W911KB21R0043 AM02.pdf

W911KB21R0043

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

•S ection M, Paragraph 4.3.3c and 4.3.3d are deleted.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 11

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 16-Jul-2021

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W911KB21R0043

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

25-Jun-2021

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

Offer 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 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram 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 telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter 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 NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, 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.)

LRDR Campus HEMP Hardness Maintenance and Surveillance Amendment #1

The follow ing revisions are made. The identif ier “AM#02” appears before and after new and/or revised material and replacement pages are provided:

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

NO. 0002

5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE

DATE

16-Jul-2021

CODE

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, AK

CEPOA-CT (W911KB)

PO BOX 6898

JBER AK 99506-0898

W911KB 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARD

ONE STEP - - BEST VALUE

(SINGLE AWARD)

LRDR Campus Hardness Maintenance/Hardness Surveillance

W911KB21R0043

A. OVERVIEW

B. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

C. PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

1) VOLUME 1, TAB A – FACTOR 1 – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

2) VOLUME 1, TAB B – FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

3) VOLUME 1, TAB C – FACTOR 3 – SEED TASK ORDER

4) VOLUME 1, TAB D – FACTOR 4 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

D. EVALUATION PROCEDURES AND DEFINITIONS

SECTION M ATTACHMENTS

1 – PROPOSAL DATA SHEETS

2 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

3 – SEED PROJECT PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT & PROPOSAL SCHEDULE

A. OVERVIEW

The objective of this contract is to provide HEMP Topology Maintenance, Surveillance and Sustainment services to the Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR) Mission Control Facility (MCF)(Bldg. 900), LRDR Power Plant (LPP)(Bldg. 901), and the LRDR Equipment Shelter (LES)(Bldg. 902) at Clear Space Force Station (CSFS), Alaska.

B. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

1. Basis for Contract Award

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Army Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS). These regulations are available electronically at https://www.acquisition.gov/browse/index/far. The Government will select the offer representing the best overall value based on a comparative analysis and an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation. One contract will be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, and who proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is determined, based on the evaluation factors to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Government the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an award to the higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference.

The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below).

Award Without Discussions: The Government intends to make award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms in response to all evaluation factors for the purposes of making the award decision without discussions, all initial proposals that are rated technically Unacceptable on any factor will be unawardable.

Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government intends to award one (1) Firm Fixed Price Indefinite Delivery Contract for the LRDR Campus Hardness Maintenance/Hardness Surveillance, but reserves the right to not make a contract award from this solicitation.

Rejection of Unrealistic Offers: The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low cost when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

C. EVALUATION FACTORS

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination representing the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors shown in the table and described below.

Factor/Sub Factor Location Description Relative Importance FACTOR 1 Vol. 1 TAB A Specialized Experience 1st (Most Important

Factor)

FACTOR 2 Vol. 1 TAB B Past Performance 1st (Equal to Factor 1) FACTOR 3 Vol. 1 TAB C Seed Task Order Narrative and

Technical Approach 2nd (Slightly less important than Factors 1 and 2) https://www.acquisition.gov/browse/index/far

FACTOR 4 Vol 2. TAB A Price (Standard Form 1442 and Proposal Schedule)

3rd (Equal in importance to Factors 1, 2 and 3 combined) N/A Vol. 2 TAB B Required Pre-Award Information Not Rated

1. VOL 1 TAB A – FACTOR 1 – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

1.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

1.1.1. The prime contractor shall demonstrate recent, relevant experience on similar maintenance, surveillance, and sustainment services of High Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP) protected facilities using Company Specialized Experience - Prime Contractor – (AM#1… Attachment 1 2 …AM#1) at the end of the section (no more than 2 pages per project). Offerors may identify state and local government and private contracts that are similar to the Government’s requirements. If the offeror is a joint venture, each firm of the joint venture shall provide information demonstrating experience relevant to their role on this project. Submit projects that are currently well underway (at least 50% progress/service period completed) or completed no longer than six (6) years preceding the date of this solicitation. An offeror may receive credit for relevant experience under a previous business arrangement (joint venture for example) if the offeror demonstrates that their role on the submitted project is relevant to their role on this project. Submit no more than five (5) projects for the prime contractor for the maintenance, surveillance, and sustainment services of High Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP) protected facilities.

