Section L and M SSM 11 Aug.docx

Section L - Instructions, Conditions & Notices to Offerors

This solicitation is issued as a Small Business (SB) set-aside under Seaport NxG using Fair Opportunity under Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) 16.507. Only offers received from eligible Seaport NxG task order holders will be eligible for award and the award resulting from this solicitation will only be made to eligible SB concerns in accordance with FAR 52.219-6.

The Government intends to award a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) task order without exchanges. Notwithstanding this intent, the Government reserves the right, at its discretion, to request and require revised proposals from any or all offerors in accordance with FAR 16.505. The Government also reserves the right to change any of the terms and conditions in the RFP by an amendment at any time prior to award and to allow offerors to revise their proposals accordingly.

The Source Selection process for this task order will be based on a Tradeoff source selection process with the award being made to the Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government.

The Government reserves the right to reject all proposals received in response to a solicitation, if doing so is in the best interest of the Government.

Each Offeror’s proposal is presumed to represent the Offeror’s best efforts to comply with the solicitation requirements and provide the best price. The Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price standpoint. Clarity and completeness of the proposal are of the utmost importance. The proposal must be written in a practical, clear, and concise manner. It must use quantitative terms whenever possible and must avoid qualitative adjectives to the maximum extent possible. The proposal should be complete as submitted, and not include references to data or information previously submitted. Data previously submitted to the Navy, if any, will not be incorporated “by reference” into the offer and will not be considered in the evaluation of the proposal.

The proposal must demonstrate the Offeror’s familiarity with the detailed aspects of the requirements, and clearly show that the Offeror understands all of the requirements. Offerors are cautioned against restating the PWS in their proposal, particularly with regards to the Factor I: Technical; and must state how all solicitation and PWS requirements will be met. Statements such as "the Offeror understands", and "the Offeror shall/can comply", along with responses that paraphrase the solicitation, are inadequate. The use of phrases such as "standard practices" (with a specific Government reference or industry reference) does not reflect the Offeror’s understanding of requirements and will likely result in an “Unacceptable” evaluation rating.

Proposals must be sufficiently detailed to allow the Technical Evaluation Board (TEB) to make a thorough evaluation of the proposal and arrive at a determination about the extent to which the offeror will be able to provide quality performance in accordance with the PWS.

Proposal Format and Content: Offerors shall submit their proposals in the following format:

Volume I- Signed Offer - Seaport NxG Solicitation Volume II – Technical Proposal Volume III – Past Performance Volume IV – Price

**Volume II must not contain any price or cost information

**Page limits do not include cover page or table of contents. However, these pages shall not include any material information that needs to be evaluate under the evaluation factors.

All offers must be submitted via the PIEE Solicitation Module.

The proposal should be single-spaced typed (one side only) using Microsoft Word minimum 12-point Font text. Graphs/tables/charts may be included as necessary and may be in 10-point font text. Hyperlinks may not be used.

All pages in each volume shall be numbered sequentially (i.e., 1-15); pages identified above that are not included in the page limitation may be numbered differently or not at all. The Government will only evaluate that part of the proposal that complies with the instructions set forth herein. For example, if the requirement is a maximum of 20 pages and an offeror submits 22 pages, the last two pages will not be read and/or evaluated.

Specific Volume Instructions:

Volume I – Proposal

Volume I consists of the offer. The offer must include a complete copy of the Solicitation. This volume shall be completely filled in and signed by the offeror. Contractors are required to provide an offer based on the most up to date information provided by the Government.

