W51AA126RA002 Amendment 0001.pdf

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

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

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

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

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

Previous edition unusable STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016) Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Section J - List of Attachments

The attachments table has changed from:

Identifi er

Document Name

Document Description Reference Identifier

Date Line Item

Page N umbers

Docum ent Type

Provid ed Under Separa te Cover

0001 Attachment 1-

FY26 MATOC

SOW

Statement of Work 28 Jan

Attach ment

No

0002 Attachment 2-

TYAD

MASTER SPE

CIFICATIONS-

IDG

Specification 28 Jan

Attach ment

No

0003 Attachment 3- Past Performance Questionnaire

Past Performance Questionnaire 28 Jan

5 Attach ment

No

To:

Identifi er

Document Name

Document Description Reference Identifier

Date Line Item

Page N umbers

Docum ent Type

Provid ed Under Separa te Cover

0001 Attachment 1-

FY26 MATOC

SOW

Statement of Work 28 Jan

1 Attach ment

No

0002 Attachment 2-

TYAD

MASTER SPE

CIFICATIONS-

IDG

Specification 28 Jan

2779 Attach ment

No

0003 Attachment 3- Past Performance Questionnaire Rev.1

Past Performance Questionnaire Rev.1

12 Feb

5 Attach ment

No

W51AA126RA0020001

The following contract documents were added:

Attachment 3- Past Performance Questionnaire Rev.1

The following contract documents were deleted:

Attachment 3- Past Performance Questionnaire

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

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

L.1.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

L.1.1 General Instructions: These instructions prescribe the format and describe the approach for the development and presentation of proposal data. They are designed to ensure the submission of necessary information for a comprehensive evaluation. Offerors must carefully review this section. To receive full consideration, the information furnished must be factual, accurate, and complete. Failure to furnish a complete proposal may result in the proposal being unacceptable and eliminated from consideration. All solicitation amendments must be acknowledged in accordance with FAR Provision 52.215- 1, Instructions to Offerors - Competitive Acquisition.

L.1.2 Submission Method and Deadline:

Electronic proposals must be submitted via email to Justin Marino and Brian Souter at justin.m.marino2.civ@army.mil and brian.j.souter.

civ@army.mil. No hardcopy proposals will be accepted.

The Government is not responsible for proposals that are delayed or not delivered due to technical issues. Offerors should plan ahead and begin transmission early to ensure successful delivery. The official time of receipt is the date/time stamp on the email notification sent by the offeror.

The entire proposal is due by the date and time specified for receipt of proposals in Block 13 of the SF 1442.

L.1.3 Proposal Validity: The Offeror shall indicate that their proposal remains valid for a minimum of 120 days and shall not contain classified data /information.

W51AA126RA0020001

mailto:justin.m.marino2.civ@army.mil

L.1.4 Point of Contact: The Contracting Officer (KO) and contract specialist are the sole points of contact for this acquisition. Technical personnel are not authorized to receive or discuss information regarding the solicitation.

Discussions of any kind with technical personnel prior to award is prohibited.

Address any questions or concerns you may have to the KO and contract specialist. Written requests for clarification may be sent to the KO and contract specialist at the addresses or email addresses located in paragraph (B)(1) above. Debriefings. The KO will promptly notify Offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range (is the down select the competitive range), whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505. The KO will notify unsuccessful Offerors in accordance with FAR 15.503. Upon such notification, unsuccessful Offerors may request and receive a debriefing. Offerors desiring a debriefing must make their request in accordance with the requirements of FAR 15.505 or 15.506, as applicable.

Discrepancies. If an Offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the Offeror must immediately notify the KO and contract specialist in writing with supporting rationale.

L.1.5 Receipt of Submissions: For the purposes of establishing whether a proposal submission is considered timely, the Government will be following the regulations under FAR 15.208(b)(i). Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous. It can take several minutes or even hours in some cases. The electronic proposal submittal contents shall conform to the details of the solicitation and subsequent amendments. Each volume of the proposal shall be submitted electronically as detailed above.

L.2.0 PROPOSAL FILES AND FORMATTING

L.2.1 File Format and Naming:

Files shall be uploaded in PDF format unless otherwise instructed. The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled.

Offerors shall include a "File Description" for each file uploaded.

