role that is consistent with that entity’s role in the project submitted. For item (3), clearly state the specific commitments of resources of the other entity in terms of the work it will specifically perform or manage in the performance of the contract at the worksite. Note that generalized statements concerning commitment of resources are not sufficient to demonstrate that an entity will be meaningfully involved in the performance of the contract. Examples of “generalized statements” include a commitment of resources merely based on an entity’s “access” to resources and other generalized statements such as an entity will “provide support and expertise on the project.” The government will only consider information provided in the teaming agreement for the purpose of determining whether the Offeror has clearly demonstrated that any entity (other than the Offeror and, if the offeror is a joint venture, its joint venture partners jointly and severally liable for the contract) will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract. For experience and past performance information of a firm that has been acquired by the Offeror and is no longer a separate legal entity, the Offeror shall provide an explanation of the acquisition sufficient to demonstrate that the predecessor firm is now part of the Offeror in Block 1 of Attachment A.

(2) Design Experience

Submit a maximum of three (3) relevant design projects that best demonstrates design experience that are similar in size, scope, and complexity as provided in the relevant design project definition below. If the proposal submits

Amendment No. 0005 more than three (3) projects for evaluation, the Government will evaluate the first three (3) projects submitted and will disregard any other project information after the first three (3). For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant design project is defined as:

Design of new single-family or multi-family housing, consisting of twenty-five (25) or more one-and/or two-story units, approximately $5 million or more in dollar value, completed or substantially completed within fifteen (15) years of the date of issuance of this RFP. Substantially complete means at least 90% physical completion.

NOTES FOR DESIGN EXPERIENCE:

1. Building alteration, repair, renovation, conversion, and addition work will not be considered as relevant projects. In addition, buildings more than two stories will not be considered as relevant projects.

2. A relevant design project is further defined as a design-bid-build (DBB), complete, final design performed under a single task order or stand-alone A-E contract) or a complete, final design performed under a design-build (DB) construction contract as the Designer of Record (DOR). Design-Build Request for Proposal (DB RFP) solicitation documents shall NOT be considered a relevant design project. For multiple award and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity type contracts, the contract as a whole shall not be submitted as a project;

rather Offerors shall submit the work performed under a task order as a project.

3. There is a clear distinction between “experience” and “past performance.” Experience is related to the types and amounts of projects previously accomplished. Past performance relates to how well a firm has performed.

4. Provide a fully executed teaming agreement or other contractual agreement for the firm that designed the relevant portion of the project if the firm is not the Offeror. The teaming agreement or other contractual agreement shall, at a minimum, (1) be signed by the Offeror and the proposed design firm that is claiming the project experience, (2) specifically reference this solicitation/contract, and (3) specifically state that the proposed design firm will be the designer of record on this project.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The basis of evaluation will include the Offeror’s demonstrated experience and depth of experience in performing relevant construction and design projects as defined in the solicitation submittal requirements. The assessment of the Offeror’s relevant experience will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the Offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Relevant projects where the Offeror and the proposed design firm(s) have previously worked together may be considered more favorably than those that have not worked together.

FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) or Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 2 for Construction Experience. If a completed CPARS or AE Contractor Appraisal Support System (ACASS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 2 for Design Experience. If there is not a completed CPARS, CCASS or ACASS evaluation, then submit Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ - Attachment B) for each project included in Factor 2 for both Construction Experience and Design Experience. If CPARS, CCASS, and ACASS exist, they will be considered in the evaluation of past performance over PPQs. PPQs will not be accepted from the designer on a design-build project or from a

Amendment No. 0005 prime contractor for work performed by a subcontractor. PPQs shall be completed and signed by the contracting agent and/or their representative responsible for construction or design contract administration. Completed PPQs shall be submitted with the proposal. Offerors may submit PPQs previously submitted for other solicitations as long as complete, required information is included.

Offerors and Designers may provide any information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken on projects submitted under Factor 2 – Experience. Offerorsand Designers may also address any adverse past performance issues. Explanations shall not exceed two (2) double-sided pages (or four (4) single-sided pages) in total.

The Government reserves the right to contact references for verification or additional information. The Government’s inability to contact any of the Offeror’s or Designer’s references or the references unwillingness to provide the information requested may affect the Government’s evaluation of this factor.

Performance awards, letters of appreciation or any additional information submitted will not be considered.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

This evaluation focuses on how well the Offeror and the Designer performed on the relevant projects submitted under Factor 2 – Experience and past performance on other relevant projects currently documented in known sources. In addition to the above, the Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance on relevant projects from any and all sources including sources outside of the Government.

Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of firms who are part of a partnership or joint venture identified in the Offeror’s proposal and any proposed designers, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror.

The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the Offeror’s and the Designer’s performance. This evaluation is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination. The assessment of the Offeror’s and the Designer’s past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the Offeror’s probability to successfully meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Offerors and Designers lacking relevant past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably in past performance and will receive a Neutral rating. However, the Offeror or Designer with favorable past performance may be considered more favorably than an Offeror or Designer with a Neutral rating.