The proposal shall include a cover letter from the Offeror and each subcontractor. The following information shall be included in the cover letter:

a. The company name, address, point of contact with telephone numbers, e-mail address, Contractor and Government Entity (CAGE) code, Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) number, and Seaport NxG contract number.

b. Names, titles, telephone numbers and e-mail addresses of persons authorized to negotiate and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal (Not required for the Subcontractor) on the Offeror's behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation;

c. Proposal validity for 120 days;

The proposal shall also include:

a. Completed Representations and Certifications of solicitation provisions or certification of completion within the offerors System of Award Management (SAM) profile; and

b. Evidence of VETS 4212 compliance, and

c. The offeror must submit the draft DD254 as part of their proposal. The offeror shall demonstrate that it either currently possesses a required Facility Security Clearance in accordance with the draft DD-254, or evidence that they are willing and eligible to obtain the required FCL security clearance, and

d. if applicable, an OCI mitigation plan Included in Volume I

The Offeror must state explicitly whether or not any exceptions are taken to the terms and conditions of the solicitation. If so, the Offeror shall list and provide its rationale for any such exception. Any comments or exceptions must be addressed in this section and may form the basis for an Offeror to be considered ineligible for award. Alternate proposals are not authorized and will be rejected.

OCI Mitigation Plan (if applicable) In accordance with FAR 9.5, Offerors shall disclose all known potential or actual OCIs involving the Offeror's organization and any proposed Team Members (e.g., subcontractors or consultants).

a) Offeror shall disclose, for instance, any conflicting roles potentially created by the Offeror's current or past involvement (within the past three (3) calendar years) with a CNSP contract or agreement, either as a prime or sub, and identify any contract/agreement requirements that might bias the Offeror's judgment or provide the Offeror with an unfair competitive advantage in future CNSP solicitations.

b) Offeror shall submit a written OCI mitigation plan for all disclosed OCI(s), including identifying and describing the OCI(s), the action the Offeror has taken or proposes to take to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate the OCI(s) disclosed under subparagraph (a) in the context of each of the OCI limitations outlined in FAR 9.505-1 through FAR 9.505-4. The Government may require the Offeror to provide additional information to assist the Government in evaluating the Offeror's OCI mitigation plan.

c) If the Government determines that the Offeror failed to disclose an OCI fully or failed to reasonably provide additional information requested by the Government to assist in evaluating the Offeror's OCI mitigation plan, the Government may reject the proposal and withdraw it from consideration for award.

Volume II – Technical

The purpose of this section is to enable the Navy to assess the Offeror's technical understanding of and capability to perform, manage, and control tasks in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

The Technical Proposal shall consist of no more than 15 pages, excluding resumes, letters of intent, employment agreements, title page, table of contents, and cross-reference index list. Offerors are cautioned that no more than the first 15 pages of their Technical Proposals will be evaluated. If any offer is not in compliance with the page limitation on Technical Proposals the extra pages will be removed and not evaluated. There shall be no price/cost information included in the Technical sections of the offer.

Factor I - Technical will consist of two (2) sub-factors:

Sub-factor 1: Technical Approach Sub-factor 2: Staffing

Clarity and completeness of the proposal are of the utmost importance. The proposal must be written in a practical, clear, and concise manner. It must use quantitative terms whenever possible and must avoid qualitative adjectives to the maximum extent possible. Offerors are cautioned against restating PWS requirements in their proposal, particularly with regard to technical requirements; and must state how all RFP and PWS requirements will be met. Statements such as "the offeror understands" and "the offeror shall/can comply", along with reference or industry references does not reflect that the offeror understands the requirements and will likely result in a diminished evaluation rating.

Sub-factor (1) – Technical Approach

Technical Narrative - The Offeror shall provide, in detail, an approach that will demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding and ability to perform all tasks listed in the PWS. The technical approach shall demonstrate that the Offeror can accomplish the specified work in a technically competent, timely, cost-effective manner with minimal risk to the Government. Offerors must address understanding of the deliverables to be produced in response to the requirements. Offeror must provide evidence and details of knowledge in supporting the various tasks identified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

a) The narrative must detail how the SSM will document, inspect, and verify the acoustic and radio frequency (RF) shielding construction. This includes mandatory photographic tracking of SCIF perimeter construction elements (e.g., stud framing, acoustic/RF shielding, and gypsum board seams) in accordance with ICD/ICS 705 Technical Specifications.

b) Provide specific procedures for examining all material deliveries (such as acoustic insulation, conduits, and doors) to prevent the introduction of technical listening or surveillance devices.

c) Explain the SSM’s methodology for tracking and assigning uncleared labor via coordination with separately identified U.S.-cleared Construction Surveillance Technicians (CSTs). Describe the SSM's procedures for enforcing strict visitor logging and escort protocols.

d) Outline the exact technical workflow the SSM will use to log security anomalies or deviations from the CSP and report them to the Accrediting Official (AO) within three (3) business days.

