AMR1.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

Solicitation W9126G-09-R-0016 is hereby modified as follow s:

a.) Clarify the Governments intent to aw ard TWO (2) contracts as a result of the solicitation.

b.) Correct the evaluation w eight of Factor 1 (See Section M).

All other terms and conditions of the solicitation shall remain unchanged.

POC is DeYon Francis (817) 886-1046.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 15

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 28-May-2009

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 W9126G-09-R-0016

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

08-May-2009

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 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-May-2009

CODE

US ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, FORT WORTH

ATTN: CESWF-CT

819 TAYLOR ST, ROOM 2A19

P.O. BOX 17300

FORT WORTH TX 76102-0300

W9126G 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W9126G-09-R-0016

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION G - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA

The following have been modified:

CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA

1. CONTRACT AWARD: A written award or acceptance of offer mailed or otherwise furnished to the Contractor shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party.

2. NOTICE TO PROCEED and PROSECUTION OF WORK: The Contractor shall commence work upon receipt of a properly executed task order or modification to a task order and complete the work within the time specified in each task order or modification to each task order. The Contractor shall furnish sufficient technical supervisory and administrative personnel at all times to ensure prosecution of the work in accordance with the delivery schedule within each task order. The Contractor shall insure that the work is executed in a professional manner and is prosecuted vigorously. The Contractor shall be responsible for checking, drawings, details, notes and other work products to verify that scope of work for each task order has been met.

3. PERIOD OF SERVICE: The contract period shall begin upon the date of contract award and shall, unless terminated sooner in accordance with the termination clauses in Section I of this contract, continue for a period of one year from that date, or upon total or near accumulation of earnings and reimbursements, whichever occurs first.

4. EXTENDING THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT: The Government may extend the term of this contract by written notice to the Contractor within the contract term including any option period exercised in accordance with the “Option to Extend the Term of the Contract” clause in Section I of the contract.

5. OBLIGATION BY THE GOVERNMENT: The Government is not obligated to fund the maximum cumulative dollar amount of this contract. The guaranteed minimum quantity of work which will be required under this contract, and which will be initiated by one or more task orders, will not be less than $5,000.00 for the basic contract. The appropriate military/civil fund availability evidence shall be cited on each individual delivery order or task order issued under the contract. No individual delivery or task order may exceed a total amount of $3,300,000.00 and must be a minimum of $5,000.00

6. ORDERING: To clarify the contract clause "Ordering" the following shall apply:

a. Services for each task order may be requested either verbally or in writing. Letter requests for proposal will be issued by the Contracting Officer or his authorized representative(s). Oral or telecommunication requests will be issued only by the Contracting Officer. Any type of request for proposal shall not be interpreted as a Notice to Proceed with the work

b. The Government request for proposal will delineate (1) general scope work; (2) location of work; (3) character and extent of services; (4) technical requirements which supplement or complement those contained in Section C of this basic contract; and (5) time period(s) within which the work must be performed.

c. The Contractor shall prepare an estimate of this time and cost(s) to perform the work and submit his proposal in writing to the person and within the time specified in each request for proposal letter. Verbal proposal, when so requested and authorized, shall be directed only to the Contracting Officer or his authorized representative(s). Itemized cost proposals shall strictly correspond to the units contained in Section B of this contract.

d. Each task order will be discussed by the Contractor and the Contracting Officer's representative's, as necessary, to develop a mutual understanding of:

(1) Type and scope of work to be accomplished, including accuracy criteria.

(2) End product required by the Contracting Officer.

(3) Existing site conditions, survey control, and other available data.

(4) A fair and reasonable estimated cost to perform the work.

e. Time periods within which required work must be accomplished will be defined in each task order placed against the basic contract. Each task order will contain the agreed to scope of work, type(s) of services(s) to be performed, specific deliverable items, and the negotiated fixed price cost for performing the work.

f. A modification to a Task Order may be issued at any time prior to final payment of the task order by the Government to change the requirements of the Task Order. No changes or corrections to a Task Order will be affected, or accepted by the Government, without the Contracting Officer’s issuance of a written modification to the Task Order. The Contractor is not to assume any adjustments to the Task Order in any form, until or unless a modification is issued

g. Task orders awarded under the unrestricted MATOC will be for specific detailed environmental or cultural field surveys for large areas; projects that require highly specialized teams of professionals for conduction media modeling (emissions, water quality, noise, etc.), and projects for complex engineering modeling. It is anticipated that those projects will require larger resource requirements in order to meet specific project completion timelines. In addition, many of those projects will require completion during optimal seasonal conditions, which also requires the use of more professional resources over extended periods of time.