The first page of the electronic proposal shall clearly identify the offeror's name, the RFP number, and the RFP title.

L.2.2 Page and Font Formatting:

Proposals shall be prepared on standard 8.5 x 11-inch pages. Charts and tables may be landscaped but must fit on an 8.5 x 11-inch page.

A standard, 12-point minimum font size applies for paragraphs. Arial or Times New Roman fonts are required.

Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size, no less than 8-point.

Each paragraph should be single-spaced and separated by at least one blank line.

Margins shall be at least 1-inch on all sides.

L.2.3 Volume and Page Limits: The following volumes shall be submitted as separate files. Pages that exceed the required page limitations will be removed and not evaluated.

Vol um e

Title Digital Copies

Maximum Pages

I Technical 1 50

II Past Performance 1 15

III Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents, and Certifications / Representations

1 No page limit

L.2.4 Introductory Page: Provide a one-page introduction that includes your CAGE Code, Unique Entity Identification (UEI) Number, points of contact, authorized negotiators, contact phone numbers, and email addresses. Also, state your business socioeconomic status (e.g., small business, woman-owned small business, etc.). This page does not count toward the page limits.

L.3.0 PROPOSAL CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

All information shall be confined to the appropriate volume. Each volume shall consist of a Table of Contents, a Summary Section containing a brief abstract, and the Narrative discussion.

L.3.1 VOLUME I - TECHNICAL

The Technical volume shall be organized into the following sections:

L.3.1.1 Section 1 - Subfactor 1: Bonding Capacity Provide verification of a single project bonding threshold of at least $5,000,000 and an aggregate bonding threshold of at least $30,000,000.

This verification shall be a signed letter from your chosen surety.

The surety company must be listed on the U.S. Department of the Treasury's list of certified companies (Circular 570).

Provide contact information for the surety for verification purposes.

L.3.1.2 Section 2 - Subfactor 2: Safety Program Technical Approach to Safety: Provide a narrative describing how the company's education and training program aligns with OSHA Standards for each role within the organizational structure. Provide examples of required training, such as OSHA 10, OSHA 30, and Confined Spaces.

Submit TCR data for the five (5) Total Recordable Incident Rate (TCR):

previous complete calendar years: CY2020, CY2021, CY2022, CY2023, and CY2024. Do not provide an average. If no TCR data exists for any year, you must affirmatively state so and provide a detailed explanation.

For any year where the TCR is 2.5 or higher, provide a detailed and reasonable explanation that includes corrective actions taken.

Submit Days Away, Restricted, or Transferred (DART) Rate DART Rate:

data for the five (5) previous complete calendar years: CY2020, CY2021, CY2022, CY2023, and CY2024. Do not provide an average. If no DART Rate data exists for any year, you must affirmatively state so and provide a detailed explanation.<font style="font-size: 1rem;"> For any year where the DART Rate is above 1.0, provide a detailed and reasonable explanation that includes corrective actions taken.

L.3.1.3 Section 3 - Subfactor 3: Quality Control (QC) Quality Control Approach: Provide a description of the company's internal quality control structure and processes.

Duties, Responsibilities and Authorities of QC Personnel: Describe the duties, responsibilities, and authorities of QC personnel. Provide the procedures used for tracking construction deficiencies from identification through acceptable corrective action, including verification procedures.

L.3.2 VOLUME II - PAST PERFORMANCE

This volume shall contain information on three (3) recent and relevant contracts for the prime offeror under Federal, State, Local Government or commercial contracts for the same or similar services as compared to the NAICS 236220.

Recency is defined as a contract awarded and completed within the five (5) years prior to the issue date of this RFP.

Relevancy is defined as services performed as the prime contractor under NAICS code 236220 with a total contract value of $350,000 or greater.

This volume shall be organized into the following sections:

L.3.2.1 Section 1 - Contract Descriptions: For each of the three contracts, provide the following details:

Contractor/Subcontractor place of performance, CAGE Code, and UEI Number. If work was as a subcontractor, provide prime contractor details and POC.

Government contracting activity, address, and Procuring Contracting Officer contact information.

Government technical representative/COR contact information.

Government contract administration activity and Administrative Contracting Officer contact information.

Contract Number (and Delivery Order numbers if applicable).

