W911S222R8000A0002.pdf

W911S222R8000A0002

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

Remove ASSIST2Industry Language

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 13

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 28-Feb-2022

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 W911S222R8000

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

04-Feb-2022

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.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

28-Feb-2022

CODE

MICC-FT DRUM

925TH CBN & MICC FORT DRUM

FORT DRUM NY 13602-5434

W911S2 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W911S222R8000

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00100 - BIDDING SCHEDULE/INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRCUTIONS TO OFFERORS

PART I – INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

1. NOTICES TO OFFERORS:

1.1. COMPETITION: This acquisition is 100% set-aside for small business concerns, pursuant to the requirements of FAR Subsection 19.502-2, Total small business set-asides.

1.2. NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (NAICS) CODE for this acquisition is 236220. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure that its System for Award Management (SAM) registration includes this NAICS. If it does not, contract award may be delayed.

1.3. BID GUARANTEE: REQUIRED and shall be provided with the offer, see FAR Clause 52.228-1.

1.4. OFFER ACCEPTANCE PERIOD: See Standard Form 1442, SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD, BLOCK 13 D. AND BLOCK 17. Offerors providing less than 180 calendar days for Government acceptance after the date offers are due will not be considered for award and will be rejected. If the Offeror would like to provide more than 180 calendar days to be considered, the number of days must be inserted in BLOCK 17. Failure to insert a number into

BLOCK 17 shall mean the Offeror accepts the minimum in Item 13D.

1.5. PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS: Offerors are reminded of the requirement for performance and payment bonds (SEE BLOCK 12A. of the STANDARD FORM 1442 –

SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD and FAR Clause 52.228-15 -- Performance and Payment Bonds -- Construction).

1.6. SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT (SAM): To be eligible for award of a Department of Defense (DoD) contract, Contractor registration in the SAM data base is required (see FAR Clause 52.204-7). Failure to register with SAM shall make the Contractor ineligible for award. New registration in SAM can take a few weeks. Therefore, it is critical that Offerors interested in this solicitation complete their SAM registration in sufficient time to meet solicitation representation and certification requirements.

1.7. AMENDMENTS: No bidder’s mailing list will be maintained. It is the responsibility of all interested parties wishing to offer on this requirement to monitor SAM.gov for any/all amendments to this solicitation. The Offeror is required to acknowledge amendments in block 19 of the SF 1442. Failure to respond to an amendment may render the offer ineligible for award and thereby rejected.

1.8. SOLICITATION PROVISIONS/REPRESENTATIONS & CERTIFICATIONS: The Offeror must have completed the Representations and Certifications section within their SAM record or FAR 52.204-8 is required to be completed.

1.9. REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS: Representations and certifications shall be updated within the SAM system as necessary, but as a minimum, an annual update is required.

1.10. VETS-4212: Federal Contractors and subcontractors who receive Federal contracts of

$150,000 or more are required to annually file, no later than September 30th of each year, Form No. VETS-4212 entitled "Federal Contractor Veterans' Employment Report" with the Department of Labor. In addition, all Federal Contracting Officers are prohibited from awarding contracts or disbursing funds to Federal contractors or subcontractors that have not submitted a current VETS-4212 Report. For more information on this requirement, see the following website: http://www.dol.gov/vets/vets4212.htm.

1.11. SOLICITATION QUESTIONS: Questions shall be in writing and e-mailed to lindsay.a.mclaughlin.civ@army.mil, and alfredo.m.sanchez.civ@army.mil. Questions concerning this solicitation will be accepted up to 18 February 2022, 4:00PM EST. Fort Drum does not commit to providing responses to questions submitted after THIS DATE; however attempts to answer all relevant questions will be made.

1.12. OFFER SUBMISSION: All offers must be received in hard copy and a digital copy on compact disk (CD) prior to the offer due date in box 10 of this solicitation (first page). All hard copies shall be executed with the original signature of the Offeror. The Request for Proposal (RFP) contains provisions and other items required to be completed by the Offeror and returned with its proposal. Failure to provide this information with the proposal may render the proposal non-responsive and not eligible for award. Offers are due 7 March 2022 at 2:00PM EST. The hard copy documents shall be clearly marked containing the procurement and solicitation number: Fort Drum Job Order Contract, Solicitation# W911S222R8000, and mailed to:

Mission & Installation Contracting Command – Fort Drum P31 Quartermaster Road Fort Drum, NY 13602

1.13. Reserved.

1.14. PROPOSALS: The Offeror shall submit a proposal that addresses all evaluation areas, specifically identifying how the proposed contractual requirements will be satisfied. A Government team will evaluate each proposal strictly in accordance with its content and will not assume that performance will include areas not specified.

