CONTRACT DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS (AUG 2000)

(a) The Government will provide to the Contractor, without charge, one set of contract drawings and specifications, except publications incorporated into the technical provisions by reference, in electronic or paper media as chosen by the Contracting Officer.

(b) The Contractor shall-

(1) Check all drawings furnished immediately upon receipt;

(2) Compare all drawings and verify the figures before laying out the work;

(3) Promptly notify the Contracting Officer of any discrepancies;

(4) Be responsible for any errors that might have been avoided by complying with this paragraph (b); and

(5) Reproduce and print contract drawings and specifications as needed.

(c) In general--

(1) Large-scale drawings shall govern small-scale drawings; and

(2) The Contractor shall follow figures marked on drawings in preference to scale measurements.

(d) Omissions from the drawings or specifications or the misdescription of details of work that are manifestly necessary to carry out the intent of the drawings and specifications, or that are customarily performed, shall not relieve the Contractor from performing such omitted or misdescribed details of the work. The Contractor shall perform such details as if fully and correctly set forth and described in the drawings and specifications.

(e) The work shall conform to the specifications and the contract drawings identified on the following index of drawings:

Title File Drawing No.

(End of clause)

Section L - Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors or Quoters

Instructions, Conditions & Notices to Offerors

GENERAL PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS:

These instructions prescribe the format of proposals and describe the approach for the development and presentation of the proposal data. They are designed to ensure the submission of all information necessary for the understanding and comprehensive evaluation of proposals.

Carefully review this section prior to commencing proposal preparation. In order for proposals to receive full consideration for award, Offerors shall ensure that the information furnished in support of the proposal is factual, accurate, and complete.

Offerors are cautioned to strictly comply with all instructions within this solicitation to ensure submission of a complete proposal. Failure to furnish a complete proposal at the time of proposal submission may result in the proposal being unacceptable to the Government and elimination from consideration for award. All solicitation amendments must be acknowledged in accordance with FAR Clause 52.215-1 and Instructions to Offerors.

A. SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

1. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

a. Each volume shall be submitted electronically via email. Proposals will be due NLT 03:00 PM EST on 14 September 2026, via email to the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO), Alejandro "Alex" Ayala, at alejandro.ayala.civ@army.mil and the Contract Specialist (CS), Chris Welsh at richard.c.

welsh2.civ@army.mil. Government Enterprise Email can accept email sized up to 15 MB. Any portion of the proposal that is changed (because of negotiations or proposal revisions) should be annotated, dated, and submitted in accordance with the Government's instructions for resubmission.

b. Each paragraph should be single spaced and shall be separated by at least one blank line. A standard, 12-point minimum font size applies. Times New Roman font is required. Tables and Illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than Times New Roman 10 point. Each page shall be identified with the appropriate page number at the bottom of the page. Page size shall be 8 1/2 inches x 11 inches. If drawings, charts or other graphics are submitted, sheets no larger than 11 inches x 17 inches can be used. All 11 x 17 sheets will be counted as two 8 1/2 x 11 pages.

c. The following volumes of material shall be submitted:

Volume Title Digital Copies

Page Limit Filename

1 Technical 1 20 TECHNICAL

2 Past Performance

1 No Page Limit

PAST

PERFORMANCE

3 Cost 1 No Page Limit

COST

4 Administrative 1 No Page Limit

ADMINISTRATIVE

Volumes I, II, and IV will be DEVOID of any proposal cost information. Each volume will be a stand-alone document and will clearly and completely describe the effort that the offeror is proposing to accomplish under the contract. The offeror will clearly state how it intends to meet the requirements. Mere acknowledgment or restatement ("parroting") of a requirement or task is not acceptable. The information contained in each proposal will be presented in a clear, coherent and concise manner. Vague statements such as "will comply", "noted" and understood", etc. are not acceptable. The proposal will be limited to the information that is necessary to convey a point and will not be overly elaborate.

NOTE: Pages that exceed the required page limitations will not be evaluated. Additional pages over the maximum allowed will be removed or not read and will not be evaluated by the Government.