Sub-factor (2) –Staffing

The Offeror shall provide a staffing plan explaining how they will provide proper staffing that 1) meets the qualifications listed in the PWS, and 2) is capable of completing the tasks described in the PWS. The explanation must be sufficiently detailed to determine that all services will be provided in accordance with the PWS.

Offerors shall address their current staff retention rate and their ability to source, recruit, train, and retain employees who can perform the tasks in the PWS and provide information that will document the offeror’s current strategies, such as fringe benefits, to maintain competent employees and reduce staff-turnover.

Offeror shall demonstrate their ability to provide continuity of support of the Contractor services and explain their ability to manage unplanned staff departures.

Offerors shall provide a resume for each key personnel the offeror proposes. Resumes shall not exceed two pages in length. Letters of intent are not included in the resume page count.

Personnel resumes shall emphasize knowledge, ability, and experience as they pertain to the services set forth in the PWS. Resumes shall include, at a minimum, the following information:

--Name;

--Present place of employment (if contingent hire, so note);

--Security clearance (if applicable);

--Proposed labor category;

--Experience and educational background;

--Unique skills, specific experience, and accomplishments that are directly applicable to the PWS; and --Proposed application of the individual to the contract effort (i.e., full time or part time).

Desired qualifications and experience of each individual shall be appropriate to the proposed labor category. Required years of program related experience must be clearly shown in the resume and may be satisfied by concurrent experience.

The contractor must clearly show that the proposed personnel meet all of the requirements in PWS section 3.3.

· The Offeror must provide verification that the proposed SSM possesses an active Top Secret clearance with Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) eligibility adjudicated by a Tier 5 background investigation.

· The submission must include the individual's full legal name and Central Verification System (CVS) or Defense Information System for Security (DISS) record printout.

· Warning: Do not submit Social Security Numbers (SSNs)

· The resume must explicitly demonstrate at least ten (10) years of security experience and a minimum of five (5) years of direct experience managing physical security on ICD 705 construction or renovation projects, or working as a Physical Security Special Security Officer (SSO). The candidate must have demonstrated expert knowledge by successfully managing at least three (3) prior ICD 705 projects.

· The candidate must have demonstrated expert knowledge of the ICD/ICS-705 by successfully working on at least three (3) separate ICD-705 projects.

· The resume must demonstrate familiarity with the sixteen (16) standard divisions of construction and knowledge of technical listening devices commonly used by foreign intelligence services. (A Bachelor’s degree from an accredited university in a security or intelligence field is preferred, but not mandatory).

· The Offeror must provide proof of the following mandatory requirements:

· A valid certificate for the successful completion of a Thirty-Two (32) Hour or greater Site Security Manager (SSM) Training Course.

· A valid certificate for the successful completion of a Forty (40) Hour or greater Construction Surveillance Technician (CST) Training Course.

Section M - Evaluation Factors

1. Basis for Award:

The Government anticipates award of a single Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) task order resulting from this solicitation. The solicitation will be a Seaport NxG SB set-aside and award will be made using a tradeoff source selection process and Fair Opportunity under RFO 16.507.

The Government will utilize the subjective Tradeoff source selection process. This process allows for a tradeoff between non-price factors and price, which allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal or other than the highest technically rated proposal to achieve a best value contract award.

The basis for award of a contract as a result of this solicitation will be an integrated assessment by the Contracting Officer of the results of the evaluation based on the evaluation factors and their importance as indicated below. The integrated assessment will include consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of the proposals. The Government reserves such right of flexibility in conducting the evaluation as is necessary to assure placement of a contract is in the Government's best interest. Accordingly, the Government reserves the right to make award to other than the lowest price or the highest rated offeror if the Government determines that doing so would result in the overall best value to the Government.