There is a clear distinction between “experience” and “past performance.” Experience is related to the types and amounts of projects previously accomplished. Past performance relates to how well a firm has performed.

PHASE-TWO

FACTOR 4 – SAFETY:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit the following information: For a partnership, joint venture, or LLC etc., separate OSHA300 logs, OSHA Form 300A, TRC and DART Rate submittal requirements are required for each partner/member; however, only one safety narrative is required. If any Offeror/partner/LLC member has TRC and/or DART rates, then TRC and DART Rates shall not be submitted for any subcontractors or affiliates of that Offeror/partner/LLC member. If any Offeror/partner/LLC member does not have TRC and/or DART rates, provide an explanation as to why they are

Amendment No. 0005 unable to provide them and submit TRC and DART information specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) below for the firm(s) that will be providing the on-site construction labor resources for that Offeror/partner/LLC member).

(1) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate and Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rate: Submit the OSHA DART and TRC rates and supporting OSHA 300 log and OSHA Form 300A summary for the five (5) previous complete calendar years (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, and 2017). If an Offeror does not have the OSHA DART and/or TRC rates, affirmatively state so and explain why and submit an equivalent based upon the OSHA formula used to calculate DART/TRC. Provide an explanation for any DART rate 2.99 or higher and the actions taken to prevent future occurrences. Provide an explanation for any TRC rate 4.49 or higher and the actions taken to prevent future occurrences. Any fatalities experienced within this 5-year timeframe must be explained in detail, to include root cause and corrective actions. The following provides the OSHA formula for DART and TRC:

The DART rate is calculated by adding up the number of incidents involving work related deaths, one or more Lost Days, one or more Restricted Days, or the transfer of an employee to a different job within the same company, multiplying that number by 200,000, and then dividing that number by the number of employee labor hours worked.

Total Number of DART incidents x 200,000 DART Rate = Number of Employee Labor Hours Worked

The TRC is calculated by multiplying the number of recordable cases by 200,000, and then dividing that number by the number of labor hours.

Total Number of Recordable Cases x 200,000 TRC = Number of employee labor hours worked

“Recordable cases” include each work related death and each work related injury or occupational illness involving days away from work, restricted work, transfer to another job, medical treatment beyond first aid, or loss of consciousness.

(2) Technical Approach for Safety: Describe the plan for safety that will be implemented to evaluate safety performance of potential subcontractors as part of the selection process for all levels of subcontractors. Submit a narrative that fully describes the safety management system that they will use to oversee the safety compliance and performance of self-performed and subcontractor performed work. Describe any innovative methods that will be employed to ensure and monitor safe work practices at self-performed and/or all subcontractor levels. Additionally, describe their methodology to execute an effective program that utilizes sound mishap prevention techniques and processes, employee reporting of unsafe conditions, unsafe activities, and near-miss mishaps.

There is no page limitation to address paragraph (1) above. The narrative to address paragraph (2) above shall not exceed two (2) pages (single-sided, 8.5” x 11”, 1” margin left/right/top/bottom, and 10-point font or larger).

Narrative pages shall contain the page number.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The evaluation will collectively consider the following:

(1) OSHA DART and TRC Rates: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s history of safe work practices considering the OSHA DART and TRC rates against the Navy standards and explanations for DART and TRC rates in the moderate risk category or higher.

Offeror’s DART and TRC rates will be evaluated against the following Navy standards:

Risk DART Rate

Amendment No. 0005

Very Low Risk Less Than 1.0 Low Risk From 1.0 to 1.99 Moderate Risk From 2.0 to 2.99 High Risk From 3.0 to 4.0 Extremely High Risk Greater than 4.0

Risk TRC Rate Very Low Risk Less Than 2.49 Low Risk From 2.5 to 3.49 Moderate Risk From 3.5 to 4.49

High Risk From 4.5 to 5.99 Extremely High Risk Greater Than 6.0

(2) Technical Approach to Safety: The Government will evaluate the technical approach to determine the degree of effectiveness in regards to the selection of safe subcontractors and the evaluation of their post award safety performance (all levels of subcontractors). The evaluation will also consider the degree to which proposed innovations enhance safety performance. Further, the proposed approach facilitates sound mishap prevention techniques/processes, employee reporting of unsafe conditions, unsafe activities, and near-miss mishaps.

(3) Other Sources of Information Available to the Government: Other sources for safety may include but are not limited to OSHA data, NAVFAC’s Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS) in Enterprise Safety Applications Management System (ESAMS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and other related databases.

FACTOR 5 – SITE/BUILDING DESIGN:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Submit a statement certifying the design and construction shall be fully consistent with the concept design indicated in Part 6 of the RFP. Alternatively, the Offeror shall identify and describe all proposed departures from the Part 6 concept design (building systems and components, exterior appearance, etc.). Proposed departures from the concept design shall be fully compliant with the other parts of the RFP specifications. Include in the description of the proposed departures from the concept design the composition and quality of the design, construction, materials, and equipment, including manufacturer’s product data, catalog cuts, and other pertinent information as applicable, to demonstrate the merits of the proposal as well as compliance to the RFP specifications.