1.15. FACTORS: The proposals will be evaluated on three factors: Technical Capability, Past Performance, and Price.

1.16. On Site. See paragraph 1.3 of the Statement of Work (SOW). Fort Drum will not provide any office or Government space on the installation.

2. JOINT VENTURES. There are specific requirements that a Joint Venture (JV) must satisfy to submit an offer. Therefore, Offerors submitting proposals as a Joint Venture shall provide the following information with its proposal:

2.1. The Joint Venture Agreement.

2.2. A description of:

2.2.1. Who will have control over the JV and the percentage of control,

2.2.2. The management structure of the Joint Venture,

2.2.3. Who will manage the contract,

2.2.4. The relative amount of work to be performed by each party, and

2.2.5. Who will perform each contract task.

2.2. The names, signatures and titles of each participant in the joint venture shall be set forth in the proposal.

3. PROPOSAL FORMAT: Written proposals shall be submitted in four Sections. Each section shall be in the format as follows:

Proposal Section TOTAL

MAXIMUM

ALLOWED

PAGES

Section I: Executed Request for Proposal (Filled out Section 00600; the original signed bid guarantee and Joint Venture documentation, if applicable)

No Maximum

Section II: Factor 1: Technical Capability to include: Element 1:Mangement, and Element 2: Bonding Capacity

Section III: Factor 2: Past Performance Proposal No Maximum

Section IV: Factor 3: Price Proposal No Maximum

*NOTE: Offerors are cautioned that any information beyond the maximum number of pages will not be evaluated.

3.1. Proposals shall be clearly and concisely written, indexed (cross-indexed, as appropriate) and logically assembled. All pages of each proposal shall be appropriately numbered and identified with the solicitation number. Price information shall only be included in Section IV.

Offerors shall include a cover page for each Section, which clearly identifies the Section Name (e.g., Section II, Management), Request for Proposal (RFP) Number, and Date of Submission.

3.2. The Offeror’s written proposal shall be prepared in PDF using standard 8.5 x 11 inch layout in portrait orientation. This applies to both hard copy and digital copy. The proposal pages shall be numbered. Each page must have a one-inch margin at the top, the bottom, and on each side.

Page numbers, notations of proprietary information, and any other identifying information on each page are excluded from the margin requirement. Print must be spaced at six lines per inch.

Text font shall be Times New Roman and no smaller than 11 point, but text included on figures and/or matrices may be reduced to 8 point. An Offeror’s proposal must meet the Government’s readability requirement and smaller type shall not be used to circumvent the proposal page limitations. The price spreadsheets shall be prepared in PDF.

3.3. Section I, Executed Request for Proposal, shall be submitted both in hard copy and compact disk (CD). The second page of the SF 1442 signed and dated, first page of any and all amendments to the solicitation signed and dated (if applicable), and the original signed bonds.

All hard copies shall be executed with the original signature of the Offeror. Digital copies shall be included with the hard copy proposal submission. All completed Provisions, Representations and Certifications required by the solicitation as set forth in Section 00100, PART I –

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS and NOTICES TO OFFERORS, Paragraph 1.8. All required documentation, whether digital or hard copy, must be received no later than 2:00PM EST on 7 March 2022. Proposals received after solicitation closure date shall be considered ineligible for award.

3.4. Sections II, Technical Proposal; Section III, Past Performance Proposal, and Section IV, Price Proposal are required in both hard copy and compact disk (CD). They shall follow the same format as outlined in paragraph 3. PROPOSAL FORMAT.

3.5. The proposal should be specific, detailed, and complete in order to demonstrate that the

Offeror has a thorough understanding of the solicitation requirements. Statements such as “the Offeror understands, assumes, can, or will comply with the Statement of Work,” statements that paraphrase the Statement of Work (SOW), or contain ambiguous phrases such as “standard procedures will be employed” or “well known techniques will be used” will be considered unacceptable.

3.6. As stated in FAR Clause 52.215-1, the Government intends to evaluate and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)).