Contract Type.

Awarded price/cost and final/projected final price/cost.

Original and final/projected delivery schedule (start and completion dates).

L.3.2.2 Section 2 - Performance Narrative:

Provide a specific narrative for each contract describing the objectives achieved and how the effort is relevant to this RFP's requirements.

If a contract did not meet its original schedule or technical requirements, explain the reasons and the corrective actions taken. Address all schedule revisions, Cure Notices, or Show Cause Letters.

Provide data on all manufacturing warranty returns, delineating the cause and nature of any failures.

L.3.2.3 Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ):

For each of the three contracts, the offeror must send a PPQ to the client's POCs for completion.

The offeror shall complete Part I of the PPQ and email it to the technical representatives for that contract, instructing them to complete Part II and email the fully completed PPQ directly to justin.m.marino2.civ@army.mil and brian.j.souter.civ@army.mil by the proposal due date.

The offeror must also email a list of all POCs who were sent a questionnaire to the same email addresses by the proposal due date.

L.3.3 VOLUME III - SOLICITATION, OFFER AND AWARD DOCUMENTS AND

CERTIFICATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS

L.3.3.1 Section A - Standard Form 1442 (SF 1442): An authorized official of the firm must sign the SF 1442. All amendments must be acknowledged on the form.

L.3.3.2 Section K - Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements:

Ensure all fillable provisions are completed. If the offeror's representations and certifications in the System for Award Management (SAM) are current, only provisions not included in SAM need to be completed and submitted.

L.3.3.3 Joint Venture Requirements: Parties proposing as a joint venture must submit an executed copy of the joint venture agreement. The joint venture must be registered in SAM and meet applicable size standards. All questions regarding Joint Ventures should be directed to the Small Business Administration (SBA).

L.3.4 Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in Proposal Evaluation

L.3.4.1 Use of AI tools in Support of Evaluations: The Government may employ AI as a tool to assist in the analysis and review of offeror proposals. AI tools may be used to support tasks such as summarizing proposal content, identifying compliance with request for task order proposal / solicitation requirements, and highlighting areas of potential strength, weakness, or risk.

L.3.4.2 Maintaining Inherently Governmental Functions: Notwithstanding the use of AI tools to support the evaluation process, all final evaluation judgements, including the assignment or assessment of adjectival ratings, best value determinations, and source selection decisions, will be made exclusively by duly appointed Government personnel. The Government retains sole responsibility for all inherently governmental functions and will not delegate decision making authority to any AI tool.

L.3.4.3 Offeror Confidentiality and Data Protection: The AI tools utilized by the Government will be employed in a manner consistent with applicable regulations that govern the protection of proprietary and source selection sensitive information. The AI tool will be an output-only system. Any generated report data is not saved. No proposal data will be transmitted to or processed by external, non-Government systems without appropriate safeguards and authorizations in place.

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

M.1.0 BASIS FOR AWARD AND SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS

M.1.1 Source Selection Process: The source selection process will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii)(A)(3) awards will be made to all qualifying offerors with the appropriate consideration given to the following two evaluation factors: Factor 1 Technical, Factor 2 Past Performance. All evaluation factors are to be considered equally. Cost/Price will be evaluated at the task order level.

M.1.2 Basis for Award/Qualifying Offerors: IAW FAR 2.101, a qualifying offeror is defined as, "an offeror that is determined to be a responsible source, submits a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, and the contracting officer has no reason to believe would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing (10 U.S.C. 2305(a)(3)(D))". The Government intends to award contracts to all "qualifying offerors." To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than "Acceptable" must be achieved for all evaluation factors. Failure to provide the information requested in all volumes may render the Offeror's proposal incomplete and result in an unacceptable rating and/or proposal. An acceptable proposal indicates an understanding of the minimum technical and performance requirements. A proposal receiving a technically "Unacceptable" rating in any non-price factor will not be considered qualifying. An unacceptable proposal does not meet the minimum technical and performance requirements and is un-awardable.

M.1.3 Award Without Discussions: The Government intends to make the MATOC awards without holding discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, offerors should include their best terms and conditions in their initial offer and should not assume they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) later determines them to be necessary. Offerors may, at the discretion of the Government, be asked to provide information for clarification purposes regarding their proposals. Requests for such clarification information do not constitute discussions.

