W9124X13R00010003.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00100 - BIDDING SCHEDULE/INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

SECTION 00120

SECTION 00120

PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND BASIS FOR AWARD

1. GENERAL INFORMATION:

1.1. This solicitation is for multiple award indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ Task Order Contracts (MATOC). The Government intends to award contracts to a minimum of nine (9) qualified offerors deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whose proposals conform to the RFP's requirements and are judged to represent the Best Value to the Government. The Best Value is the most advantageous offer, price and other factors considered, and consistent with the Government's stated importance of evaluation criteria. Please note that the evaluation scheme for this solicitation is unique and is not purely a tradeoff analysis (FAR 15.101-1) or a purely Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable approach (FAR 15.101-2). Rather, the evaluation scheme is a “combination” of these two approaches, which is expressly allowed under FAR 15.101. Under the evaluation scheme outlined below, it is possible that the award may be made to a higher-rated, higher-priced Offeror; where the Contracting Officer determines that the merits of the non-price factors of the higher-priced offeror(s) demonstrate a best value for the Government.

1.1.1. To arrive at a Best Value decision, the Contracting Officer will integrate the evaluation of Past Performance, Technical and Price, with Past Performance and Technical being of equal weight, but when combined, are significantly more important than Price. While the Government and the Contracting Officer will strive for maximum objectivity, the evaluation process, by its nature, is subjective and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire evaluation process.

1.1.2. The source selection process will be conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15.3, Source Selection. Offers will be evaluated using the criteria listed in “Evaluation Factors and Basis for Award.”

1.1.3. The Contracting Officer will conduct proposal compliance review after closing for determination of basic proposal adequacy prior to providing the proposals to the board. Failure to provide a complete proposal consisting of all Exhibits, required in the 3 volumes and the Prototypical Pricing Sheet(s) E may result in the proposal being removed from further consideration for award.

1.1.4. Noncompliance with the RFP requirements may raise serious questions regarding an offeror’s technical and/or cost performance and may be grounds to eliminate the proposal from consideration for contract award. Failure to include all information requested may adversely affect the evaluation. A proposal that merely reiterates or promises to accomplish the requirements of the RFP will be considered unacceptable. A Proposal that is not presented in an orderly format may be considered noncompliant with solicitation instructions not evaluated and removed from consideration for award. A proposal that is orderly and sufficiently documented will be easy for the Government to understand and will enable the Government to perform a thorough and fair evaluation.

1.1.5. Offerors must ensure that no pricing information is displayed in Binder No. 2 (Volumes 2 and 3, Past Performance and Technical Proposals).

1.1.6. Although the assessment of Past Performance as a specific evaluation factor is separate and distinct from the Determination of Responsibility required by FAR Part 9, Past Performance information obtained herein will be used during the Government’s responsibility determination. The Government also reserves the right to obtain additional information solely for the purpose of making a responsibility determination from all offerors after receipt of proposals. Requests for responsibility information do not constitute discussions.

1.1.7. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer, in his/her sole discretion, later determines them to be necessary or appropriate. Further, the Government reserves the right to create or not to create a competitive range. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an 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.

1.1.8. ENFORCEABILITY OF PROPOSAL: The proposal must set forth full, accurate and complete information as required by this solicitation. The Government will rely on such information in the award of a contract. By submission of the offer, the Offeror agrees that all items proposed (if applicable, e.g., key personnel, subcontractors, plans, etc.) will be utilized for the duration of the contract and any substitutions will require prior Contracting Officer's approval.

1.1.9. The offeror shall be held responsible for the validity of all information supplied in his/her proposal, including that provided by potential subcontractors. Should subsequent investigation disclose that the facts and conditions were not as stated, the proposal may be rejected.

1.1.10. The Government reserves the right to reject any or all proposals at any time prior to award if such action is in the Government's best interest; negotiate with any or all offerors; award a contract to other than the offeror submitting the lowest price(s) or highest technically rated; and award contracts to offerors submitting a proposal determined by the Government to be the most advantageous to the Government.

1.1.11. Upon conclusion of evaluations the names of the apparent successful offerors, who are being considered for future task orders as an 8(a) set-aside will be provided to the , US Small Business Administration (SBA), 455 Market Street Suite 600, San Francisco, CA 94105, for an eligibility determination unless adequate documentation is provided with the proposal. The SBA must approve the joint venture agreement prior to award of an 8(a) contract to the Joint Venture.

