Submission Requirements and Evaluation Criteria - Draft.docx

GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

The intent of this solicitation is to select one contractor for the Chilled Water Plant Replacement & Site Utility Improvements (Phase A2) at VA Connecticut Healthcare System (VACHS) in West Haven, Connecticut. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein and award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms with all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and whose proposal is determined to represent the overall best value to the Government.

The basis of award is the Tradeoff Process. The Contracting Officer will award a contract to the responsible Offeror whom the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines conform to the solicitation, are fair and reasonable, and offer the best overall value to the Government. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offers or to reject all offers.

ALL SUBMISSIONS TO THIS ANNOUNCEMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED THROUGH THE ARMY’S ELECTRONIC FILE SHARING SERVICE, PROCUREMENT INTEGRITY ENGERPRISE ENVIRONMENT (PIEE) (HTTPS://PIEE.EB.MIL/), USING THE SOLICITATION MODULE AND THE OPEN SOLICITATION ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SOLICITATION NUMBER.

The Government will not accept: paper copies, CD-ROMs, emails, facsimile submissions, proposals uploaded to any other module in PIEE, or any other method of submission. These proposals will not be retrieved or evaluated.

Information regarding how to set up a vendor registration is included in this link- https://piee.eb.mil/xhtml/unauth/web/homepage/vendorGettingStartedHelp.xhtml Information regarding role assignment during vendor registration is included in this link- https://sam.gov/opp/2b0a3d5c4c454beb8fefa3d844544a1d/view File Size Limitations: Offerors are advised to follow the PIEE instructions for uploading files. PIEE supports delivery up to 1.9 GB per file, with no limit on the number of files, as well as multiple file formats. If needed, Offerors may break the files down into smaller sections in order to upload. In such cases, please divide the sections as logically as possible and be sure to clearly name the files as specified below.

File Naming Convention: To ensure your submission is processed appropriately, each file name should begin with the solicitation number followed by the firm’s name and a brief file description. Adhere to the following naming convention:

· W912WJ26RA008-FIRMNAME-VOLUME I: Past Performance and Management Approach

· W912WJ26RA008-FIRMNAME-VOLUME II: Small Business Participation Commitment Document

· W912WJ26RA008-FIRMNAME-VOLUME III: Price and Other Pro Forma Information Each file name shall begin with the solicitation number followed by the firm’s name and a brief file description. Please see examples above.

Upload Completion and Deadline: Interested parties shall submit proposals no later than the date and time specified on the solicitation document. The time and date of proposal receipt will be the upload completion/delivery time and date recorded within the PIEE, Solicitation module, open solicitation associated with this solicitation number. Do not assume that electronic submission will occur instantaneously. Large files (e.g., 10MB or more) will take some time to upload. Offerors should time their upload effort and not wait until the last minute to submit as there may be delays in the transmittal process. Offerors are encouraged to keep a copy of the PIEE upload confirmation for their records.

It is the responsibility of the Offeror to confirm timely receipt of proposals. All proposals received after the exact time specified for receipt, as confirmed by the date/time recorded within the PIEE Solicitation module, shall be treated as late submissions and will not be considered.

Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the requirements of the Plans and Specifications with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of their proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

Proposal Structure Requirements Proposal shall contain the following:

Volume

Item Included in Page Limit?

Volume Page Limits. Proposals shall adhere to the following page limits:

· Volume I: 35 Pages

· Volume II: None

· Volume III: None Pages that exceed the above noted page limitations will be removed, not read, and will not be evaluated by the Government. Every page within the proposal will be included in the page calculation unless specifically excluded in the table above. Examples of pages that will be counted include but are not limited to: Cover letters, cover pages, dividers, blank pages, Table of Contents pages, tables, illustrations, and appendices.

11x17 folded pages are acceptable for tables/graphic representations; however, each 11x17 page counts as two pages.