The contract resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to that responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award based on initial proposals. Offerors that take exception to the Government’s technical requirements, propose any additional term or condition, or omit any required information without prior resolution with the Contracting Officer might be eliminated from consideration. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct exchanges with any or all or a limited number of offerors, if necessary, and to permit such offerors to revise their proposals as permitted under RFO 16.507.

Vendors are hereby instructed that, regardless of any language that may be used in this solicitation, the task order evaluation and award will be conducted pursuant to RF 16.507 and will not use the formal source selection procedures of RFO Part 15.

Accordingly, procedures such as a competitive range determination, pre-award notifications to offerors excluded from a competitive range, pre-award debriefings, oral or written discussions with all offerors within a competitive range and requesting final proposal revisions from all offerors included within a competitive range are not required.

Offerors are advised that the Government reserves the right to reject any proposal that does not comply with proposal preparation/submission instructions contained in section L.

The Government will weigh the relative benefits of each proposal by giving the appropriate consideration to the three (3) evaluation Factors: Technical, Past Performance, and Price. The Technical Factor has two (2) Subfactors. A rating of “Unacceptable” in any factor or sub-factor will render the entire proposal ineligible for contract award.

2. Evaluation and Rating Criteria:

The Government will evaluate proposals based on the following:

Go/No Go Evaluation:

Facility Clearance Documentation/Evidence will be evaluated as either “acceptable” or “unacceptable” – Documentation/evidence of current Security Clearance in accordance with DD 254 (see Attachment) or evidence demonstrating willingness and eligibility to obtain required security through the Defense Security Service (DSS) upon award. This documentation/evidence will be evaluated on an acceptable or unacceptable standard and is not a weighted factor. Information related to the security/facility clearance process can be obtained by visiting www.dss.mil. A rating of unacceptable shall render the offeror ineligible for award and therefore will not be further evaluated under the Tradeoff Evaluation.

VETS-4212 Compliance: The Government will verify that the offeror is in compliance with the VETS-4212 reporting requirement. In accordance with FAR 52.222-37, Employment Reports on Veterans, contractors and subcontractors holding a contract of $200,000 or more are required to file a VETS-4212 report annually. A proposal from an offeror who has failed to submit a VETS-4212 report may be considered non-compliant and will be rated as a “No-Go,” making the proposal ineligible for award and removing it from further consideration.

Evaluation of Organizational Conflicts of Interest Mitigation Plan (if applicable) The Government will evaluate the Offeror's OCI submission as either “acceptable” or “unacceptable”. The OCI submission includes the disclosure and, if applicable, the OCI mitigation plan. To receive an "acceptable" rating, the Government must determine that:

The Offeror has fully disclosed all actual or potential OCIs in accordance with FAR 9.5 and the instructions in Section L.

Any submitted OCI mitigation plan is deemed adequate by the Contracting Officer to effectively avoid, neutralize, or mitigate the identified OCI(s) to a degree that an unfair competitive advantage or biased judgment will not result.

A proposal that receives an "unacceptable" rating for the OCI evaluation will be deemed ineligible for award and will not be considered further for award.

Tradeoff Evaluation:

Factor I – Technical Factor II – Past Performance Factor III – Price The factors are listed in descending order of importance and offerors are advised that, when combined, “Technical” and “Past Performance” are significantly more important than “Price”.

Factor I “Technical” will consist of two (2) subfactors: Technical Approach, and Staffing, each of equal level of importance and each subfactor will be individually rated.

Factor I – Technical, will be given an overall rating based on the ratings of the two (2) subfactors. A rating of “Unacceptable” in any subfactor will render the entire factor unacceptable. A proposal with an unacceptable Factor I rating will be deemed ineligible for award and will not be further evaluated under Past Performance or Price.