1.1.12. Joint Venture Requirements - Parties wishing to propose as a joint venture must submit, with the Pro Forma documents, an executed copy of the joint venture agreement. The joint venture agreement shall be executed in accordance with FAR 4.102(d). Each joint venture partner shall submit evidence satisfactory to the Contracting Officer that its Board of Directors has approved its participation in the joint venture or by an instrument of similarly binding character in the case of an unincorporated entity. Offerors are reminded that to obtain an award the awardee, to include a joint venture, must be registered in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) database. Applicable to set-aside solicitations: Joint Ventures must meet applicable size standards (See FAR Subpart 19.1). Submit with the proposal any size determination for the Joint Venture entity received from the Small Business Administration. A Joint Venture where-in one party is not a small business may be referred to the Small Business Administration (IAW FAR 19.302 (b)) to determine eligibility. Note that there were significant changes in 2011 to the SBA requirements for a Joint venture Agreement in a small business set-aside. Ensure that you have the most up to date regulations from the Small Business Administration. All questions regarding this must be directed the Small Business Administration and not the Contracting Officer.

1.1.13. The Government reserves the right to contact the SBA at anytime during the evaluation process to determine eligibility of an offeror. An offeror found ineligible by the SBA will be eliminated for award under the set-aside.

1.1.14. All Joint Ventures must be registered in SAM as a joint Venture, prior to award. Given this solicitation is a 100% Small Business set-aside, in the event there is a question as to the Joint Venture size the Contracting Officer will refer the Joint Venture to the SBA for a size determination as necessary. Award may be delayed until the determination is received.

1.1.15. All Joint Ventures are advised to avoid a potential conflict of interest Joint Venture (JV) partners WILL NOT be eligible for individual MATOC awards in addition to an award to the JV entity. Proposals received for individual MATOC consideration from a JV partner will be found non-compliant and not evaluated.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS AND BASIS FOR AWARD:

2.1. The evaluation factors are Technical Capability, Past/Present Performance and Price. The relative importance of the evaluation factors is as follows: Technical and Past Performance are approximately equal to each other and when combined, are significantly more important than the Price Factor. The evaluation process will follow a sequence in which the Technical will be evaluated first, the Past Performance Factor will be evaluated second and Price factor will be evaluated third (and last). The evaluation process is as follows:

2.1.1. The Technical Factor will be evaluated first and will result in an offer being rated as “Acceptable” or ”Unacceptable.” If an offeror is deemed to be unacceptable, it will be set aside and will not continue further in this competition.

2.1.2. The Government will evaluate and rate an offeror's Past Performance using descriptive adjectives that most accurately define the evaluators confidence of offeror's performance risk considering each sub-factor identified in this section.

2.1.3. The Government will evaluate the reasonableness and realism of the total proposed price for the prototypical project and assign a reasonable or unreasonable rating to the price of the Prototypical Project.

2.2. PROCESS: The following process will be used to determine the best value for selection of the MATOC basic contract award.

2.2.1. The risk assessment of Past Performance and acceptability rating of Technical will be evaluated in conjunction with the price proposed for the Prototypical Task Order. To arrive at a Best Value decision, the Source Selection Authority will integrate the evaluation of Past Performance, Technical and Price; Past Performance and Technical, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. The firms that represent value to the Government will be selected for award of a MATOC basic contract. At the sole discretion of the contracting officer and if in the Government’s interest an award may be made to an offeror receiving an “unreasonable” rating for price.

3. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION

3.1. The evaluation of each Technical Proposal will evaluate and measure the ability of the offeror to effectively manage multi-discipline construction projects, provided in response to the submission requirements specified in Section 00110 and Exhibit D. The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal. The Government will rate an offeror's Technical proposal at the factor level on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis considering all subfactors identified in this section and the areas of consideration chosen by the offeror in section 00010.

3.1.1. Technical Ratings- An overall rating will be assigned.

ACCEPTABLE: Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE: Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation

3.2. An offeror shall obtain an “Acceptable” rating to continue further in the competition. Offerors who are deemed to merit an “Unacceptable” rating in the Technical Factor will be removed from further consideration for award.