Proposal Formatting Requirements The submission should be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume should be clearly identified and begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume should be consecutively numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and solicitation number in the header and/or footer. MS Word (doc/docx) files should use the following page setup parameters:

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right – 1” Gutter – 0” From Edge – Header, Footer 0.5” Page Size, Width – 8.5” Page Size, Height – 11” Each volume should be single spaced. Each paragraph should be separated by at least one blank line. A standard, 12-point minimum font size applies. Do not use condensed character spacing or a scale below 100%. Arial or Times New Roman fonts are required. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 11-point and may be landscape oriented. Proposals shall not contain classified data. The use of hyperlinks and QR codes in proposals is prohibited.

Revisions. Any pages that are changed (as a result of negotiations or proposal revisions) should be of a different color and should have changed information clearly marked by a vertical line in the right margin of the page. The revised pages should be dated. Each volume should be clearly labeled with its title.

Volume I – Factor 1 – Past Performance Submission Requirements Provide descriptions of no more than five (5) projects which are similar to this project in scope and size and completed within the last eight (8) years from the date that the initial solicitation was issued. A minimum of two projects must be submitted for key subcontractors if key subcontractors will be installing the chilled water, fuel oil, underground site utilities, and/or medium voltage system. All project information shall be presented in narrative form. Any charts or other graphics used to show areas of similarity (e.g., checklists) will not be reviewed by the SSEB. For all submitted projects, provide the following information:

To be considered recent, projects must have been fully completed within the last eight (8) years from the date that the initial solicitation was issued.

To be considered relevant, each project for the Prime contractor must include all of the following for the role in the contract:

To be considered relevant, each project for a key subcontractor must include all of the following for the role in the contract:

• New construction or renovation/upgrade of specialty systems of chilled water, fuel oil, underground site utilities, or medium voltage system with a specialty system construction cost similar to the specialty system value of this project.

· The specialty discipline must be clearly demonstrated for the project and similar to the scope of this project.

At least one project shall be provided for the prime Offeror (the entity signing the SF1442). If the members of a Joint Venture do not have previous experience working together in a JV, at least one project shall be submitted for each member of the JV (see Attachment A). The Offeror may utilize experience of another Team Member or key subcontractor that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement to demonstrate experience under this evaluation factor. If an Offeror is utilizing the experience of a Team Member or key subcontractor, then that Team Member’s or key subcontractor’s submitted projects(s) must show them performing recent work similar to the work they intend to perform on the upcoming contract.

A project is defined as work performed under a single task order or contract. For multiple award and indefinite delivery/indefinite quality type contracts, the contract as a whole shall not be submitted as a project. In this event, Offerors shall submit the work performed under a task order as a project, or it will not be reviewed. If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the JV entity.

An Energy Savings Performance Contract (ESPC), Utility Energy Services Contract (UESC), or any Multiple Services contracts may be submitted but shall only reflect the relevant work as described above. The price/cost associated with such project shall only reflect relevant work as described above and exclusively the construction portions of work.

Do not submit more than five (5) projects. If more than five projects are submitted, only the first five projects will be evaluated and additional projects will be excluded.

In addition to the information above, for each project, Offerors should submit past performance information as follows:

If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project before the proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit, with the proposal, the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information. The Government may make reasonable attempts to contact the client noted for that project to obtain the PPQ information. However, Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to help ensure timely submittal of questionnaires.

Alternatively, Offerors may submit a copy of the client’s signed PPQ (the only format accepted will be that which is included in this solicitation) for a completed contract or task order. The Offeror may retain PPQs in its files for submission on future procurements. In cases where the validity of the completed PPQ is questioned, contracting personnel may contact the reference for verification or additional information. The standard PPQ for USACE is Form PPQ-0 (9/30/11) which is provided in this solicitation. USACE does not intend to create or maintain a database of PPQs submitted by Offerors. Therefore, it will be the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure the submission of relevant PPQs in its proposal. Alternatively, the Offeror may obtain an updated/new PPQ from its client(s) for submission as provided above.

The Government may use data provided by the Offeror in its proposal, and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files. The Government reserves the right to obtain past performance information from any source available and has the right to contact customers other than those listed by the Offeror to evaluate past performance. The Government reserves the right to verify statements the Offeror makes regarding its past performance to determine whether they are substantiated.