Factor II – Past Performance, will be evaluated by assigning a relevancy rating for up to three (3) recent past performance efforts submitted and assigning one overall rating for Past Performance Confidence. A proposal with a No Confidence past performance rating will be deemed ineligible for award and will not be further evaluated under price.

Factor III – Price, will be evaluated by comparing the total proposed price of acceptable offerors. In addition, the contracting officer may use any other FAR price analysis technique to determine if the proposed price is fair and reasonable.

Although price is significantly less important than a combined Technical and Past Performance, it should not be ignored. To the extent that the technical and past performance ratings of competing offerors are similar, such that the advantages of one proposal over another are minimal, a difference in price will take on increased significance in the best value decision.

2. Factor I – Technical:

The Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical proposal with respect to its compliance with the solicitation requirements and the risk associated with the Offeror's approach through the assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies.

Offerors are on notice that well documented technical understanding, significant employee retention plan, and/or well-qualified staffing may be considered “strengths.” However, Offerors are advised that the Government may give a higher rating only if the strength(s) represent a real value or benefit to the Government.

The following Factor (I) Sub-factors shall be rated individually with these ratings used to determine an overall rating for Technical. Of equal order of importance, the Technical sub-factors are:

Sub-factor (1) Technical Approach:

The Government will evaluate the technical understanding and approach to determine the offeror’s overall understanding and ability to successfully accomplish the PWS requirements. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s technical approach demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to accomplish the specified work in a technically competent, timely, cost-effective manner with minimum risk to the Government. The narrative will be evaluated for a complete analysis of the performance requirements and explanation of the processes, best practices and other methods the Offeror proposes to use to meet each requirement stated in the PWS.

The evaluation will specifically assess the feasibility and thoroughness of the offeror’s methodology for:

· Draft Construction Security Plan (CSP) and Threat Mitigation: Ensuring the submitted Draft CSP accurately aligns with ICS 705-1 physical security standards and effectively mitigates both technical surveillance and human intelligence threats during the facility renovation.

· Acoustic and RF Shielding Verification: Documenting, inspecting, and verifying acoustic and radio frequency (RF) shielding construction, specifically assessing the adequacy of the mandatory photographic tracking processes for staggered seams on 16-gauge perimeter wall studs and the installation of the three layers of 5/8” gypsum board.

· Material Inspection and Surveillance Countermeasures: Systematically examining all construction material deliveries (e.g., acoustic insulation, conduits, doors, etc.) to successfully detect and prevent the introduction of technical listening or clandestine surveillance devices into the secure space.

· Access Control and Uncleared Labor Management: Tracking, assigning, and supervising uncleared construction labor using U.S.-cleared Construction Surveillance Technicians (CSTs), and the strict enforcement of biometric/logging systems and visitor escort protocols.

· Anomaly Reporting and Technical Workflow: Identifying, logging, and reporting security anomalies, incidents, or deviations from the CSP to the Accrediting Official (AO) and Command Security Officers within the mandated three (3) business days.

Sub-factor (2) Staffing:

The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the proposed staffing plan to complete the tasks in the PWS with staffing that meets or exceeds the required qualifications and capable of competing the tasks in the PWS.

The Offeror’s staff retention rate and employee retention strategies will be evaluated for the efficacy to maintaining competent employees and reducing staff turnover. The ability to demonstrate minimal turnover of personnel,retention of personnel, and handle unexpected vacancies with minimal disruption may be considered a strength(s).

All proposed Key Personnel resumes will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the described knowledge, experience, and education meet or exceed the key personnel requirements in the PWS.

Proposals whose Key Personnel do not meet the minimum PWS requirements may be deemed technically unacceptable and therefore ineligible for award.

The evaluation will specifically assess:

· Verification of Mandatory Credentials and Clearance: The Government will evaluate the submitted CVS/DISS records and certification documentation to confirm the proposed Site Security Manager (SSM) holds an active Top Secret clearance with SCI eligibility (Tier 5 adjudication).