3.3. The Government will determine, based on the information provided, if the offeror has demonstrated the ability to perform complete project management of construction projects at the dollar levels indicated in the Areas of Consideration. If there is lack of experience/required qualifications the onus is solely on the offeror to indicate in detail how the offeror plans to overcome this lack of experience/required qualifications. The Government, in its sole and broad discretion, will analyze the above-referenced plans to overcome the lack of experience and/or qualifications. In the event there are proposal weaknesses or omissions, if significant, the Government, in its sole and broad discretion, may be deem strengths in other areas sufficient to achieve an overall acceptable rating. An acceptable rating indicates the 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.

3.4. Volume 3 is limited to 10 double sided sheets (20) pages exclusive of tabs, indexes, dividers, and attachments listed in Exhibit D. Any additional attachments will be included in the page count. Pages in excess of the 20 allowed will not be evaluated.

3.5. The evaluation will be divided into six (6) subfactors. An overall rating will be assigned for subfactors one (1) through six (6).

1) Capability and Experience

2) Organization

3) Specific Personnel

4) Quality Control

5) Scheduling Methodology

6) Safety

3.5.1. Capability and Experience: Using the information on Exhibit D, and the projects/contracts discussed and listed in Exhibit A (Volume 2) the Government will evaluate the quality and extent of related experience, and determine if the offeror has the experience to manage multi-disciplined construction projects, which is comparable to the work requirements of this solicitation considering the dollar level and at the locations requested in areas of consideration.

3.5.1.1. To be deemed “Acceptable” the proposal must demonstrate that the offeror has experience with management of multi-disciplined construction projects, as well as the capability to perform multiple projects at one time.

3.5.1.2. To be deemed “Acceptable” the proposal discussion should address familiarity with construction in the locations selected, and familiarity with issues pertaining to work in this area and involvement of the local workforce.

3.5.1.2.1. Self-performance of a major disciple may offset limited multi-discipline experience. An offeror who has the capability to perform both as a prime contractor for multi-discipline projects and self-perform a major element of construction, for example, Electrical, or Mechanical or Roofing may be afforded additional consideration in the evaluation.

3.5.1.3. To be deemed “Acceptable” the proposal must demonstrate capability and plans for meeting Government requirements and shall address as a minimum, but not limited to, the following:

3.5.1.3.1. Section 00800 SC-4 Ordering Procedures For Competitive Task Orders, including, but not limited to, the emergency response requirements specified in this special contract requirement (SC); Note that response to a task order notice must be made by the prime contractor (Contract holder) or employee of the prime contractor. Response cannot be made by a subcontractor representing the contractor; and

3.5.1.3.2. SC-20 Limitations On Subcontracting. To be deemed “Acceptable” the proposal must demonstrate self-performance capabilities for 15% of the work on projects. Proposals that cannot demonstrate 15% self-performance and from the organization information provided appear to be mainly management may be found to be unacceptable as these contracts are not intended for construction management firms; and

3.5.1.3.3. To be deemed “Acceptable proposal shall demonstrate understanding of and plan to be in compliance with contract Clause 52.236-6, Superintendence by the Contractor. Proposals that fail to demonstrate understanding and commitment to compliance may be found to be unacceptable; and

3.5.1.3.4. To be deemed “Acceptable” the proposal must demonstrate the technical and administrative capabilities are adequate to meet contract requirements within the offeror’s chosen area of consideration.

3.5.1.3.5. To be deemed “Acceptable” the proposal demonstrates adequate USGBC LEED® experience and required qualifications to perform LEED® requirements if included in a project. If the construction team is lacking in experience with building to LEED® standards this may adversely affect the evaluation. Where weakness is due to lack of experience the offeror’s proposed plans to overcome this weakness will be given appropriate consideration. (Not applicable to offerors requesting $1M or less)

3.5.1.4. Organization

3.5.1.4.1. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s answers to Exhibit D questions and attachments concerning overall organization, organization chart, as well as number of personnel and the duties of proposed technical staff to determine if offeror has an adequate staff to manage projects within the areas of consideration chosen without significant difficulty. Note: The specific criterion proposed (skill levels, experience, and background) for personnel required in the element specific personnel, if adequate, may be utilized to help determine the organization adequate.

3.5.1.4.2. To be deemed “Acceptable” the proposal narrative should adequately address functions, responsibilities and authorities for performing such duties as overall project management, site superintendence, quality control, safety, administration and in-house trade capabilities.

3.5.1.4.3. If applicable, the support and interface with home office or corporate headquarters for such aspects as financial, management and technical support are adequately defined.

