A07.6_15-R-0036_Region_5_Amendment_0003.pdf

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

The purpose of this amendment is to clarify CLINS 0004, 1004, and 2004. The verbiage "Emergency Service Call" should not be been included in the solicitation. These CLINS are for the possible addition of future service locations being added to the contract. There have been clarifying remarks added to Section M of the solicitation. FAR Clause 52.216-8 has been removed from the solicitation as it is not relevant to the subject acquisition.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged. The proposal return date remains unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 10

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 19-Aug-2015

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 W91238-15-R-0036

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

21-Jul-2015

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

19-Aug-2015

CODE

USACE SACRAMENTO DISTRICT

ATTN: CONTRACTING DIVISION

1325 J STREET

SACRAMENTO CA 95814-2922

W91238 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W91238-15-R-0036

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0004

The CLIN description has changed from Base Period Optional Service Call to Base Period Optional Service Call **.

SUBCLIN 0004AA

The CLIN description has changed from CA207 to CA207 **.

CLIN 1004

The CLIN description has changed from Period 1 Optional Service Call to Period 1 Optional Service Call

SUBCLIN 1004AA

CLIN 2004

The CLIN description has changed from Period 2 Optional Service Call to Period 2 Optional Service Call

SUBCLIN 2004AA

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been deleted:

52.216-8 Fixed Fee JUN 2011

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The Table of Contents has changed from:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 1 Revised PWS 373 07-AUG-2015 Attachment 2 QASP 11 01-MAY-2015 Attachment 3 ELINS 5/27/2015 1 27-MAY-2015 Attachment 4 Wage Determination (All

Associated SCA)

50 22-DEC-2014

to:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 1 Revised PWS 373 07-AUG-2015 Attachment 2 QASP 11 01-MAY-2015 Attachment 3 ELINS 5/27/2015 1 27-MAY-2015 Attachment 4 Wage Determination(s) 50 08-JUL-2015

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government intends to award ONE (1) contract to a Small Business to the responsible offeror whose proposal(s) is determined to be most advantageous to the Government in accordance with the following relationship between price and technical merit:

The technical evaluation factors, when combined, are approximately greater than the cost or price. The Government is concerned with striking the most advantageous balance between technical, quality and/or past performance features and cost to the Government.

B. FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The Government will select the proposal that represents the best value to the Government by using the tradeoff process. This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-price factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal.

Concurrent with or upon completing the evaluation of all non-price proposals, the Contracting Officer will, in accordance with the provisions of this RFP and applicable acquisition regulations, evaluate price.

In the event that discussions are determined necessary, the Contracting Officer will conduct discussions with Offeror’s determined to be within the competitive range. In determining the competitive range, the Government will include analysis of the non-price and price proposals of Offeror’s. Upon conclusion of discussions, the Contracting Officer will request final proposal revisions and may, upon receipt of final proposal revisions, proceed to award a contract without further discussions or notice.

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

NON-PRICE FACTORS: The purpose of the non-price factors is to assess whether the Offeror’s proposal will satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. An unacceptable evaluation for any one of these factors will result in an overall unacceptable proposal

Factor 1: Corporate Relevant Experience Factor 2: Understanding of the Work Factor 3: Past Performance Factor 4: Small Business Participation Plan

RELATIVE WEIGHTING OF THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

The following Technical Evaluation Factors are listed in descending order of importance:

Factor 1 – Corporate Relative Experience is the most heavily weighted factor.

Factor 2 – Understanding of Work is weighted the same as Factor 1.

Factor 3 – Past Performance is weighted less than both factors 1 and 2.

Factor 4 – Small Business Participation Plan in the least weighted factor.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB).