New corporate entities may submit data on prior contracts involving its officers and employees. However, in addition to the other requirements in this section, the Offeror shall discuss in detail the role performed by such persons in the prior contracts cited. Information on their proposed roles should be included in the project descriptions submitted in response to the solicitation requirements.

Volume I – Factor 2 – Management Approach Submission Requirements Provide a management plan for the project that includes, at a minimum:

· An expanded organizational chart (11”x17” page) and supporting narrative description of the Offeror's overall structure and management of the project team from the Offeror's Headquarters to the Offeror's site office(s). The chart and narrative must:

· Identify all offices anticipated to be involved in this contract.

· Identify job positions by title only (no specific personnel names), organization, whether the position is dedicated to the project or a shared resource (if shared, percentage dedicated to the project must be stated), and physical location and how they are related, to include all proposed team members, such as JV partners (where applicable), proposed key subcontractors (where applicable), and consultants (where applicable), including lines of reporting and their technical areas of responsibility under the contract.

· Clearly show the lines of authority for all job positions involved in executing the project.

· A summary schedule which is task oriented, indicating the number of calendar days, after notice to proceed, by which milestones are to be achieved. Schedule shall be 11”x17” The schedule shall be graphically represented and include, at a minimum, Activity ID, Activity Description, Original Duration, Early Start and Early Finish, and Total Float for each activity. The schedule shall include all bid options. The schedule should include:

· Phases of construction clearly identified with the associated sequence of construction of each phase. Identify any overlap, inter-relationship, and/or transition between phases of work.

· Activities for the chilled water plant work and the site utility upgrades in sufficient detail to demonstrate an understanding of the scope of work and to substantiate the reasonableness of the proposed durations.

· Activities and/or milestones for coordination with other entities (Government or active projects) during construction, to demonstrate understanding of the advanced coordination and utility shutdown requirements for the contract.

· Indicate the anticipated overall critical path on the schedule.

· Identification of any constraints of the project and the Offeror’s capability and flexibility to plan and schedule the project to meet the proposed contract period of performance.

· Submital preparation and review/approval activities for long lead items and key construction submittals for mobilization to demonstrate an understanding of the submittal process and the minimum review times for Government approved submittals.

· Activities related to Commissioning and turnover of phases of work.

· Closeout activities, to include Red Zone meeting, record drawings, and O&M manuals, to demonstrate understanding of the closeout requirements for the contract.

· A narrative describing the plan of how the Offeror will execute the project within the proposed duration, with consideration of the different definable features of work, required contractual and contractor developed phasing, coordination and management of in-house personnel and key subcontractors, and the inter-related work efforts. Clearly identify any constraints on the schedule presented, including but not limited to, any labor or material availability, detailed coordination, permitting, weather, and/or other risks that the Offeror deems to be significant.

Volume II – Factor 3 – Small Business Participation Commitment Document Submission Requirements This factor applies to both other than small businesses and small businesses. Offerors shall use Attachment C (Small Business Participation Commitment Document) to demonstrate its proposed approach to meeting small business goals and objectives.

Offerors shall address the planned small business usage for this requirement. Offerors will be evaluated on the level of proposed small business participation in the performance of this acquisition relative to the goals, objectives, and requirements established herein.

Other-than-small business contractors may achieve small business participation through subcontracting to small businesses. Small business contractors may achieve small business participation through their own performance/participation as a prime and through joint ventures, teaming arrangements, and/or subcontracting to other small businesses. A small business prime Offerors’ own participation as a prime counts towards the percentages set forth in this evaluation factor. A small business prime whose own performance accounts for equal to or more than 10% of the Total Acquisition Value and demonstrates meaningful commitment to small business participation (through self-performance, teaming, and/or SB subs) may receive a rating of “Acceptable” or higher under Factor 3. Small businesses are not required to subcontract to other small businesses to achieve small business participation.

This factor is organized into the following sections via the Small Business Participation Commitment Document:

All supporting documentation for the Small Business Participation Commitment Document shall be included within Attachment C. Documentation not within the Small Business Participation Commitment Document will not be considered. Documentation shall not be included in other volumes.