2. PROPOSAL FILES

a. Format. The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and Request for Proposal (RFP) number in the header and/or footer. A Table of Contents will be included and PDF files shall use the following page setup parameters:

- Page Size, Height - 11"

- Page Size, Width - 8.5"

- From Edge - Header, Footer 0.5"

- Gutter - 0"

- Margins - Top, Bottom, Left, Right - 1"

The following additional restrictions apply:

b. File Packaging. All of the proposal files shall be compressed (zipped) into one file using WinZip version 6.2 or later. Files shall be in read-only format, using PDF files that are searchable. All price breakdown information to aide in the cost/price evaluation shall be submitted in Microsoft Office Excel Read/Write format and viewable in Microsoft Excel 2007 or later. **Please note - Self extracting exe files are not acceptable.

The naming convention for each volume file will state the company name, followed by the proposal volume.

Example, "Company ABC: Volume I - Technical.pdf"

c. Content Requirement.

All information shall be confined to the appropriate file. The offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, a Glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used with an explanation for each, a Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion.

The Table of Contents and Glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes. The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file. A project schedule may be included as a separate attachment to Volume I and will not count against the page limit for that Volume.

The following shall be included in the Narrative discussion:

(i) VOLUME I - Technical Factor 1

Offeror shall provide a narrative that describes how it proposes to accomplish the project described in the Statement of Work and accompanying solicitation documents. The estimated price range of the project is between $2,500,000.00 and $3,000,000.00.

Offeror shall include a construction project schedule that demonstrates its capability to perform the contractual requirements of the project within the 220-day period of performance. At a minimum, offeror shall detail manpower and work hours during the 220-day period of performance, milestone actions to be performed to meet schedule, and all lead times and sequencing of major disciplines /operations. The project schedule may be submitted in Microsoft Project. The project schedule shall describe the Critical Path to project completion.

Offeror shall identify those portions of the project that will be performed by the offeror and those to be performed by a subcontractor(s) and shall indicate whether the subcontractor is a similarly situated entity as defined by FAR clause 52.219-14, LIMITATIONS ON SUBCONTRACTING.

Without disclosing its price in this Volume, offerors shall identify the percentage of its proposed price, excluding the cost of materials, that will be self-performed; performed by subcontractors that are similarly situated entities; performed by subcontractors that do not qualify as similarly situated entities.

Quality Control:

Offeror shall discuss how quality issues will be addressed. Include, as a minimum, plans for meetings, inspections, submittal reviews, correction of non-compliant work, systems to ensure quality problems are reported to Government officials, and methods to ensure quality problems do not recur. Describe how the quality of subcontractors will be monitored. Discuss your procedures for contract closeout (punch list, as-builts, etc.).

(ii) VOLUME II - Past Performance Factor 2

This volume shall contain past performance information regarding similar contracts as described below.

Offerors shall submit past performance information regarding relevant construction projects completed (maximum of 2 projects) in the last five (5) years, to include current projects that are 70% or more complete. Relevant projects are those that are similar in cost/magnitude, scope, contract type and complexity to the project requirements being solicited under this Request for Proposal. All contracts terminated for cause in whole or in part during the past five (5) years, to include those currently in the process of termination are considered relevant; therefore, the offer will provide past performance information for those contracts.

The Offeror will submit with its proposal the applicable subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner letter(s) of consent allowing the Government to disclose the past performance to the Offeror during negotiations.

This volume shall be organized into the following sections:

(1) Section 1 - Contract Descriptions. This section shall include the following information in the following format.

(a) Offeror's role as a Contractor/Subcontractor, place of performance, CAGE Code and DUNS Number. If the work was performed as a subcontractor, also provide the name of the prime contractor and Point of Contact (POC) within the prime contractor organization (name, and current address, e-mail address, and telephone and fax numbers).

(b) Contract Number and, in the case of Indefinite Delivery type contracts, GSA contracts, and Blanket Purchase Agreements, include Delivery Order Numbers. For non-government contracts where this information is not applicable, similar information must be provided to clearly identify submission.

(2) Section 2 - Performance. Offerors shall provide a specific narrative explanation of each contracts listed in Section 1. At a minimum, the narrative shall describe:

(a) Contract Description: describe the objectives achieved and detail how the effort is relevant to the requirement of this RFP.