3.5.1.5. Specific Personnel – The Government will evaluate the quality and extent of related experience for adequacy the offeror’s answers to Exhibit D questions and attachments concerning proposed personnel for the following functions. To be deemed “Acceptable” the proposal must demonstrate the offeror has adequate key personnel to manage multi-disciplined construction projects, which is comparable to the work requirements of this solicitation and at the dollar level and at the locations requested in areas of consideration. Evaluation will consider the following:

3.5.1.5.1. Project management, site superintendence, quality control manager, and safety, as well as the list of major subcontractors who will be utilized throughout the life of the contract.

3.5.1.5.2. A resume or information provided for each proposed personnel should be included. The detailed background, education, and experience provided are indicative of acceptable experience.

3.5.1.5.3. Personnel must meet any applicable experience qualifications included in the special contract requirements or specifications. If proposed personnel are not currently on staff Letters of intent are provided where required.

3.5.1.5.4. The proposed subcontractors are verifiable, and information provided indicates a good professional relationship with Electrical, Mechanical, Roofing, Horizontal disciplines, Civil Site Work subcontractors. Subcontractors shall have completed Exhibit B in Volume 2, to be considered.

3.5.1.6. Scheduling methodology

3.5.1.6.1. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s answers to Exhibit D questions and attachments concerning scheduling methodology to determine if they have scheduling processes that ensure completion and control of the project from beginning to the end of the project.

3.5.1.6.2. To be deemed “Acceptable” the proposal narrative should demonstrate an understanding of the limitations of a schedule as well as an understanding that an appropriate schedule will result in successful completion of projects.

3.5.1.6.3. Applicable to offerors being evaluated for orders over $1 Million. To be deemed “Acceptable” the proposal adequately describes capability to meet Critical Path Method (CPM) format requirements and demonstrates the ability to appropriately utilize this method of scheduling.

3.5.1.6.4. Quality Control

3.5.1.6.5. To be deemed “Acceptable” the proposal narrative demonstrates that the quality control staff, with lines of authority, is adequate to meet the contract’s requirements.

3.5.1.6.6. To be deemed “Acceptable” the proposal Quality Control answers (Exhibit D) should provide a detailed explanation of how quality issues are dealt with on various types of construction projects and as a minimum, meetings, inspections, submittal reviews, correction of non-compliant work and how you intend to ensure non-reoccurrence and reporting of quality problems to Government officials. (Note: The proposed Quality Control Plan, if provided, will not be evaluated).

3.5.1.7. Safety Activities

3.5.1.7.1. To be deemed “Acceptable” the proposal narrative/ answers to Exhibit D questions and attachments concerning proposed safety program, includes an adequate discussion of:

3.5.1.7.1.1. Training and documentation.

3.5.1.7.1.2. Proposal demonstrates familiarity with, and/ or plans to adhere to, OSHA standards, USACE EM 385-1-1 (Safety Manual) and standard State OSHA safety requirements, if applicable. (Note: The proposed Safety Plan (if provided) will not be evaluated).

3.5.1.7.1.3. There is an adequate discussion of steps taken to promote safety during construction during the past three (3) years.

4. PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION:

4.1. The Past Performance proposal evaluation will consider such things as an offeror's business practices, customer relationship, and ability to successfully perform as proposed and other considerations considering currency, relevancy, sources, context, and trends. Past Performance includes current on-going (present) performance.

4.2. The Government will conduct a performance risk assessment based upon the Past Performance of the offeror as it relates to the probability of successful accomplishment of the work required by the solicitation.

4.3. The Government will rate an offeror's Past Performance at the factor level using descriptive adjectives that most accurately defines the Government’s confidence of successful performance considering all potential evaluation criteria identified in this section. Relevance will be considered in the overall Past Performance rating. Ratings will consider the offeror's Past Performance considering currency, relevancy, sources, context, and trends. The Past Performance evaluation will include, but is not limited, to the following listed in descending order of importance:

Quality- Management and Workmanship

Timeliness and adherence to schedule

Specification compliance

Subcontractor Management

Offeror’s business practices

Customer relationship

Overall customer satisfaction

Safety

Adequacy of safety programs

Compliance with Government small business concerns requirements

Adequate Utilization of Small Business Concerns clause (52.219-8) requirements (applicable to all offerors) Reference FAR 19.702

4.4. To conduct the performance confidence assessment, the Government may use data provided by the offeror, and data obtained from other sources. The Government may do but is not limited to the following: evaluate present and past performance information through the use of questionnaires completed by the offeror's references; use data independently obtained from other Government or commercial sources, including, but not limited to, Government databases; rely upon personal business experience with the offeror; and use the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance Relevancy Questionnaires (Exhibit A).