Volume III – Factor 4 – Price and Other Pro Forma Information Submission Requirements The Offeror should provide a table of contents and should number all pages consecutively. Volume III should be submitted in a separate file from Volumes I and II. Volume III should be broken down into sections defined below:

Section 1: The name(s) and title(s) of the person(s) authorized to negotiate and sign a contract. Also, provide a Certificate of Corporate Authority of other applicable documentation of authorized signature(s) for each authorized individual.

Section 2: The Offer (the SF 1442) duly executed with an original signature by an official authorized to bind the company or Joint Venture.

Section 3: Acknowledgement of all amendments to the solicitation.

Section 4: Each Offeror is required to complete (in entirety) the bid schedule provided in the solicitation. All cost and pricing data supplied by Offerors will represent data other than certified cost or pricing data as defined by RFO FAR 2.101.

Joint Venture and Mentor- Protégé Agreement Submission Requirements Small business Offerors (e.g., 8(a), HUBZone, SDVOSB, etc.) submitting a proposal as a Joint Venture or Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture shall submit evidence from the Offeror's SBA Servicing Agency that the Offeror has notified and discussed the proposed joint venture for this specific project with the appropriate SBA Representative or Business Opportunity Specialist. JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENTS AND APPROVED MENTOR-PROTÉGÉ AGREEMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH THE PROPOSAL.

BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the best value proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, using the best value trade-off process and the four (4) evaluation factors: Past Performance, Management Approach, Small Business Participation Commitment Document, and Price. Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest priced offer. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

Volume I Factor 1: Past Performance Factor 2: Management Approach Volume II Factor 3: Small Business Participation Commitment Document Volume III Factor 4: Price NOTE: The Government intends to evaluate proposals as submitted without conducting negotiations. Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposals.

Evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal shall address each factor as it applies to the Submission Requirements and Evaluation Criteria contained in the RFP. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach,” Paragraph C of this section. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign each factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Proposal Evaluation Process A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of representatives of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Veterans Affairs (VA) and a Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) will evaluate the proposals. Offerors are advised that the technical evaluation and rating of proposals will be conducted in strict confidence. Technical proposals will be reviewed and rated without knowledge of the price offered. The number and identities of offerors are not revealed to anyone who is not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other Offerors. Proposals will be evaluated based on the factors described herein, and the basis of award is the Tradeoff Process.

NOTE: For submission requirements designated as “shall” or “must,” failure to provide the requested information will be considered a deficiency and the specified factor will be rated red/unacceptable, and the proposal will be considered un-awardable unless revised. For submission requirements designated as “should,” failure to provide the requested information will result in a lower rating for the specified factor and may result in a deficiency and unacceptable rating. Offerors are cautioned that award may be made without negotiations and Offerors may not have the opportunity to submit revised proposals.

The evaluation process essentially consists of four parts: proposal compliance review, technical evaluation, price evaluation, and price/technical trade-off analysis.

· Proposal Compliance Review. This is an initial review to ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete and that both a technical and price proposal were received.

· Technical Evaluation. The SSEB will evaluate and rate the technical proposals (i.e., Volume I) against the RFP requirements. Past Performance will be rated based on confidence in performance, with the final confidence assessment rating based on the extent of recent, relevant past experience, and how well the Offeror performed on that experience.

· Price Evaluation. The Price Evaluation Board (PEB) and SSA will evaluate price proposals independent of the technical evaluation. The SSEB will not have access to price information until completion of the technical evaluation.

· Price/Technical Trade-off Analysis. After all above evaluations are complete, the SSA will compare the relative advantages and disadvantages of technical proposals and compare prices. The SSA will then consider all factors to select the proposal offering the best value to the Government.

Definitions

1. 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. See RFO FAR 15.001.

2. Strength. An aspect of an Offerors’ proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

3. Significant Strength. An aspect of an Offerors’ proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

4. Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See RFO FAR 15.001.

5. Significant Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

6. Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the Offeror 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).

7. Clarification. Limited exchanges between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without negotiations is contemplated. See RFO FAR 15.202(a)(2).

8. Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as “PPIRS” or “FAPPIS.”