(b) The actual completion dates of the construction projects and the required completion dates under the terms of the applicable contract. For any contracts that did not/do not meet original schedule or technical performance requirements, the Offeror shall provide a brief explanation of the reason (s) for the shortcoming and any corrective action(s) taken to avoid recurrence including management of subcontractors. The Offerors shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reasons for the termination.

(c) Any work-related injuries and illnesses reportable on either OSHA Form 300 or 300A.

(iii) VOLUME III - Cost Proposal Factor 3

The volume shall be organized into the following sections:

(1) Offerors shall provide a complete cost breakout to include all disciplines required to complete the project. The breakout shall be by division and shall include labor, labor hours, material breakout. All indirect rates, profit and any additional expenses (bonds, etc.) also shall be included.

(2) Compliance. Failure to provide cost information will render the proposal unacceptable and the Offeror will be ineligible for contract award. Offerors shall ensure that the information presented in this volume is consistent and correlates with the information contained in the other proposal volumes.

(3) General Instructions. In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.402 and 15.403-1, certified cost or pricing data are not required because adequate price competition is expected for this procurement. If after receipt of proposals the Contracting Officer determines that there is insufficient information available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions at FAR 15.403-1(b) apply, the Offeror may be required to submit cost or pricing data. In the event that adequate competition is not obtained, the Contracting Officer may incorporate FAR

52.215-20 entitled, "Requirements for Cost or Pricing Data or Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data," into the solicitation and request a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data.

(a) BONDS. In accordance with FAR 28.102-1 and FAR Clause 52.228-15, Contractors are reminded that contracts in an amount greater than $150,000 require both Payment and Performance Bonds. All bonds are due no later than 10 days after award. Offerors shall provide a letter from their surety company, stating the Offeror's annual bonding capacity. Bonding may be obtained from a surety listed in the Department of the Treasury Circular 570 list of certified surety companies (http://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/surety-bonds/list-certified-companies.html) or other security permitted by FAR Subpart 28.2, unless prohibited by law or regulation. A bid bond is not required for this Project.

(b) LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. FAR Clause 52.211-12, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES does not apply to this contract.

(c) CONSTRUCTION. FAR Clause 52.246-21, WARRANTY OF CONSTRUCTION, does apply to this contract.

(d) WAGE DETERMINATION. Currently, General Decision Number MA20250001 dated 12/12 /2025 applies to this project. Attachment 10. (https://sam.gov/wage-determination/MA20250001/17)

(iv) VOLUME IV - ADMINISTRATIVE.

This volume shall be organized into the following sections:

(1) Section 1 - Executive Summary. This section shall include:

(a) Master Index: A master index that identifies the location of all major topics provided in each volume.

(b) Statement of Compliance: Each offer will include a statement indicating complete compliance with the solicitation in the administrative volume, or detailed analysis of any objections, exceptions, contingencies, or additions.

(c) Authorized Negotiators: Offerors will provide a list of authorized negotiators with their position title and phone/email contact information.

(d) Company Points of Contact (POCs). The Offeror will provide company POCs, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) POCs, Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code, Unique Entity Identification (UEI) number and TIN for prime and subcontractors.

(2) Section 2 - Solicitation Documents.

Each offeror shall complete (fill-in and signatures) the solicitation sections indicated below using the file (without modification to the file) provided with the RFP. An authorized official of the firm shall sign the SF 1442 and all certifications requiring original signature. An Acrobat PDF file shall be created to capture the signatures for submission.

Blocks 14-20 - Standard Form 1442 (SF 1442), Solicitation, Offer and Award Contract Administration Data

Representations, Certification and Other Statements of Offerors

Solicitations, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations shall not be addressed separately from that submitted in VOLUME IV - ADMINISTRATIVE.

*** END OF NARRATIVE ***

Site Visit (Apr 1984)

Offerors or quoters are urged and expected to inspect the site where services are to be performed and to satisfy themselves regarding all general and local conditions that may affect the cost of contract performance, to the extent that the information is reasonably obtainable. In no event shall failure to inspect the site constitute grounds for a claim after contract award.

SITE VISIT INFORMATION

The site visit is scheduled for: Wednesday 26 August 2026 @ 0900 EST.