4.5. The evaluation will also consider information provided relative to corrective actions taken to resolve problems on past or existing contracts and trends in performance.

4.6. The evaluation may take into account Past Performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to this acquisition. If multiple subcontractors are provided for the same discipline, the government will use the lowest rated subcontractor in the evaluation.

4.7. Past Performance information on contracts not listed by the offeror, or that of planned subcontractors, may also be evaluated. The Government may contact references and contact parties other than those identified by the offeror, and information received may be used in the evaluation of the offeror’s Past Performance. While the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of providing current accurate and complete Past Performance information rests with the offeror. The Government reserves the right to obtain and evaluate Past Performance information from any source it deems appropriate.

4.8. An offeror with no Past Performance may receive a rating based on the evaluation of its predecessor companies, key personnel, and/or subcontractors, provided an Exhibit B has been executed and included in the proposal for proposed subcontractors and/or potential key personnel not employed by the contractor. These ratings may not have the same weight as the ratings of the proposing company. If such information is not applicable (i.e., the offeror does not have a predecessor company, key personnel or subcontractors with relevant experience), the offeror shall be evaluated as “unknown” (Neutral). However, the proposal of an offeror with no relevant Past Performance history, while rated “Unknown” (Neutral) in Past Performance, may not represent the most advantageous proposal to the Government and thus, may be an unsuccessful proposal when compared to the proposal of other offerors. Offerors without previous Government contracts shall be rated “unknown” (neutral) in the area of compliance with small business concerns requirements.

4.9. Currency, Relevancy, Trends: The Government will consider the currency, relevancy and trends of the performance information while conducting its performance evaluation. Exhibit As may be used for this purpose.

4.9.1. For the purpose of this solicitation, currency is performance occurring within the last five years through the solicitation release date. Within this period, performance occurring later in the period may have greater significance than work occurring earlier in the period. For example, performance information for work occurring during 2011 may have greater importance than performance information for work occurring during 2008.

4.9.1.1. In assessing relevancy, the Government may evaluate an offeror's references for similarity of the construction methods to the scope of this solicitation, multi-discipline, scope/type of contracts/projects, cost magnitude of projects as it relates to price, area of consideration requested, client type and location of work performed as it relates to the location(s) of work to be performed under this contract. Performance on managing multiple projects at one time may also be considered.

4.9.1.2. The Government may consider an offeror’s previous contracts in the aggregate in determining relevancy, should the offeror’s present and past performance lend itself to this approach. For example, an offeror’s work experience on three contracts may, by definition, represent only a somewhat-relevant effort when each contract is considered as a stand-alone effort. However, when these contracts are performed concurrently (in part or in whole) and are assessed in the aggregate, the work may more accurately reflect a relevant or very relevant effort.

4.9.1.3. The following weighting apply to relevancy considering all the elements listed above;

4.9.1.3.1. VERY RELEVANT - Past/present performance efforts involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires;

4.9.1.3.2. RELEVANT - Past/present performance efforts involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires;

4.9.1.3.3. SOMEWHAT RELEVANT - Past/present performance efforts involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities, this solicitation requires;

4.9.1.3.4. NOT RELEVANT - Past/present performance efforts involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities, this solicitation requires.

4.10. In accordance with FAR 15.306(a)(2), if award will be made without conducting discussions, offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposals, e.g., the relevance of an offeror's Past Performance information and adverse Past Performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond, or to resolve minor clerical errors.

4.11. Performance Confidence Assessment: In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

4.11.1. 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.

4.11.2. 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.

4.11.3. 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.

4.11.4. 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.

4.11.5. 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.

5. PRICE EVALUATION - The purpose of the Price/cost evaluation is to provide an assessment of the reasonableness of the proposed price/cost in relation to the solicitation requirements. Proposals will be evaluated in the following manner.

5.1. The Government evaluation team will conduct a Price evaluation of each offeror's Prototypical Price proposal to determine whether or not each proposal complies with the stated criteria: "Reasonableness".