Therefore, the Offerors’ initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which and efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. If negotiations are deemed necessary, and proposal revisions are requested, they shall be submitted as an edited version of the original PDF document(s) with revised text readily identifiable using bolded font, red in color.

4. FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY: The Technical portion of the proposal encompasses the recognition of the full scope of services and their interrelationships in order to optimize responsiveness, timeliness, efficiency, and effectiveness of services rendered. The Technical proposal shall consist of a narrative and supporting data (e.g., matrix, charts, or other graphics) addressing the technical requirements necessary to support contract performance.

4.1. ELEMENT 1 - MANAGEMENT: The Offeror shall address the management areas defined below.

4.1.1. Response Time: Describe your local office location plan in order to meet the minimum response time to Fort Drum (see Attachment 1 STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW) paragraph 1.2.).

4.1.2. On-Site Staff: Describe your proposed on-site personnel structure and staff, authority, and responsibilities required for each position (see Attachment 1 STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW) paragraph 1.3. POSITION REQUIREMENTS/CONTRACTOR STAFF/KEY PERSONNEL).

Key Program Management details shall be broad enough to address responsibility for proposal preparation, subcontract management, surveillance of work, corrective action, and how the Offeror plans to interface with Government inspectors and project managers at each stage of construction. Provide an organizational chart that includes job category/title with qualifications/skills and resumes for all key personnel listed in Attachment 1.

4.1.3. Contractor Quality Control (CQC) Plan. Describe your proposed CQC plan. See section

00800, ADDITIONAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS, paragraph 13.3. for plan requirements.

4.2. ELEMENT 2 - BONDING CAPACITY: The Offeror shall address their bonding capability defined below.

4.2.1. Proof of acceptable bonding coverage for the full contract. Performance and Payment

Bonding capability shall be evaluated to determine if the Offeror has the bonding capability to fulfill the requirements of the contract. The bonding will be considered acceptable when the Offeror provides documentation at the time of proposal, with verification from the Securities or

Bonding Company, to demonstrate their per task order ($22,000,000) and annual aggregate maximum capability ($44,000,000) for construction bonding in support of the estimated amounts for this contract. The corporate bonding surety must appear on the Department of Treasury

Listing of Approved Sureties (Department Circular 570).

5. FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE:

5.1. The past performance evaluation will assess the relative risks associated with an Offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the solicitation’s requirements as indicated by that Offeror’s record of past performance. In this context, “Offeror” refers to the proposed prime Contractor and teaming partners, subcontractors, or joint ventures. Past performance shall be assessed by evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s relevant, and recent past performance, and how well they performed on prior contracts. Sources of past performance information for evaluation purposes will be provided by the Offeror from the Performance Assessment Questionnaire, which will be tailored to this acquisition. Offerors are cautioned that in conducting the past performance assessment, the Government may use data provided in the Offeror’s proposal and data obtained from other sources, including but not limited to other contracts or subcontracts whether listed or not, and data obtained from other established systems such as Federal Awardee Performance and

Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) reports from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) website. Information may also be obtained from other sources available to the Government, such as the Defense Contract Management Agency, State

Department Watch Lists; and interviews with Program Managers, and Contracting Officers.

5.2. Relevant Assessment. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made (including joint venture partner(s) and subcontractor(s)). The past performance information provided in the proposal and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance information.

5.3. Recent Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. The past performance information provided in the proposal and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree that the past performance information is recent.

5.4. Performance on prior contracts. The past performance evaluation should determine how well the Offeror performed on prior contracts. Offerors shall identify and submit a separate reference for five of the most similar/relevant federal, state, local government, and private sector contracts and subcontracts the firm has performed within the last six years. To comply with this requirement, the Offeror shall use the format found in Attachment 15 of the RFP. Offerors shall send the Past Performance Risk Assessment Questionnaire Letter found in Attachment 15 of the RFP to their references (individuals and organizations), and request them to e-mail the completed questionnaires to lindsay.a.mclaughlin.civ@army.mil and alfredo.m.sanchez.civ@army.mil on or before the due date. The Government will consider the information gathered from The Performance Assessment Questionnaire as well as information obtained from any other source when evaluating the Offeror’s past performance.

5.5. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can reasonably be assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability / unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.” IAW FAR Subpart 19.6 mailto:lindsay.a.mclaughlin.civ@army.mil mailto:alfredo.m.sanchez.civ@army.mil

Certificates of Competency and Determinations of Responsibility, any Offeror determined “unacceptable” during evaluation of their proposal shall have the matter referred to the SBA Government Contracting Area Office serving the area in which the headquarters of the Offeror is located for a Certificate of Competency.