1.1.2 Provide one page consolidated list of submitted projects for prime contractor to include a matrix that identifies the Specialized Experience projects and the firms that worked on each (teaming).

1.1.3 Provide a supplemental narrative, not to exceed two (2) pages, to address any of the following that are applicable. The information shall be limited to projects that are well underway (at least 50% progress completed) or that have been completed no longer than six (6) years preceding the date of this solicitation.

a . Offerors who submit experience information of a parent, sister or other affiliated company shall describe what involvement such company will have on the instant acquisition and demonstrate a firm commitment that the affiliated firm will participate meaningfully in the performance of the contract. The narrative shall clearly and specifically indicate what resources of the parent, sister or other affiliated company – its workforce, management, facilities, or other resources – will be provided or relied upon for contract performance. The Government may discount the experience of a parent, sister or other affiliated company unless the prime contractor clearly provides evidence of a binding teaming agreement or other contractual agreement which creates legal responsibility on the part of the parent, sister or other affiliated company or provides a Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter including the following:

(i) A statement of commitment as to the performance and utilization of the identified entity’s resources on the project.

(ii) Signatures of both the Offeror and Meaningful Relationship Entity

b. Describe any previous teaming experience between current team members, if not described on the project experience forms. Identify specific projects and address how the team members worked together to achieve safety, quality, and schedule compliance goals.

1.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

1.2.1. The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, related experience of the prime contractor and subcontractors as relevant to their role on this project. The Government may place greater importance on demonstrated maintenance, surveillance, and sustainment services of High Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP) protected facilities experience by the prime or key subcontractor depending on relevancy. For the prime contractor, the Government may place greater importance on projects performed as a prime contractor than as a subcontractor, depending upon overall role and relevancy considerations. Federal Government project experience will not be rated inherently more important than non-Federal Government project experience. In assessing relevancy of Specialized Experience, the relevancy ratings included under the Past Performance evaluation factor will be utilized.

1.2.2 Relevant experience includes:

(a) Experience with the maintenance, surveillance, and sustainment services of High Altitude Electromagnetic

Pulse (HEMP) protected facilities;

(b) Experience with the development of Hardness Maintenance/Hardness Surveillance Program Plans for

HEMP protected facilities;

(c) Experience with the onsite maintenance and surveillance of HEMP protected facilities;

(d) Experience with verification testing IAW MIL-STD-188-125-1 to support USSTRATCOM SACP

Certification;

(e) Previous experience with the execution of service contracts;

(f) Previous teaming experience between the prime contractor and subcontractors.

Experience with HEMP maintenance, surveillance, and sustainment services is considered most relevant. Experience as the Prime Contractor who self-performed the work will be rated inherently more important, than projects where the Prime Contractor subcontracted out the maintenance and surveillance activities. Federal Government project experience will not be rated inherently more important that non-Federal Government project experience. The construction and installation of HEMP shielded facilities are considered not relevant to the inspection and maintenance services required by this contract.

1.2.3 To receive credit for extent (amount) of experience, the offeror shall demonstrate a history of recent, relevant experience. Experience of a parent, sister or other affiliated company will not be considered if the offeror fails to demonstrate what resources of the parent, sister or other affiliated company will be provided or relied upon or fails to demonstrate the existence of a contractual or meaningful relationship with the parent, sister or other affiliated company. Experience under a previous business arrangement will not be considered relevant if the firm’s role on the submitted project is not considered relevant to their anticipated role on this project.

2. VOL 1 TAB B – FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

2.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

2.1.1 Past performance refers to the quality of recent project experience from the owner’s perspective. The offeror shall provide customer reference name(s), company affiliation and current contact information (phone number and email address) utilizing the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 2) the offeror may rely on or provide finalized CPARS reports. Previously completed PPQ’s may be submitted however ensure current phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. The completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal and may be duplicated for submission on future solicitations.