Furthermore, in addition to the certification statement or alternative proposal, clearly identify and describe the proposed building systems and components listed below in demonstrating compliance with the RFP. Description shall include the composition and quality of the design, construction, materials, and equipment, along with manufacturer’s product data, catalog cuts, and other pertinent information as applicable, to demonstrate compliance to the RFP specifications.

Grading Plan Underground Utility Plans (sizes and locations) Structural System (foundation, slab-on-grade, framing, structural walls (exterior and interior), roof decks) Exterior Wall System (exterior wall assembly, including exterior wall, exterior wall surface, insulation, vapor barriers (if needed), interior surface of exterior wall) Roof System (roof deck, roof type, roof pitch, roof covering, insulation, gutter, downspout) Ventilation and Air Conditioning System (ventilation, cooling, and dehumidifying equipment, controls, equipment location, duct layout)

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The Offeror’s proposed building design will be evaluated for compliance with the RFP and the overall quality of the design, construction, materials, and equipment.

NOTES:

(1) Due care should be taken to ensure the design and construction data clearly indicate the material/equipment to be provided. Proposals including conflicting information or “or equal” material or equipment specifications may be considered unacceptable.

(2) Proposals including statement certifying the design and construction shall be fully-consistent with the concept design indicated in Part 6 of the RFP will be evaluated as Good.

(3) Proposals that indicate departures from the Part 6 concept design that increases risk to quality or negatively impact functionality or maintainability may be considered less favorably. Proposals that indicate departures from the Part 6 concept design that are not in compliance with the RFP shall be evaluated as Unacceptable.

FACTOR 6 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION:

(1) The Government will utilize CPARS and eSRS to retrieve and assess the Offeror’s past performance information for Small Business Participation; therefore, there are no proposal submission requirements for Small Business past performance. Offerors lacking relevant past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably in past performance.

(2) The Offeror shall submit a Small Business Participation Commitment Document, Attachment C, which specifies the Offeror’s level of commitment to small business utilization in performance of this requirement. This acquisition has a Minimum Quantitative Requirements (MQR) of 20% of the Total Contract Value (TCV). The MQR is the percentage of TCV to be performed by small businesses as a prime or subcontractor. Proposals which do not meet the MQR will be Unacceptable. A Small Business Participation Commitment Document is required from all Offerors, including companies with commercial or comprehensive subcontracting plans. The Small Business Participation Commitment Document shall address the following:

a. The extent of participation by small businesses (SB) to include service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) concerns, HUBZone small business concerns (HUBZone), small disadvantaged business concerns (SDB), and women-owned small business concerns (WOSB).

b. Level of commitment to use such firms.

c. Types of work the small business firms are to perform.

d. Statement of quantitative degree to which small businesses (including small businesses in all socio-economic categories) will participate in the acquisition relative to the total contract value (TCV).

e. Detailed explanations/documentation supporting the proposed participation commitment and quantitative degree of participation. (Note: This information will not be incorporated into the resultant contract.) This narrative shall not exceed two (2) single-sided pages.

Attachment C, Small Business Participation Commitment Document Template, is provided; however, Offerors may submit the information in their own format as long as complete, required information is included.

(b) Small Business Subcontracting Plan (not applicable to Small Business Offerors):

Other than small business Offerors shall submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan satisfying the requirements of FAR 52.219-9, Alt II. A template is provided as Attachment D. In addition to these requirements, the Subcontracting Plan shall address affirmatively all other small business subcontracting requirements in FAR Part

19.7. The Subcontracting Plan shall be submitted separately from the Small Business Participation Commitment Strategy required above, which applies to both small and other than small businesses.

Note 1: Though different from each other, the Small Business Participation Commitment Document is a complement in part to a Subcontracting Plan for Offerors required to submit a plan. Other than small business Offerors need to ensure consistency between both documents where appropriate.

Note 2: The Subcontracting Plan is not a requirement for evaluation in source selection, but rather a requirement for award to other than small business. The Subcontracting Plan shall be submitted with the offer and a final Subcontracting Plan, once determined to be acceptable, shall be incorporated into the resulting contract.

(c) Basis of Evaluation:

The basis of evaluation and acceptability will be as defined in the Solicitation Submittal Requirements for Factor 6 and the following adjectival rating method:

2.3 RATING SCHEME

The following information is pertinent to the rating of the non-price proposals:

a. 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.

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

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

d. 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.

e. Any proposal found to have a deficiency will render a proposal ineligible for participation in phase-two and/or ineligible for award.

2.4 PHASE-TWO PRICE EVALUATION FACTOR

a. One or more of the following techniques will be used to evaluate the total price to ensure that it is fair and reasonable:

Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation;

Comparison of proposed prices with the independent Government Estimate;

b. The price proposals will be ranked from lowest to highest.