NON PRICE FACTORS: Data provided in response to the non-price factors described below shall be included in Volume I, “Non-Price Proposal.” If the Offeror is a joint venture, the Offeror must provide evidence of a binding teaming agreement or other contractual agreement, which creates legal responsibility on the part of all contractors in the joint venture and submit evidence or confirm that the J.V. submitted its paperwork to its local Small Business Administration Office for this specific requirement. If the Offeror proposes to utilize a “key subcontractor” as described in FAR 9.6, it is Government policy to recognize the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements. For a teaming arrangement to be recognized for purposes of source selection evaluation and the application of non-price factors, there must be full disclosure of the teaming arrangement and company relationships in the team's proposal. The proposal must include a narrative that explains the major or critical aspects of the work to be performed by each team member. The proposal must also include an agreement that has been or will be executed prior to award between/among all team members. The proposal and agreement must be consistent; substantive inconsistencies between the proposal and agreement may be construed against the offeror. In the case of prime-sub teams, the prime contractor remains fully responsible for contract performance, regardless of any team arrangement between the prime contractor and its subcontractors.

However, consistent with FAR 9.104, the Government may consider the responsibility of subcontractor team members when it may adversely affect the prospective prime contractor’s responsibility or when it is in the Government’s interest to do so.

The team agreement submitted with the proposal will govern the performance of the work by the team.

The agreement must address the following items: identification of team members, a full delineation of roles and responsibilities of team members, and the duration of the agreement. In the case of Joint Ventures or other partnerships seeking award to the team as a prime contractor, the agreement must indicate the percentages of the participants, in particular the percent of the controlling party. In the case of a prime-sub team, the agreement must reflect that the prime contractor is vested with control and responsibility for the daily management of the work, and that it remains responsible for contract performance, including those items allocated to a subcontractor on the team. Contractor teams should not submit an agreement in their proposal that is subject to substantive revision because the agreement will be part of the evaluation process. The timely submission of the executed teaming agreement prior to award shall be a precondition to a finding of responsibility. In the case of prime-sub teams, any resulting subcontract(s) may not deviate from the substantive provisions of the teaming agreement.

Regardless of any provision to the contrary in a team or subcontract agreement, all members of a recognized team arrangement are bound to perform any resulting contract and options by means of the same team. There can be no substitution of subcontractor team members except that, in the case of a prime-sub team arrangement, the Government may (in its sole discretion and without any obligation whatsoever), at the request of the prime, permit the substitution of a subcontractor with equivalent or greater capability for a subcontractor on the identified team. The failure of the Offeror to perform with one or more subcontractors on a recognized team may be grounds for termination for default. Note: Only a Contracting Officer can approve such a change after contract award.

For evaluation purposes, the definition of a relevant contract is as follows: A recent contract awarded to the Offeror (or in the case of an Offeror which is a JV, a contract awarded to either member of the JV) as the prime contractor:

a. completed no earlier than five calendar years before the closing date of the RFP Or

b. ongoing for at least one year before the closing date of RFP.

In addition, a relevant contract must include the following:

c. Similar in size, scope, and complexity to the work per section 1502000. paragraph 3 in this solicitation.

d. A contract value of no less than $1,000,000.

Factor 1, Corporate Relevant Experience: Offers shall submit a minimum of three (3) relevant contracts, but no more than four (4). If there is a teaming arrangement, a minimum of 3 relevant contracts are required from the prime. Offeror’s shall complete and provide a Corporate Relevant Specialized Experience Data Sheet for each relevant contract; refer to Appendix 2. The Corporate Relevant Specialized Experience Data Sheet shall not exceed 2 pages per contract. The Government’s experience evaluation will include an assessment of whether the Offeror demonstrates the ability to accomplish the work specified under the RFP. This assessment will be based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances. Evaluators will assess experience on each relevant contract as defined above. For the experience evaluation, Offeror’s will be rated utilizing the chart provided below:

Blue Outstanding Quotation meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

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

Green Acceptable Quotation 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.

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

Red Unacceptable Quotation does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Quotation is un-awardable.

Factor 2, Understanding of the Work: Evaluators will determine whether the Offeror’s demonstrates an understanding of the complexity and magnitude of service requirements set forth in the performance objectives and standards of the Performance Work Statement.