9. Negotiations. Exchanges between the Government and the Offerors that are undertaken with the intent of allowing the Offeror to revise its proposal.

Evaluation of Factors Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors below, listed in relative order of importance. To be eligible for award, Factor 1, Past Performance, must be rated at least Satisfactory or Neutral Confidence. To be eligible for award, Factors 2 and 3 must be rated at least “Acceptable.”

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without negotiations with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR RFO 15.306(a)(2)). Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct negotiations if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

Volume II – Factor 3 - Small Business Participation Commitment Document 3rd Volume III – Factor 4 – Price 4th Evaluators will apply the adjectival rating for the definition that most closely matches the evaluation.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Past Performance Confidence Assessments Ratings

Technical Assessment Ratings

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

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.

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

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

Unacceptable 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 unawardable.

Small Business Participation Commitment Document Ratings

Volume I – Factor 1 – Past Performance Evaluation Criteria Factor 1 will be rated using the ratings shown in the Past Performance Relevancy and Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings Tables.

For Past Performance, the Government is assessing (1) the degree of how similar (relevant) the Offeror’s recent past performance effort is compared to the scope, size, and level of effort and complexities this solicitation requires, and (2) how the Offeror performed on that effort.

Projects may be more highly rated for relevancy if they meet relevancy requirements above and any of the following:

· New construction or renovation of facilities with construction costs of $80,000,000 or more.

· Project was performed at a Federal facility, especially VA Medical Center campus.

· Project performed at an occupied, operational campus or major facility (e.g. hospital, college, factory), including any schedule constraints such as advanced notification for shutdowns and coordination with other construction projects.

· Projects that included previous experience working together as a team.

· Project scope was performed in an area with constrained site, with limited layout and staging area, and adjacent to other active construction projects.

The past performance of an Offeror's affiliate (e.g. parent company, subsidiary, or other affiliated concern) will only be consider where the Offeror's Factor 1 proposal establishes that the affiliate resources--its workforce, management, facilities, or other resources--will be provided or relied upon for contract performance, such that the affiliate will have meaningful involvement in contract performance. The proposal must demonstrate a connection between the affiliate’s proposed role on this contract and the role of the affiliate on the past performance submitted in order to receive credit for the affiliate’s past performance.

The SSEB will first evaluate the recency and relevancy of recent past performance identified in the proposal using the criteria identified above to determine how similar a past project is compared to the scope and size, and to the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

The SSEB will next review how well the Offeror performed on those projects. In addition to the information submitted by the Offeror, the Government may review any other sources of relevant information for evaluating past performance, including projects other than those submitted by the Offeror. The Government may review past performance information retrieved through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/Unique Entity Identifiers (formerly DUNS number) identified in the Offeror’s proposal. Other sources of information for evaluating past performance may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved from 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 SSEB will assign a final, overall Performance Confidence rating to each Offeror based on the SSEB’s assessment of (1) the extent of the Offeror’s recent, relevant experience, and (2) how well the Offeror performed that experience.

NOTE: The past performance of individuals (e.g. key personnel) will not be credited under the Past Performance factor.

NOTE: Where 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 will receive a Neutral Confidence rating. This rating is neither favorable nor unfavorable.

Volume I – Factor 2 – Management Approach Evaluation Criteria Factor 2 will be rated using the adjectival ratings shown in the Technical Assessment Ratings Table.

The SSEB will evaluate the clarity, adequacy, capabilities, and strengths of the Offeror’s organizational chart for managing a successful project. An organizational chart that clearly depicts a highly qualified on-site team supported by appropriate resources off-site and that clearly defines responsibilities will be considered to meet the RFP requirements.

The SSEB will evaluate the summary schedule for reasonableness, logic, constraints, and typical construction durations. The schedule will be evaluated to determine conformance with solicitation requirements, strength of understanding of the project scope, inclusion of restrictions and constraints (required phasing, long lead items, shutdown notifications, predecessor/successor activities). The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s contract duration in the proposed schedule not to exceed the duration listed in the RFP. The phases of work must be clearly identified and activities for each phase of work developed with defined durations. In assessing the reasonableness of the proposed durations for each phase of the work, the Government may take into account how well the summary schedule supports the proposed duration, as well as use other information, including but not limited to, independent judgment concerning logic, constraints, and typical construction durations.