6. FACTOR 3: PRICE: JOC IDIQ price proposal shall consist of the Bid Schedule. Section

00100 Bidding Schedule/Instructions to Bidders, Paragraph 6, Coefficient Table, shall be submitted fully completed and error free. It shall contain the Offeror’s prices (coefficients) in the established format specified in the Bid Schedule. Coefficient means a numerical factor that represents costs (generally indirect costs) not considered to be included in the UPB prices. The coefficients are proposed as a percentage (in decimal format) increase or decrease to the UPB prices. For example, a coefficient of 1.2 would result in an additional 20 percent to the listed unit price; 0.9 would result in a 10 percent decrease of the listed prices, and 1.00 would leave the unit price as the proposed unit price. The Offeror shall limit the Coefficients to two decimal places.

The Offeror shall propose coefficients for each SubCLIN.

The Bid Schedule Table is shown below in PART II – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD, paragraph 2.3.3.2.

The Offeror shall fill out this table by inserting their respective coefficients for each of the associated working hour/condition categories in column (a), then multiplying each coefficient by the respective proportion in column (b), and summing each of these weighted coefficient factors to produce the single weighted coefficient in Column (c) that will be multiplied by $22,000,000.00 and result in the evaluated price in column (d). The sum of all working hours will equal the grand total and will be entered for NET AMOUNT under CLINs 0001-4001. All components of price shall be included in the Offeror’s coefficient, as no allowance for omitted cost will be made later. The Offeror’s Coefficients shall be all inclusive and shall include, but not be limited to, the following costs:

General and Administrative and other Overhead

Profit and risk

Bond premiums

Social security contributions

Insurance Costs

Employee Payroll Taxes

Insurance and Fringe Benefits

Subcontractors’ Overhead and Profit

Phase In/Phase Out

Site cleanup

Labor adjustments between the Unit Price Book given labor rates and the current Wage Rate

Requirement (Construction) Rates

Supervision

Quality control

Transportation of contractor’s personnel to, from, and within the job site

Shipping of all materials to the jobsite

Lodging and per-diem

Adjustment factors to account for small jobs

Incidental tools and equipment

Submittals

Job Order preparation costs

Any markups for materials and all contingencies

Corporate Headquarters support (legal, financial, etc.)

Waste and excess material

General Conditions

Sales tax on material and equipment costs

Compliance with EPA/OSHA regulations and protection and safety laws

END OF PART I – INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

PART II – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. BASIS OF AWARD:

1.1. The Government intends to award a single award JOC IDIQ contract to the Offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements, and judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in this solicitation, is the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable offer. As a basis for award, trade-offs between price and non-price factors are not permitted. Incomplete offers may be considered ineligible for award. As set forth in FAR 52.215-1(f)(4), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a single award JOC IDIQ contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a), Clarifications and award without discussions). Therefore, the Offerors’ initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint.

The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which and efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. If negotiations are deemed necessary, and proposal revisions are requested, they shall be submitted as an edited version of the original PDF document(s) with revised text readily identifiable using bolded font, red in color. The proposals will be evaluated on three factors: Technical Acceptability, Past Performance, and Price.

1.2. The Government will evaluate each proposal under source selection procedures to determine the extent to which each proposal demonstrates both the capability to perform and a clear understanding of the JOC IDIQ requirements.

1.3. Proposals shall conform to or exceed solicitation requirements, and will be evaluated to determine which proposal is the lowest price technically acceptable based on technical capability, past performance, and price. Award will be made to the lowest price technically acceptable responsible Offeror based on the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting the capability standards for non-cost factors in accordance with the terms and conditions of the solicitation and evaluation procedures set forth in Section 00100 of the solicitation.

1.4. The Government will assess the proposal against the evaluation factors, and the soundness, completeness, and adequacy of the approach. The Government will evaluate the information presented in the proposal; where the Government has specified a maximum number of pages, any information above the maximum specified limitation will not be evaluated.

2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

2.1. Evaluation criteria consists of factors and elements. The proposals will be evaluated under three evaluation factors: Technical Capability, Past Performance and Price.

2.2. The Government’s primary objective in selecting an awardee for the proposed contract is to make a determination based on a lowest price technically acceptable analysis of the proposal found under each evaluation factor.