M.1.4 Proposal Compliance Review: The Contracting Officer will begin the evaluation process by conducting a proposal compliance review for all timely-received proposals. Failure to provide a complete proposal, address any evaluation factor, or include all requested information may result in the proposal being removed from further consideration for award.

M.1.5 System for Award Management (SAM) Registration: In order to be considered for award, the Offeror shall be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) under NAICS 236220 (Size Standard $45M) prior to contract award. As this procurement is set aside 100% for small business, offerors must also be registered as a Small Business at SAM.gov under NAICS 236220 to be considered for award.

M.2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

M.2.1 Factors: The Government will evaluate proposals based on two (2) factors and awards will be made to all qualifying Offeror(s) whose proposal(s) are considered acceptable in each of the evaluation factors described below:

Factor 1: Technical Factor 2: Past Performance

M.2.2 Relative Importance: The Technical factor and Past Performance factor are weighted equally. The Technical subfactors are also weighted equally. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than "Acceptable" must be achieved for the Technical factor (which includes all subfactors) and the Past Performance factor.

M.2.3 Cost/Price: IAW FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii)(A), the contracting officer will exclude cost/price as an evaluation factor for this Multiple Award IDIQ effort.

The Government intends to make an award to all "qualifying offerors," and Cost /Price will be considered as one of the primary evaluation factors for all subsequent task/delivery orders.

M.3.0 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL EVALUATION

M.3.1 Evaluation Approach: The Technical Factor and its subfactors will be evaluated on an "Acceptable" or "Unacceptable" basis. To receive an overall "Acceptable" rating for the Technical Factor, a proposal must receive an "Acceptable" rating in all three (3) subfactors. A rating of "Unacceptable" in any single subfactor will result in an "Unacceptable" rating for the entire Technical Factor, rendering the proposal ineligible for award.

M.3.2 Subfactor A: Bonding Capacity

An "Acceptable" rating will be assigned if the offeror submits verification from a surety listed on the Department of Treasury's Circular 570 that demonstrates a minimum single project bonding threshold of at least $5,000,000 and a minimum aggregate bonding threshold of at least $30,000,000.

1.

2.

3.

4.

1.

2.

3.

4.

An "Unacceptable" rating will be assigned if the proposal fails to demonstrate a minimum single project bonding threshold of at least $5,000,000 and a minimum aggregate bonding threshold of at least $30,000,000.

M.3.3 Subfactor B: Safety Program An "Acceptable" rating will be assigned if the proposal meets all of the following criteria:

The offeror submits a comprehensive safety narrative as required by Section L.

The offeror submits Total Recordable Incident Rate (TCR) and Days Away, Restricted, or Transferred (DART) Rate data for all five required calendar years.

For any year where the TCR is 2.5 or higher, the offeror provides a detailed and reasonable explanation that includes corrective actions taken.

For any year where the DART Rate is above 1.0, the offeror provides a detailed and reasonable explanation that includes corrective actions taken.

An "Unacceptable" rating will be assigned if the proposal meets any of the following criteria:

The offeror fails to submit the safety narrative, or the narrative is deemed insufficient.

The offeror fails to submit complete TCR or DART data for the five required years.

The offeror fails to provide a required explanation for a TCR at or above 2.5, or for a DART Rate above 1.0.

An explanation provided for a high TCR or DART rate is deemed insufficient, not credible, or does not adequately address corrective actions.

M.3.4 Subfactor C: Quality Control (QC) An "Acceptable" rating will be assigned if the offeror submits a detailed description of its QC structure, the duties and authorities of QC personnel, and its procedures for tracking construction deficiencies, as required in Section L.

An "Unacceptable" rating will be assigned if the proposal fails to submit a detailed description of its QC structure, the duties and authorities of QC personnel, and its procedures for tracking construction deficiencies, as required in Section L.

M.4.0 FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

The Government will assess an offeror's demonstrated record of performance to assign an "Acceptable" or "Unacceptable" rating. The evaluation will consider both the recency and relevancy of the performance history provided. Offerors must submit three (3) recent and relevant past or current contracts (Federal, State, Local Government or commercial contracts for the same or similar services as compared to the NAICS 236220 . ) The Government will review this information and may also use data from other sources (e.g., CPARS, interviews) to assess performance quality. The Government will focus its inquiries on the Offeror as an entity (Prime contractor, joint venture, teaming partners and all proposed major subcontractors) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance, and management of subcontractors. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history, or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful evaluation can be performed, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)); and will therefore, be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, "unknown" shall be considered "Acceptable."