If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before the proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment 2), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Kimberly Tripp via email at Kimberly.D.Tripp@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

2.1.2 Projects cited shall be currently well underway (at least 50% progress completed) or completed within six

(6) years preceding the date of this solicitation. The Government may contact and interview the points of contact and reserves the right to review data from CPARS or other agency performance databases on projects determined to be recent and relevant as defined above. Team members are encouraged to briefly provide information on problems encountered on identified or other contracts and the corrective action taken.

2.1.3 In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), System for Award Management (SAM), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

2.1.4 An offeror will not receive credit for past performance of a parent, sister or other affiliated company if the offeror fails to demonstrate what resources of the parent, sister or other affiliated company will be provided or relied upon or fails to demonstrate the existence of a contractual or meaningful relationship with the parent, sister or other affiliated company. An offeror may receive credit for relevant past performance under a previous business arrangement (joint venture for example) if the offeror demonstrates that their role on the submitted project is relevant to their role on this project

2.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

2.2.1. The Government will first assess and rate the relevancy of recent projects accomplished by the offeror to the scope of this contract for overall application to the performance confidence assessment ratings described hereinafter. The projects will include those submitted under the Specialized Experience Factor as well as from other sources described above. This rating is not a separate proposal rating but is only used in developing overall past performance confidence assessment rating assigned to the Past Performance Factor. The past performance relevancy ratings are described below:

• 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 some of the 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.

2.2.3. The Government will next consider how well the offeror performed on the contracts. The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance. With respect to relevancy, past performance on projects with more relevance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment rating than past performance on projects of lesser relevance. Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as timeliness, management of the work, quality, subcontractor management, including timely payment to subs or suppliers, and safety. The Government places a higher value on projects, which provided particularly difficult or unique challenges and the innovative methods the contractor used to resolve problems successfully. The rating for this factor will be expressed as a degree of confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the contract requirements. The rating system used for the performance confidence assessment is described below.

Performance Confidence Assessment:

Each offeror will be assigned one of the following ratings:

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

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

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

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

Unknown Confidence (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.

2.2.4. Each entity (firm) will be rated on its own performance or that of its predecessor, if relevant. Past performance of a parent, sister or other affiliated company will not be considered if the offeror fails to demonstrate what resources of the parent, sister, or other affiliated company will be provided or relied upon or fails to demonstrate the existence of a contractual or meaningful relationship with the parent, sister or other affiliated company. Past performance under a previous business arrangement will not be considered relevant if the offeror’s role on the project is not considered relevant. If the Government does not obtain past performance information for the projects identified by the offeror and cannot establish a past performance record for the offeror through other sources, past performance will be rated neither favorably nor unfavorably. The performance confidence assessment will be considered “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)”.

3. VOL 1 TAB C – FACTOR 3 – SEED TASK ORDER

OBJECTIVE:

The primary objective of a HEMP Hardness Maintenance/Hardness Surveillance (HM/HS) protection program is to ensure survivability from a HEMP event. Since HEMP shield systems are easily rendered ineffective by incorrect usage and/or inadequate life cycle maintenance, a structured methodology of performing inspections, maintenance, and testing must be performed and documented in the HM/HS Program Plans.

PROJECT OVERVIEW:

The U.S. Space Force (USSF), 13th Space Warning Squadron (SWS) and their base operations support contractor, InDyne, have assumed ownership and control of the MCF effective June 2, 2020. Additionally, the USSF is scheduled to assume ownership of the LPP NLT August 31, 2021 and the transfer and acceptance (DD250) of the LES NLT October 31, 2021. Currently, the U.S. Space Force lacks the ability to maintain, and sustain the facility’s HEMP Enclosure. Until such time that the U.S. Space Force can assume responsibility for the required maintenance and sustainment of the HEMP shield, it is necessary for others to provide this service. Full detailed description of tasks is provided in Attachment 3.