At a minimum, the proposal submission for this factor shall include a brief narrative (conceptual work plan) that clearly demonstrates an understanding of requirements of the solicitation. At a minimum, the narrative shall address how the Offeror will perform Service Calls (routine and emergency); develop and implement a Preventative Maintenance Program; provide Inspection, Testing and Certification services and perform IDIQ work that includes facility repair, restoration and modernization work. The narrative should contain a description of the:

a) Work in terms of required activities and their interrelationships and interdependencies;

b) Appropriate types of resources required to perform the work and of their appropriate allocation to the work activities in multiple locations during weekdays, weekends, and holidays when applicable;

c) Difficulties, uncertainties and risks associated with the work; and

d) Personnel and subcontractors necessary to perform the work

e) Organizational chart

f) Ability to inspect, repair, maintain, test, certify, and operate the equipment and systems required by the RFP

g) Ability to create and maintain the CMMS performance requirement as specified in Annex 0200000 2.6.4.1. This description shall include the names of all proprietary and/or COTS software the Contractor will utilize for this effort.”

The information shall provide charts, tables, sketches and maps as needed to make the work approach understandable. The narrative shall not exceed 2577 pages.

More consideration will be given to an Offeror for this factor that demonstrates any of the following:

i) A thorough understanding of the current commercial standards, policies, procedures, and processes utilized in each of the service areas identified in the PWS

(ii) A thorough understanding of the interrelationships and interdependencies associated with each of the service areas identified in the PWS, as well as administering the contract as a whole

(iii) A thorough understanding of the difficulties, uncertainties and risks associated with each of the service areas identified in the PWS, as well as administering the contract as a whole

(iv) A logical performance approach each of the service areas identified in the PWS, as well as administering the contract as a whole

(v) Management & administration capabilities commensurate with the magnitude of the resulting contract.

To meet any single criterion listed for this factor, Offeror’s must address EACH CRITERION as it pertains to EACH SERVICE (HVAC, electrical, plumbing, carpentry, painting, paving (of potholes), miscellaneous mechanical work and associated operation and maintenance activities etc.)(See 1502000 block 1.1 for list of items). Offeror must address items A-G listed above.

Organizational Chart: The offeror shall provide an organizational chart that identifies key personnel and individuals on the project team that show clear lines of authority, responsibility, and communication between corporate staff, key on-site staff, and subcontractor interface. Offeror’s should propose a logical flow of authority and demonstrate how assigned responsibilities and experience of proposed on-site personnel for the multiple geographic sites will enhance operation of the project.

For the Understanding of the Work evaluation, Offeror’s will be rated utilizing the chart provided below:

Blue Outstanding Quotation meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

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

Green Acceptable Quotation 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.

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

Red Unacceptable Quotation does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Quotation is un-awardable.

Factor 3, Past Performance: The Government’s past performance evaluation will include an assessment of past performance on relevant contracts (as defined above). The evaluators will assess whether the Offeror has obtained an overall satisfactory past performance rating on relevant contracts, to demonstrate the ability of the Offeror to accomplish the work specified under the RFP. Key focus areas will include the following (see PPQ):

・ Quality

・ Schedule/Timeliness of Performance

・ Customer Satisfaction

・ Management/Personnel/Labor

・ Cost/Financial Management

・ Safety/Security

This assessment will be based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, including any trends in past performance. Offeror’s shall complete and provide a Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire Forms from Appendix 3 on the same contracts submitted for consideration under Factor 1, Corporate Relevant Experience. This information sheet shall not exceed 2 pages per contract.

The offeror shall complete Blocks 1-4 of the provided Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ, Appendix

3) and have the Contracting Activity and the Technical Representative responsible for the past/current contract complete the remainder of the contract. Offeror shall ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires shall be submitted with the proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s).

Offeror’s 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 via email no later than the closing date of this RFP. Include Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS) performance evaluation ratings, if available. For projects which were performed for other government entities, submit the performance appraisal sheets used by that government entity if available.

Also include performance recognition documents received for the Factor 1 projects such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

The Government may call and confirm information provided by the offeror on the Past Performance Information Sheet with the points of contact. The Government reserves the right to interview other individuals if the point of contact is not available. If an offeror has no relevant past performance history, the offeror must affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant directly related or similar past performance.

The Government may use data provided by the Offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources. 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), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror. In rating past performance, the Government may consider available past performance information on predecessor companies, or employment histories of key personnel, or major subcontractors performing key elements of the project. 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.

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type and degree of subcontract/teaming. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts.

1. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings (Adjectival) -- Past performance analysis provides insight into an offeror’s probability of successfully completing the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s performance record on similar contract efforts.

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

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

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved 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. Past Performance Confidence Assessment - Performance confidence is the confidence associated with an offeror's likelihood of success in performing the solicitation's requirements as indicated by that offeror's record of current or past performance. Performance Confidence Assessment: In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in accordance with the table below (Reference FAR 15.305(2) for information on assigning an unknown/neutral confidence rating.)

Rating Description 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.

FACTOR 4 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

The Government will evaluate the extent of participation of small businesses in performance of the contract and the extent to which offerors identify and commit to small businesses and historically black colleges or universities and minority institutions in performance of the contract, whether as a joint venture, teaming arrangement, or subcontractor. In accordance with DFARS PGI 215.304(c)(i)(A), Small Business Participation Plans will be evaluated on the basis of:

(1) The extent to which such firms are specifically identified in proposals;

(2) The extent of commitment to use such firms (for example, enforceable commitments are to be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones);

(3) The complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform;

(4) The extent of participation of such firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition.

**Please note, per FAR 52.219-14 your firm will need to perform at least 50% of the cost of the contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the concern.

The goal for small business participation is 40%. It should be noted, this is in addition to the 50% performed by your firm.

The goals for small business subcategories are as follows:

Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) 10% Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Business 7% Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) 3%

Small Business Subcontracting Plan – This section will not be evaluated as part of the source selection however, it will not be evaluated by the rating SSEB. This factor will be evaluated by our local Small Business Specialist.

Adjectival Rating Methodology used for Factor 4 (Small Business Participation) Adjective Definition and Criteria

Excellent

Proposal significantly exceeds requirements (offers 47% or more) and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths. SB firm(s) are specifically identified in the proposal; demonstrates substantive commitment to SB firm(s), for example enforceable commitment with 3 or more firms thru utilization of Joint Venture, mentor-protégé or teaming agreement;

identifies the complexity and variety of work small businesses are to perform;

demonstrates commitment to exceed the SB Participation goal; meets all 3 subcategory small business goals.

Good

Proposal exceeds requirements (offers 43% or more) and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. SB firm(s) are specifically identified in the proposal; demonstrates substantive commitment to SB firm(s), for example enforceable commitment with 2 or more firms thru utilization of Joint Venture, mentor-protégé or teaming agreement ; identifies the complexity and variety of work small businesses are to perform; demonstrates commitment to exceed the SB Participation goal; and meets 3 subcategory small business goals.

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements (offers 40% or more) and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. SB firm(s) are specifically identified in the proposal;

demonstrates substantive commitment to SB firm(s), for example enforceable commitment with 1 or more firms thru utilization of Joint Venture, mentor/protégé or teaming agreement; identifies the complexity and variety of work small businesses are to perform; demonstrates commitment to meet the 40% SB Participation goal; and meets 2 subcategory small business goals.

Unacceptable

Proposal is unacceptable, and does not clearly meet requirements (less than 40% goal) and/or has not clearly demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains one or more deficiencies for example SB firm(s) are not clearly identified in the proposal; or proposal does not clearly demonstrate a commitment to SB firm(s); or does not clearly identify the complexity and variety of work small businesses are to perform; or does not clearly demonstrate commitment to meet the 40% SB Participation goal and does not meet at least any of the subcategory small business goals.

PRICE: Offeror’s will be required to price all line items for each contract period (base and option years).

Price will not be scored, but will be a factor in establishing the competitive range prior to discussions (if held) and in making the final determination for award. The Government will perform a price analysis on all proposals received. Price analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, to determine completeness, balanced pricing, reasonableness, and understanding of the work. The evaluation will determine the adequacy of the offer in fulfilling the requirements of the proposal. Completeness addresses the extent to which the elements of the price proposal are consistent with the requirements of the RFP.

Contract Line Items (CLINS) will be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced. If the price analysis indicates that an offer is unbalanced the contracting officer shall consider the risks to the Government associated with the unbalanced pricing in determining the reasonableness of the offer. An offer will be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(End of Summary of Changes)