M.4.1 Definitions Recency: A contract is considered recent if it was awarded within five (5) years from the date of this solicitation.

Relevancy: A contract is considered relevant if it involved work of a similar magnitude and scope as that performed under NAICS 236220, with a contract value of $350,000 or greater.

M.4.2 Assigned Rating Logic An "Acceptable" rating will be assigned if:

The offeror provides three (3) references that meet the defined criteria for both Recency and Relevancy, and the quality assessment reveals no significant or recurring performance issues that would indicate an unacceptable risk to the Government.

The offeror has no record of recent and relevant past performance. In this case, the offeror cannot be evaluated favorably or unfavorably and will receive an "Acceptable" rating.

An "Unacceptable" rating will be assigned if:

The quality assessment of recent and relevant projects reveals a record of poor performance (e.g., adverse CPARS ratings, contract terminations for cause, less than satisfactory question past performance questionnaire ratings that suggests the offeror is an ) unacceptable performance risk.

The offeror fails to provide three (3) references that meet the defined criteria for both Recency and Relevancy.

M.5.0 ENFORCEABILITY OF PROPOSAL

The proposal must set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by this solicitation. By submission of the offer, the Offeror agrees that all items proposed (e.g., key personnel, subcontractors, etc.) will be utilized for the duration of the contract, and any substitutions shall require prior Contracting Officer's approval. By submitting an offer in response to this solicitation, offerors are agreeing to comply with all terms and conditions contained in the solicitation.

M.6.0 EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST).

The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

- M.6.1 Adequacy of Response: The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offerors methods, approach and/or experience have completely and adequately considered, defined and/or satisfied the requirements in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to the extent to which all submission requirements have been fully addressed. The proposals will be evaluated using factors for technical and past performance; they will not be ranked. For an offeror to be considered for award, the proposal must receive an "Acceptable" rating for each evaluation factor. A proposal receiving a rating of "Unacceptable" on any factor will not be eligible for award.

- M.6.2 Evaluation Ratings: The Technical Factor will be evaluated IAW Table 1.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL EVALUATION RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation. All technical subfactors have received a rating of Acceptable

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of Offeror received a the solicitation.

rating of "Unacceptable" on one or more technical subfactors.

The Past Performance Factor will be evaluated IAW Table 2 below.

Rating Definition

Acceptable Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation. All submitted projects meet the minimum standards described in the evaluation criteria. Based on the offeror's performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. The offeror provided three (3) references that meet the defined criteria for both Recency and

Relevancy.

In the case of an offeror without a record of recent, relevant past performance (and for which there is also no recent, relevant past performance information for its predecessor companies or key subcontractors), or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, "unknown" shall be considered "acceptable".

Unacceptab le

Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

The assessment of recent and relevant projects reveals a record of poor performance (e.g., adverse CPARS ratings, contract terminations for cause, less than satisfactory past performance questionnaire ratings) that suggests the offeror is an unacceptable performance risk. The offeror fails to provide three (3) references that meet the defined criteria for both Recency and Relevancy. Based on the offeror's performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT, 11 HAP ARNOLD BLVD

TOBYHANNA, PA 18466-0000

UNITED STATES

JUSTIN MARINO, EMAIL: JUSTIN.M.MARINO2.CIV@ARMY.MIL TELEPHONE: 5706157106

AdminBy:

SCD: PAS:

- All DoD Safe requirement/language has been removed from the solicitation via amendment 0001 and replaced with instructions to email all proposal files directly to Mr. Justin Marino and Mr. Brian Souter. See updated section L.1.2 -Updates have been made to sections L3.2.3 and M 4.0 as they now state "Federal, State, Local Government or commercial contracts for the same or similar services as compared to the NAICS 236220" -Revised Attachment 3 Past Performance Questionnaire Rev.1 to now include instructions to email completed PPQ's to Mr. Justin Marino and Mr. Brian Souter.