TASKS: The Contractor shall accomplish the above purpose by performing the following tasks:

Base:

1. CLIN 0001: Develop the HM/HS Program Plan for the LRDR Campus

2. CLIN 0002: Perform HM/HS for the LRDR Campus

3. CLIN 0003: Conduct Sparing Analysis Activities

Options:

1. Option 1, CLIN 4: Verification Testing to support USSTRATCOM SACP Certification

3.1 NARRATIVE AND TECHNICAL APPROACH: Provide the following.

3.1.1 Narrative: Present a narrative of your design approach and your technical design solution for all items on the proposal schedule. The Offeror will certify that the technical approach complies with the most recent regulations, standards, codes, and the technical references listed in the task order. The narrative shall be no longer than ten (10) pages and shall include the following:

3.1.2 Develop the HM/HS Program Plan for the LRDR Campus: provide a description of the proposed program plan to perform HM/HS actions for all HCI/HCA at the LRDR Campus. This shall include a description of program management, implementation, and oversight; as well as a summary of maintenance procedures for reach planned action.

3.1.3 Perform HM/HS for the LRDR Campus: provide a general description and schedule of the planned actions for the period of performance, to include a recommended maintenance cycle (ie. quarterly). Describe your procedures for testing and evaluation of HEMP HM/HS actions to verify that the facility HEMP subsystem is operational following the conclusion of any maintenance or surveillance activities. Describe how you will coordinate with the 13th SWS/Clear AFS, Missile Defense Agency, InDyne and the USACE prior to an upcoming maintenance cycle to minimize interruptions to ongoing radar operations.

3.1.4 Conduct Sparing Analysis Activities: provide a description of your approach to conduct a sparing analysis of the installed HEMP hardness critical assemblies or items and lists of recommended organizational LRDR Campus HEMP-related systems’ spare parts, repair parts, supplies, special tools and special test equipment IAW MIL-STD- 188-125-1.

3.1.5 Support to USSTRATCOM SACP Certification: provide a description of your approach to conduct verification testing at the site IAW MIL-STD-188-125-1 to support USSTRATCOM SACP Certification.

3.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

3.2.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach. Offerors will be evaluated on the extent to which the narrative identifies specific opportunities, challenges and/or other constraints associated with design and construction of this project and the Offeror’s demonstration that they can be expected to produce a well-conceived design and construction solution. Technical merit will be based on the degree to which the proposed design satisfies functional and operational requirements and meets acceptable quality including durability, maintainability, and reliability specified in RFP.

4. VOLUME 2 – TAB A PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

4.1. GENERAL

Submit the Pro Forma information in a separate binder labeled: “Volume 2 – Pro Forma Requirements.”

4.2. VOLUME 2, TAB A – FACTOR 4 – PRICE (STANDARD FORM 1442 AND CONTRACT LINE ITEM

SCHEDULE).

4.2.1. Submission Requirements: Submit the properly filled out and executed fee schedule (located in Section A of the RFP) with proposed labor rates for key positions identified. Key personnel labor rates will become contractually binding. Profit, G&A, and escalation shall be set in the fee schedule. For the seed task order, provide a completed Task Order Proposal Schedule (Attachment 3) containing proposed line item and total pricing. Utilize the proposed key personnel labor rates in preparing the seed project price proposal.

4.2.2 Supplemental Price Breakdown. If deemed necessary to evaluate the price proposals, the Government will request a price breakdown of the Contract Line items for the seed project in a sealed envelope marked “Price Breakdown Information”, in Excel format. The Government will provide details on where and how to send the breakdown. This information will not be needed sooner than three working days after the proposal submission due date. This information may be required for the initial proposals and, if requested, for any revised proposals. This information is not an opportunity for an Offeror to revise its non-price or price proposal.

4.2.3. Evaluation Criteria:

4.2.3.1. Price will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis. The price evaluators will also check for appearance of unbalanced line item prices.

4.2.3.2. If deemed necessary, the supplemental price breakdown information will be used to assist the Government in performing the price evaluations described above.

4.3. VOLUME 2, TAB B – REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

4.3.1. Submission Requirements:

4.3.2. Submit this information for the Contracting Officer’s determination of Offeror responsibility, which includes, but is not limited to the following:

(a) A list of present commitments, including the dollar value thereof, and name of the organization under which the work is being performed. Include names and telephone numbers of personnel within each organization who are familiar with the prospective contractor’s performance.