· Additionally, the Government will verify the offeror has provided valid proof for all mandatory training requirements, specifically the 32-hour (or greater) accredited SSM Training Course and the 40-hour (or greater) Construction Surveillance Technician (CST) Training Course

· Validation of Required Experience: The Government will evaluate the proposed SSM's resume to determine if the described qualifications and experience are appropriate for the labor category and meet the minimum PWS requirements. The Government will specifically verify that the resume explicitly demonstrates:

· A minimum of ten (10) years of security experience (e.g., SCIF/SAPF construction, Intelligence/Counter-Intelligence, TSCM, or Physical Security).

· A minimum of five (5) years of direct experience working on ICD-705 construction projects or serving as a Physical Security SSO (allowing for concurrent experience).

· Successful performance on at least three (3) separate ICD-705 projects.

· Familiarity with the sixteen (16) standard divisions of construction and knowledge of technical listening devices commonly used by foreign intelligence services.

EVALUATION: The Government will utilize a tradeoff source selection process using the adjectival ratings/descriptions in Table 1. to evaluate Factor I and its subfactors. Offerors receiving an UNACCEPTABLE rating for this factor will not be further evaluated for past performance or price. Inherent in the Factor I rating definition is a component for risk, reflecting the projected risk of the proposed approach to successfully perform the contract. To receive an “Acceptable” rating the proposal must clearly demonstrate that the offeror meets the requirements as defined by the PWS and all RFP attachments with, at worst, moderate risk.

The following table of Ratings/Definition/Description shall be used for the Technical/Risk Rating for each Sub-factor and for Factor (I). The overall Factor I (Technical) rating will be determined by evaluating the ratings for each of the sub-factors. The overall rating will be used for tradeoff analysis. No Technical Proposal may be given more than a marginal rating unless the proposal clearly shows that the offer meets requirement as defined by the PWS and all RFP attachments.

Table 1.Combined Technical/Risk Rating

Combined Technical/Risk Rating

requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate

of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate risk

requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

* Offerors are reminded that receiving a rating of “unacceptable” in any sub-factor will render the entire proposal ineligible for award.

3. Factor II – Past Performance:

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s past performance to assess the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s probability of successfully performing the requirements as outlined in this RFP. Past performance will be evaluated on a subjective, integrated assessment of recency, relevancy, and quality of past performance. All proposals will be rated for past performance utilizing the adjectival ratings in Table 3. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating below.

The government’s assessment of performance risk is not intended to be the product of a mechanical or mathematical analysis of an offeror’s performance on list of contracts, but rather the product of subjective judgment of the government after it considers all available relevant and recent information.

In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal and the information gathered from other sources available to the Government. These include, but are not limited to the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), or other databases; interviews with Program managers/Contracting Officers, etc.

There are three aspects to past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality. Past performance references not found to be recent will not be further evaluated for relevancy, and references not found to be relevant will not be further evaluated for quality.

Each past performance reference will be evaluated to determine recency, with recent past performance being performance under contracts accomplished within the past five (5) years from solicitation close.

The Government will evaluate the relevancy of each past performance reference, with relevant past performance being performance under contracts for work that is for similar services, scope, complexity, dollar value, and/or contract type. Each past performance reference will be assigned an adjectival rating in accordance with the below table:

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Rating

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. Past performance reference that that has no relevance to the instant requirement will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably and will not be considered in the overall assessment of Past Performance Confidence. However, the number of more relevant contracts an offeror has, the higher the confidence may be.

Each past performance reference under each offeror’s Past Performance submission that is found to have at least some relevance to the instant requirement will be evaluated to determine the quality of the offeror’s performance under that reference. Quality of the relevant past performance will form the basis for the Performance Confidence Assessment. The quality of performance that that has no relevance to the instant requirement will not be considered in the overall assessment of Performance Confidence. An offeror that is determined to have no relevant Past Performance will be rated as Unknown Confidence (Neutral).