To attend the scheduled site visit, participants shall send the request to the following POC's during normal duty hours via email only: Chris Welsh (Contract Specialist) - richard.c.welsh2.

civ@army.mil, and Alejandro "Alex" Ayala (Contracting Officer) - alejandro.ayala.civ@army.mil.

Participants will meet at: 10 General Greene Ave, Natick MA, 01760, Building 1 (where the flagpole is located), Building 1 Lobby, and then proceed to site location(s).

In order to expedite your entrance to the Natick Soldier Systems Center (NSSC), please fill out the NSSC Contractor Access Request Form (Attachment 4) and submit to alejandro.ayala.

civ@army.mil and usarmy.natick.imcom.list.nati-policevistoraccess-ssc@mail.mil by 24 August 2025. Contractors shall use the DeFranzo Service Gate at the end of General Greene Avenue to access NSSC. Please also include your Company's CAGE Code in the e-mail. Please allow one hour to get through the Security Entrance Gate.

(End of provision)

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

B. BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three evaluation factors: Technical, Past Performance, and Cost. The relative importance of these factors are as follows: the Technical and Past Performance factors are considered equivalent in importance to each other. The Cost factor is less important than the Technical factor and the Past Performance factor, individually. When combined, the Technical and Past Performance factors are significantly more important than cost. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than "Acceptable" must be achieved for the technical factor and a rating of "Neutral Confidence" must be achieved for the performance confidence assessment. Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost proposals

C. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. The Government reserves the right to make award based upon the cost/price associated with the cost factor in the event that the Technical and Past Performance evaluation results of all the offerors' proposals are substantially the same.

1. FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL.

Evaluation of the offeror's proposal shall address how it applies to the Statement of Work and associated solicitation package. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the "Evaluation Approach", Paragraph D of this section. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

2. FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

Each offeror's past performance will be reviewed to determine recency, relevancy, and quality to assign a performance confidence assessment.

3. FACTOR 3: COST PROPOSAL.

Cost will be evaluated in conjunction with the other evaluation criteria outlined in this Section to help determine the overall capabilities of prospective offerors. The resulting contract award will be Firm Fixed Price (FFP) and will be issued to the offer that represents the overall best value to the

Government, with price being the deciding factor between otherwise equivalent proposals.

Reasonableness of the offer will be evaluated.

D. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be evaluated by the Source Selection Team (SST).

The Technical Person of Contract will provide a detailed evaluation and assign a combined technical/risk rating for Factor I, Technical Capability. Factor II, the Past Performance factor, will receive only a performance confidence assessment. The Cost Proposal, Factor III, will be evaluated by the Contracting Officer for fair and reasonableness. The cost proposal will not be given an adjectival or risk rating.

The Government will document the evaluation by providing a narrative discussion of the evaluation of each proposal in terms of the evaluation criteria and proposed strengths, significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies. This narrative discussion will be incorporated into a report, which will be presented to the Source Selection Authority (SSA) /Contracting Officer to assist in the competitive range determination/award decision. If a competitive range is established, and to the extent deemed necessary at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer, written Evaluation Notices (EN) will be issued to remaining offerors to further investigate any weaknesses, deficiencies, or other subjects identified by the technical panel as germane to the evaluation process. These ENs are considered exchanges/discussions in accordance with FAR 15.306(d). The Contracting Officer also may issue ENs relating to any matter that requires written revisions to a proposal for which a binding agreement is required/desired.

1. FACTOR I: TECHNICAL.

The evaluation of each Technical Proposal will assess the ability of the Offeror to effectively perform this construction project, as described in the Offeror's proposal. The Government will determine, based on the information provided, if the Offeror has demonstrated the ability to perform complete project management and execution of the work for the construction projects contemplated by the RFP. The overarching evaluation approach for the technical factor and subfactors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror's methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

a.1 Project Proposal

The adequacy of the Offeror's response and feasibility of its technical approach to accomplishing the Project will be evaluated to ensure the offeror can meet all the requirements of the solicitation.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's capability to successfully manage the project to completion within the 220-day period of performance.