(b) A certified statement listing; (1) each contract awarded within the preceding three month period exceeding $1,000,000.00 in value with a brief description of the contract; and (2) each contract awarded within the preceding three year period not already physically completed and exceeding $5,000,000.00 in value with a brief description of the contract.

(c) If the prospective contractor is a joint venture, each joint venture member will be required to submit the above defined certification.

(d) Completed Representations and Certifications included by full text in Section 00 45 00. List any changes to the System for Award Management (SAM) in 52.204-8 for FAR Clauses and 252.204-7007 for DFAR clauses.

4.3.3 One copy of the following information shall be provided:

(a) Proof of Financial Ability (Most recent financial statement covering assets and liabilities)

(b) Number of years the firm has been in business

AM#02…

(c) Name, address and telephone number of firm’s bonding company

(d) Information showing offeror’s bondability for the seed project. Submit a letter from the prime contractor’s bonding company indicating the offeror’s ability to obtain performance and payment bonds in the amount of their proposal price. …AM#02

(e) Name, address and telephone numbers of two credit/trade references.

4.3.4 Evaluation Criteria:

In addition to the other proposal information, the Contracting Officer shall use this information in making an affirmative responsibility determination for award to the Successful Offeror, in accordance with FAR Part 9.

D. EVALUATION PROCEDURES

1. GENERAL:

The Source Selection Evaluation Board will evaluate the proposals and assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor and subfactor, utilizing the evaluation and rating system described in Section M, except for past performance, which has its own rating scale. The SSEB will not consider any information incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

1.1. EVALUATION –

1.1.1. The Government intends to award without discussions. A “Competitive Range” is a subjective determination of the most highly rated proposals in the event that discussions with Offerors are required. In such an event, the Contracting Officer will establish a competitive range of all the most highly rated proposals.

1.1.2 A “Competitive Range” is a subjective determination of the most highly rated proposals in the event that the Government decides that discussions with offerors are required or are considered to be in the Government’s best interests. In such an event, the Contracting Officer will establish a competitive range of all the most highly rated proposals.

1.1.3 If discussions are held, the Government may engage in a broad give and take with those offerors in the competitive range, in accordance with FAR 15.306(d). During discussions, the Government may ask the Offeror to further explain its proposal and to answer questions about it.Upon conclusion of discussions, those offerors still considered the most highly rated, will be afforded an opportunity to submit their proposal revisions for final evaluation and selection.

1.1.4 EVALUATION RATING SYSTEM

1.1.5 General: The Government will review the proposals and rate the quality of each evaluation factor and subfactor (if any). The SSEB will rate each proposal against the specified evaluation criteria in the Solicitation requirements. They will not compare proposals at this time. After all proposals are rated, the Government will compare the ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages of proposals against each other in order to determine which offeror provides the best value to the Government.

1.1.6 Review Write-up: The Government will support each rating with a narrative, separately listing all strengths or advantages, weaknesses or disadvantages, deficiencies, and required clarifications.

1.1.7 Rating System: After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, the SSEB will assign an adjective rating of “Outstanding,” “Good,” “Acceptable,” “Marginal,” or “Unacceptable” to each factor and subfactor (except the Past Performance Factor), which reflect the Government's confidence in each offeror's ability, as demonstrated in its proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the RFP. The adjectival ratings shall be assigned using the following criteria, which incorporate a proposal risk assessment:

Outstanding: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good: Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal: Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable: Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is unawardable.

1.1.8 PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATING AND PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

1.1.9 Performance Confidence Assessment: Performance Confidence Assessments will assess each offeror's likelihood of success in performing the requirements stated in the RFP based on the offeror's demonstrated performance on recent contracts and the relevance to the effort required under this solicitation. SSEB members and the SSA may use personal knowledge or information from other sources in its evaluation of an offeror’s past performance, provided such information is consistent with the established evaluation criteria of the RFP. Offerors that have no relevant performance record will be given an “unknown” performance confidence assessment. The performance confidence assessment shall be assigned using the following criteria:

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

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

Limited Confidence: Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

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

No Confidence: Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

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

Unknown Confidence (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.