EVALUATION: The Government will assign an overall past performance confidence rating for each proposal using the adjectival ratings/descriptions in Table 3. This rating will be the Offeror’s overall rating for Past Performance. An overall rating of “No Confidence” will render the offeror ineligible for award and it will not be further evaluated for Price.

Table 3. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

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. Such offerors will receive a rating of “Neutral Confidence.”

Offerors are reminded that if they possess no relevant past performance, they must affirmatively state this fact. A proposal that omits Factor II may be given a rating of “No Confidence” and render the entire proposal ineligible for award.

4. Factor III – Price:

Offerors are reminded that a finding of “Unacceptable” in either Factor I or “No Confidence” in Factor II will result in the entire proposal being determined ineligible for award, and therefore will not be further evaluated under Factor III – Price.

Although, when combined, the non-price factors Factor I (Technical), and Factor II (Past Performance) are significantly more important than Factor III (Price), Factor III – Price’s degree of importance will increase with the degree of equality of proposals in relation to Technical and Past Performance. The significance of the non-price factors will also decrease when the offeror’s price is so significantly high as to diminish the value of the technical superiority to the Government.

Price/Cost Analysis will be performed to determine whether the proposed prices are fair and reasonable using one or more of the techniques listed in FAR 15.404-1. In order for an offeror to be eligible for award, the offeror shall propose on all CLINs. A price proposal that leaves a blank for any CLIN will not be considered for award.

Offerors that fail to provide an adequate explanation for proposing less hours than provided in the Price Template may be determined ineligible for award.

Price will be evaluated by totaling the prices for all line items, including option periods, for which the Government has requested the offeror provide a price. Option prices will be evaluated at time of award. Evaluation of the options WILL NOT obligate the Government to exercise the options.

As part of the Price Factor evaluation, the Government will evaluate the Option to Extend Services under FAR 52.217-8 by including six (6) months (50 percent) of the Offerors evaluated price for the base year. The Government may choose to exercise the extension of services option within the limits and at the rates specified in the contract for periods up to and shorter than 6-months but not exceeding 6-months in aggregate.

5. Definitions

Best Value means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. See FAR 2.101.

Clarifications are limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated.

Communications are exchanges, between the Government and offerors, after receipt of proposals, leading to the establishment of the competitive range.

Competitive Range is all the most highly rated proposals (based on the rating of each proposal against all evaluation criteria), unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency.

Deficiency is 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.

Discussions are negotiations conducted in a competitive acquisition. Discussions take place after establishment of the competitive range.

Evaluation Notice (EN) is the PCO’s written notification to the offeror for purposes of clarifications, communications, or in support of discussions.

Performance Confidence Assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood (or Government’s confidence) that the offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements; the evaluation is based upon past performance information.

Recency, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant.

Relevancy, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

Requirements Documents are all aspects of the RFP that convey the needs of the Government to offerors, including the SOO, SOW, PWS, technical requirement documents, and system requirement documents.

Requiring Office is the entity (for example, a program management office or other organizational entity) responsible for translating user requirements into the requirements documents within the RFP that communicate those requirements to offerors.

Risk, as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. (For firm-fixed-price contracts, the reference to increased cost may be removed from the risk definition.)

Significant Strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) is a group of senior Government personnel who provide counsel during the source selection process and must prepare the comparative analysis of the SSEB's evaluation results, when directed by the SSA.

Source Selection Authority (SSA) is the official designated to make the source selection decision.

Source Selection Team (SST) is a team that is tailored to the unique acquisition, tasked with carrying out a source selection. Composition of the team generally consists of the SSA, PCO (if different from the SSA), SSAC, SSEB, Advisors, Cost or Price Experts, Legal Counsel, Small Business Specialists, and other subject-matter experts.

Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) is the document that reflects the SSA's independent, integrated, comparative assessment and decision.

Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) is a group of Government and, if needed, approved non-Government personnel, representing the various functional disciplines relevant to the acquisition.

Source Selection Plan (SSP) is a plan that describes how the source selection will be organized, how proposals will be evaluated and analyzed, and how source(s) will be selected.

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

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