5.2. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to award a MATOC IDIQ contract to an offeror with an unreasonable price on the prototypical project if found to be in the best interest of the Government. Those proposals evaluated as not satisfying all of the price/cost criteria may be eliminated from consideration for award unless the Contracting Officer determines:

5.2.1. A minor clerical error has occurred, in which case the offeror may be given an opportunity to correct the minor error within the constraints of the "clarifications" process, or

5.2.2. The Contracting Officer determines discussions are required.

5.3. Reasonableness of an offeror's proposal is evaluated through cost or price analysis techniques as described in FAR Subpart 15.305(a) (1) and (4). For cost (Price) to be reasonable, it must represent a cost (Price) that provides best value to the Government when consideration is given to prices in the market, (market conditions may be evidenced by other competitive proposals ), and technical and functional capabilities of the offeror.

5.3.1. Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between proposed performance and price must be clearly explained in the Price proposal. For example, if unique and innovative approaches or conditions are the basis for an unbalanced and or inconsistently priced proposal, the nature of these approaches and their impact on price must be completely documented. The burden of proof of Price realism rests solely with the offeror.

5.4. Discounts: Prompt payment discounts will not be considered in the evaluation of offers. However, any offered discount will form part of the award, and resulting delivery orders. Discounts will be taken if payment is made within the discount period indicated in the offer by the offeror. As an alternative to offering a prompt payment discount in conjunction with the offer, offerors awarded delivery orders may include prompt payment discounts on individual invoices.

5.5. In the event the Government does not award the basic contracts and the prototypical project pursuant to this solicitation within 90 calendar days after receipt of proposals the Government reserves the right to reissue the project as a task order request for proposal for re-pricing after award of the basic MATOC contracts.

5.6. In the event the current prevailing Wage Determination is changed by the Department of Labor after the closing date of this solicitation, the updated Wage Determination will be incorporated by amendment and issued to all offerors that have not been eliminated from the competition. If applicable, these offerors/contractors will be given a reasonable opportunity to provide revised proposals solely to amend proposals due to Wage Determination changes. This does not constitute and shall not be construed as discussions if award without discussions is contemplated.

6. CONTRACT AWARD

6.1. The Government reserves the right to award a MATOC to an offeror at an individual order maximum dollar level lesser than requested in “Areas of Consideration.” if deemed in the best interest of the Government. Individual order maximum may increase in option years at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer, based on demonstrated capability.

6.2. The Government intends to award the contracts pursuant to this solicitation without discussions. However, in the unlikely event the contracting officer determines that discussions are necessary to enhance the competitive base to meet anticipated mission requirements, or to provide opportunities to various socio-economic groups the following will apply.

6.2.1. The Government may make award of basic contracts in two rounds. Round one will include all offerors deemed eligible for award without discussions. Award will be made to these contractors following the appropriate notifications. The Government may issue task order proposals and make task order awards to the contractors awarded a MATOC in round one while discussions are being held with the remaining offerors determined to be in the competitive range.

6.2.2. The Contracting Officer will then make a competitive range determination of the remaining offerors. That means the contracting officer will determine which of the remaining offerors have the potential for award subject to proposal revision following discussions. Following discussions and final proposal revisions the selection of the round two awardees will be made and the appropriate notifications will be made.

6.2.3. In addition offerors whose business size has been referred to SBA for verification may be delayed and awarded in round two if their size status is confirmed.

6.2.4. When award is made in rounds all base period award completion dates will be the same. This will result in the awardees in round two having a shorter base period (less than two years) than the awardees in round one. Option periods 1-3 will start and end on the same date for all awardees.

6.3. PROTOTYPICAL PROJECT The prototypical project of this solicitation will not be awarded within the acceptance period specified in this solicitation as a task order against this awarded MATOC contract.

6.4. AWARD a written award or acceptance of offer mailed, or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer shall be deemed to result in a binding contract without further action by either party.

6.5. DEBRIEFINGS:

6.5.1. Offerors excluded from the competitive range or otherwise excluded from the competition before award may submit a written request for a debriefing to the Contracting Officer in accordance with FAR 15.505.

6.5.2. Written requests for debriefing will not be accepted by facsimile or email. Submitted means delivered to the Contracting Officer at the location indicated on the SF 1442 for receipt of proposals.

6.5.3. After award, unsuccessful offerors may submit a written request for a debriefing to the Contracting Officer in accordance with FAR 15.506.

6.5.4. Written requests for debriefing will not be accepted by facsimile or email. Submitted means delivered to the Contracting Officer at the location indicated on the SF 1442 for receipt of proposals.

End of Section 00120 (End of Summary of Changes)