The SSEB will evaluate the Management Approach to assess the strength of understanding of the project scope, to include the coordination and constraints which should be considered in the schedule (required phasing, long lead items, minimizing interruptions, maintaining operations and access, etc.). The ability to coordinate, plan, and schedule resources to ensure successful execution of the work within the contract performance period will be considered to meet the RFP requirements. Plans will also be evaluated based on the level of involvement the Offeror will have in the management, oversight, control, and coordination of the work performed by subcontractors.

A Management Plan may be more highly rated if the narrative describe in detail the unique strategies to specifically execute and/or reduce risk to the project and ensure the active operations of the Medical Center, which leads to the successful completion of the project within the contract performance period.

NOTE: Any identified strengths of the Management Approach, as it relates to the unique strategies described, will be incorporated into and made part of the contract upon award.

Volume II – Factor 3 – Small Business Participation Commitment Document Evaluation Criteria Factor 3 will be rated using the adjectival ratings shown in the Small Business Participation Commitment Document Ratings Table.

All Offerors (both large and small businesses), regardless of size status, should address their planned small business usage for this requirement and will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of Small Businesses in the performance of this acquisition (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives, requirements, and goals established herein. The Government will evaluate the following:

Section 1 - Division of Work; Small Business Goals and Corresponding Dollars The extent of participation of small business prime offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the percentage of the Offeror’s Total Acquisition Value.* Total Acquisition Value is defined as the proposed base plus all option price. The extent to which the Offeror meets or exceeds the Minimum Quantitative Requirement of 10% for Small Business. There are no specific Socio-Economic Small Business Goals. The Offeror must provide goals for other Socio-Economic Small Business Categories as follows: Small Disadvantaged Business, Woman-Owned Small Business, HUBZone Small Business, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business, and Veteran-Owned Small Business. The goals are a percentage of the Total Acquisition Value. Each Participation Goal is reflected off the Total Acquisition Value.* Proposals that do not meet the Minimum Quantitative Requirement of at least 10% for Small Business will be rated “Unacceptable.”

Section 2 - Enforceable Commitments to Small Businesses The extent of commitment to use small businesses as defined in RFO Part 19. Refer to Section 2 of Attachment C: Small Business Participation Commitment Document to understand what constitutes an enforceable commitment.

Section 3 - Past Performance Compliance with RFO 52.219-8 (Utilization of Small Business Concerns) (SMALL BUSINESSES ONLY) The past performance evaluation of an Offerors’ compliance with the requirements of RFO 52.219-8. This applies only to small business Offerors. Proposing a combination of documentation showing past compliance with RFO 52.219-8 may be rated more favorably. Reference Attachment C for documentation information.

Section 4 - Past Performance Compliance with RFO 52.219-9 (Small Business Subcontracting Plan) (OTHER-THAN-SMALL BUSINESSES ONLY) The past performance evaluation of an Offerors’ compliance with the requirements of RFO 52.219-9. This applies only to other than small business Offerors. Demonstrating past compliance with RFO 52.219-9 also demonstrates past compliance with RFO 52.219-8. Reference Attachment C for documentation information.

Volume III – Factor 4 – Price and Other Pro Forma Information Evaluation Criteria The Government will evaluate the price for price reasonableness.

· A price analysis will be performed by the Government to determine that the proposal prices offered are fair and reasonable, and that there is no unbalanced pricing.

· Price reasonableness will be determined in accordance with RFO FAR 15.404(a)(1). Normally, competition establishes price reasonableness. Comparison of the proposed prices is expected to satisfy the requirement to perform a price analysis; however, the Government may, if necessary, analyze the Offeror’s Line Item structure to establish reasonableness of an otherwise successful Offeror’s price.

Joint Venture and Mentor- Protégé Agreement Evaluation Criteria Joint Venture Agreements and Mentor-Protégé agreements must comply with the relevant regulations in Title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Failure to comply with these regulations could result in the Offeror being found ineligible for award on an acquisition set-aside for small business concerns.