The following elements will be assessed for strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies:

- The Offeror's construction project

- The manpower and work hours proposed;

- Milestone actions to be performed to meet schedule, and lead times and sequencing of major operations.

The Government will evaluate the percentage of the project that will be self-performed by the offeror; subcontractor(s) that are similarly situated entities as defined by FAR clause 52.219-14, LIMITATIONS ON SUBCONTRACTING; and subcontractors that are not similarly situated entities.

Offerors who propose paying more than 85 percent of the amount paid by the Government for contract performance, excluding the cost of materials, to subcontractors that are not similarly situated entities are not eligible for award. A higher percentage of self-performance by an offeror or by subcontractors that are similarly situated entities may result in a strength during evaluation.

b.1 Methodology

In accordance with the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Section 3.1, the methodology for evaluating Technical Approach and Related Risk is the Combined Technical/Risk Rating (see Table 1 below). This methodology considers risk, in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Adjectival ratings will be assigned based on overall Combined Technical /Risk Rating as follows:

Table 1-Combined Technical/Risk Rating

Color Rating

Description

Blue

Outstanding

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

Purple

Good

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

Green

Acceptable

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

Yellow

Marginal

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

Red

Unacceptab le

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is not awardable.

Rating

Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

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

High

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

Unacceptabl e

Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

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.

Strength: is an aspect of an offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

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

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

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.

Uncertainty: is any aspect of a non-price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

See FAR 15.001 Definitions.

2. FACTOR II: PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will evaluate the offeror's record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the Statement of Work.

a. Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan.

b. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror's (and major subcontractor's) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. For the purposes of this evaluation, major subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners are those proposed to perform 30% or more of the project based on the total proposed price of that project. In addition, offerors may elect to include such information if the subcontractor or partner is expected to perform aspects of the project that the Offeror considers critical to overall successful performance.

c. The past performance evaluation will consider each offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in performing construction services that meet the contract requirements.

The Government will evaluate three aspects: recency, relevancy, and quality.

(i) RECENCY: The Government will evaluate the recency of the offeror's past performance.

Recency is the 5-year period during which past performance references are considered relevant and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information.

(ii) RELEVANCY: The Government will evaluate how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria (see Table 3) will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value/magnitude, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Table 3 - Past Performance Rating

Rating Definition

Very Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(iii) QUALITY ASSESSMENT: The Government will assess the overall quality of the offeror's past performance. Documented results from interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

d. Performance Confidence Assessment: The Government will assign an appropriate confidence level for each Offeror in accordance with the Performance Confidence Assessment criteria in Table 4, below. The Government will document the rationale for its conclusions within its evaluation.

Table 4 - Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Definition

Substantial

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

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

Neutral

No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

3. FACTOR III - Cost.

The Government will evaluate price in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.305(a)(1), and by using one or more price analysis techniques identified in FAR Subpart 15.404-1 to ensure that prices are fair and reasonable. Adequate price competition alone may establish reasonableness. The total evaluated prices for this project will be the price used in the Government's "best value" trade-off to select the awardee for this IDIQ. Price will not be assigned an adjectival rating.

The Contracting Officer may request information to determine the reasonableness of proposed prices of competing Offerors. This additional information may include, but is not limited to, indirect rates, material, labor and any other information that can substantiate the reasonableness of a proposed price. If applicable, a Certificate of Current Cost and Price will be requested at time of award.

The proposals will be evaluated to assess the likelihood that the technical and management approaches can be accomplished at the cost/price proposed.

E. Discussions

1. GENERAL INFORMATION.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract(s) without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR Subpart 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror's initial proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. 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. In accordance with FAR Subpart 15.306(a)(2), if award will be made without conducting discussions, Offerors shall be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposals, e.g., the relevance of an Offeror's Past Performance information and adverse Past Performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond, or to resolve minor clerical errors.

2. DISCUSSION SCHEDULING.

If discussions are conducted, the Contracting Officer will schedule the discussion sessions, and each offeror will be notified of the time and place at least two (2) business days prior to their discussion session. The Contracting Officer will provide additional instructions with the notification.

The discussion sessions will take place via Microsoft Teams and will be scheduled jointly by the Government and offeror.

*** END OF NARRATIVE ***