2.3. EVALUATION FACTORS:

2.3.1. FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY: To be considered technically acceptable, Offerors must demonstrate the capability to provide the elements set forth below as required by the solicitation. Technical Capability will be based on the following elements:

2.3.1.1. ELEMENT 1 - Management: The evaluation areas specific to the Management element are Response Time, On-Site Staff and Quality Control Plan.

2.3.1.1.1. Response Time shall meet the minimum requirements listed in Attachment 1 STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW) paragraph 1.2. Google maps will be utilized to calculate your proposed ability to meet the minimum response time based on your proposed site location.

2.3.1.1.2. Your On-Site Staff shall meet the minimum requirements listed in Attachment 1 STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW) paragraph 1.3. POSITION

REQUIREMENTS/CONTRACTOR STAFF/KEY PERSONNEL.

2.3.1.1.3. Your Contractor Quality Control Plan shall meet the minimum requirements listed in section 00800, ADDITIONAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS, paragraph 13.3.

2.3.1.2. ELEMENT 2 - Bonding Capacity: Bonding capacity shall meet the minimum requirements in Section 00100, PART I – INSTRUCTONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS, paragraph 4.2.1.

2.3.1.3. Each Technical Capability element will receive one of the ratings defined below. The element ratings will be used to determine an overall rating for the factor. An Offeror receiving an unacceptable rating for any element within the Technical Capability factor will receive an unacceptable overall rating for the factor and will not be considered for award.

Technical Acceptable / Unacceptable Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

2.3.2. FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE.

2.3.2.1. Past Performance shall be assessed by evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s relevant, recent past performance, and how well they performed on prior contracts.

2.3.2.2. Relevant Assessment. To be relevant, the Offeror’s work experience must be similar in nature of work, size, magnitude, complexity and scope to that required under the solicitation. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine if it is the same/similar in nature, size, and complexity to the services/products being procured under this solicitation. When determining the relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, joint venture, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated.

2.3.2.3. Recent Assessment. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the six years prior to the date of issuance of this solicitation. Recent past performance is defined as not more than six years prior to the RFP release date. Past performance information that fails this condition shall be considered “neutral.”

2.3.2.4. Performance on prior contracts. In order for performance on prior contracts to be evaluated acceptable, Offeror must be rated on the Performance Assessment Questionnaire, “Satisfactory Confidence” or higher. Past performance, information that fails this condition shall be considered Unacceptable. An Offeror that provides no or sparse past performance information shall be rated “neutral.”

2.3.2.5. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can reasonably be assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.” IAW FAR Subpart 19.6 Certificates of Competency and Determinations of Responsibility, any Offeror determined “unacceptable” during evaluation of their proposal shall have the matter referred to the SBA Government Contracting Area Office serving the area in which the headquarters of the Offeror is located for a Certificate of Competency.

Past Performance Acceptable / Unacceptable Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown.

Unacceptable 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.

2.3.3. FACTOR 3: PRICE:

2.3.3.1. FIRM FIXED PRICE COEFFICIENT: Offerors are advised that only offers submitted on a firm fixed price coefficient basis will be considered and that offers submitted on other than a firm fixed price coefficient basis will be rejected.

2.3.3.2. The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness using price analysis techniques outlined in FAR 15.404-1(b). In the event that a different coefficient is proposed for Emergency or Accelerated Working Hours, an annual coefficient will be calculated based on a weighted average. The Offeror shall develop its annual coefficient(s) using the following procedure. For purposes of evaluation, the Government will assume that 96% of the work will be done during normal work hours, 1% will be done during emergency work conditions, and 3% will be done under accelerated work conditions.

Bid Schedule Table

Estimated Distribution of Normal, Emergency, and Accelerated Working Hours

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Offeror

Coefficient Proportion

Weighted

Coefficient = a*b Subtotal

Normal Working Hours 96%

Emergency Working Hours 1%

Accelerated Working Hours 3%

Grand Total

2.3.3.3. The Government, for evaluation purposes only, will multiply the weighted coefficient above by $22,000,000 representing estimated bare costs, to arrive at the evaluated price for purposes of determining the low price.

2.3.3.4. Completeness/Accuracy: The Offeror’s proposal complies with paragraph 3.

PROPOSAL FORMAT.

2.3.3.5. Reasonableness: A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

END OF PART II – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

(End of Summary of Changes)