h. AM R1 Two (2) MATOC contracts will be awarded from the same scope of work. These contracts will not compete against other contracts. The acqusition board will decide which task orders are best suited for this contract based on the complexity, skills base, and past performance.

i. If the Contractor believes it was not fairly considered for a particular task order, the Contract may present the matter to the Contracting Officers. The Contractor may appeal the explanation or decision of the Contracting Officer to the USACE Ombudsman. The Ombudsman will review the Contractor’s complain in accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(5).

7. UNAUTHORIZED INSTRUCTIONS FROM GOVERNMENT OR OTHER PERSONNEL:

The Contractor shall not accept instructions issued by any person employed by the U.S. Government or otherwise, other than the Contracting Officer or the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR).

8. DESIGNATION OF CONTRACTING OFFICER'S REPRESENTATIVE(S) (COR):

Designation will be made upon contract award and a copy of the designation letters will be furnished to the Contractor. Limits of authority are described in each designation letter.

9. DESIGNATION OF AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CONTRACTOR:

a. The Contractor shall appoint an individual to serve as a single point of contact and liaison between the Contractor and the Contracting Officer, and/or the Government representative, for all services required under this contract. Upon issuance of a task order, the Contractor shall furnish, in writing, the name of the Project Manager to the Contracting Officer Representative. The Project Manager will be responsible for the complete coordination of all work developed under the particular task order.

All work will be accomplished with adequate internal controls and review procedures to eliminate conflicts, errors and omissions, and to insure the technical accuracy of all information. The Government shall be notified, immediately in writing, of any changes in the Contractor's Project Manager.

b. The Government's Technical point of contact (POC) will be assigned for each individual task order. The Technical POC is the Government's representative responsible for the day-to-day management of the project. Questions regarding the technical issues under each task order should be directed to this individual. The Technical POC does not have the authority to change the terms or conditions of the contract including time and cost.

10. VISITORS TO AIR FORCE AND ARMY BASES: All vehicle operators are required to wear seatbelts. Vehicle operators caught not wearing seatbelts will lose their driving privileges on base for 10 days on the first offense, 30 days on the second offense, and 6 months or longer on the third offense.

Visitors are advised vehicle operators on all Air Force installations and operators of Government Owned Vehicles, both on and off installations, will not use cell phones unless the vehicle is safely parked or they are using a hands-free device. Violation of this policy will result in loss of driving privileges for 30 days.

This policy applies to all uniformed military personnel, DOD civilians, contractors, family members and any other non-DoD drivers operation a motor vehicle on all Air Force installations.

13. TASK AND DELIVERY ORDER OMBUDSMAN: The ombudsman is responsible for reviewing complaints from contractors awarded multiple award contracts to ensure they are afforded a fair opportunity to be considered, consistent with the procedures found in Section G (Duplicative Services). The USACE Contracting Ombudsman is:

Colonel Norbert Doyle, Office of the PARC, (202) 761-1900.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED (in descending order of importance)

1. FACTOR I – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

2. FACTOR II – PERFORMANCE RISK

3. FACTOR III – SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS UTILIZATION PLAN

4. FACTOR IV – PRICE

Factor Elements of the Factors

Factor 1:

Technical Capability a.

Comprehension of Solicitation.

b. Feasibility of Proposal evaluated.

c. Quality, Efficiency and Flexibility of Proposal d.

Management Capability

Factor 2:

Performance Risk

a. Past Experience.

Relevance of past experience (within last 5 years) to anticipated requirements.

b. Past Performance.

Overall performance which includes quality of service;

timeliness of performance;

effectiveness of management (including subcontractors);

response to technical direction and responsiveness to performance problems.

Factor 3: Small Disadvantaged Business Participation Plan

a. Offerors shall provide a Small Disadvantaged Business Participation Plan that contains all the elements (in the order and format specified) required by FAR

52.219-9.

Factor 4: Price a. Evaluation of pricing data submitted with the proposal.

AM R1 Factor 1 is approximately equal to Factor 2. Factor 2 is slightly more important than Factor 3. Factors 1, 2, and 3, when combined, are approximately equal to Factor 4.

EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be evaluated on the following factors.

1. TECHNICAL CAPABILITY: The proposal will be evaluated to determine the following:

A. Comprehension of Solicitation: The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfy the Performance Work Statement (PWS) as specified in the solicitation. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the comprehension of the specifications of the PWS and the extent to which each requirement of the solicitation has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the solicitation.

B. Feasibility of Proposal: The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror's methods, approach, experience (including key personnel) and management (including structure and authority) meet the solicitation requirements with a high level of confidence of successful completion within the required schedule. In the event that enhancements are proposed, the enhancements will be evaluated to determine whether the approach taken is feasible and will result in an end product that fully meets or exceeds the RFP requirements.

C. Quality, Efficiency and Flexibility of Proposal: The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the approach facilitates the implementation of a quality efficient plan to meet or exceed the solicitations requirements. In addition, all offerors shall demonstrate the manpower, skill group and equipment for each service required.

D. Mangagement Capabilities: The proposal will be evaluated to determine how the prime contractor will coordinate the efforts of multiple subcontractors to develop professional environmental studies.

2. PERFORMANCE RISK. The Performance Risk evaluation will assess the relative risks associated with an offeror's and proposed subcontractor’s (for major services proposed, e.g., environmental consulting services) 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. Each prime contractor will be assessed individually to derive their Performance Risk rating.

a. The Government will conduct a performance risk assessment based on the quality, relevancy and recency of the offeror's past performance, as it relates to the probability of successful accomplishment of the required effort. Areas of relevance include Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), Environmental Assessments (EA), Biological Assessments, Environmental Condition of Property reports; hazardous material/waste inventories and recovery plans performed nationwide in support of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Southwestern Division (SWD) used primarily to support Air Combat Command, Army National Guard, various installations under IMCOM, and the Department of Homeland Security. When assessing performance risk, the Government will focus its inquiry on the past performance of the offeror as it relates to all solicitation requirements. These requirements include all aspects of schedule, performance and supportability, including the offeror’s record of: 1) conforming to specifications and high quality of services; 2) adherence to contract schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance; 3) ability to resolve problems quickly and effectively; and

4) professional and accurate communication exchanges. Offerors with little or no relevant past performance upon which the Government can base a meaningful performance risk prediction will be assigned a rating of “neutral.” This is neither a negative or positive assessment.

b. Offerors are cautioned that in conducting the performance risk assessment, the

Government may use data provided in the offeror's proposal and data obtained from other sources. Since the Government may not necessarily interview all of the sources provided by the offerors, it is incumbent upon the offerors to explain the relevance of the data provided. Offerors are reminded that while the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of proving low performance risk rests with the offerors.

3. SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN Each offeror shall provide a Small Disadvantaged Business Participation Plan that contains all the elements (in the order and format specified. All offerors will be evaluated on the level of small disadvantaged business participation proposed for the anticipated acquisition, and their prior level of commitment to utilizing small businesses in the performance of prior contracts. This plan shall be submitted separately from the Small Business Subcontracting Plan information, which applies to large businesses. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is not a requirement for evaluation in source selection, but rather a requirement for award to a large business and will be incorporated into any resultant contract.

4. PRICE. The contract will be awarded to the offeror with the best overall value. In order to determine which proposal represents the best overall value, the Government will compare proposals to one another in a series of paired comparisons, trading off offerors’ values based on their overall performance on the non-price factors. In comparing two proposals, if one member of a pair has both the better overall non-price value and the lower price, then the Government will consider that proposal to be a better value.

(1). If both proposals have an overall equal evaluation for non-price factors, the government will consider the proposal with the lower price to be the better value.

(2). If one member of a pair has the better overall non-price value, but a higher price than the other proposal, then the Government’s Source Selection Authority will determine if the difference in non-price value is worth the higher price.

(3). If the Source Selection Authority decides that the overall non-price value is worth the higher price, then the Government will consider the proposal with the better non-price value and the higher price to be the better overall value.

(4). If the Source Selection Authority decides that the overall value is not worth the higher price, then the Source Selection Authority will continue to make paired comparisons in this fashion until he or she has identified the proposal that represents the best overall value.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

A detailed evaluation will be made of each offeror's proposal and the results provided to the Contracting Officer for determination of award. AM R1 The awards will be based on an integrated assessment of the areas set forth in detail below to determine the proposal most advantageous to the Government. Throughout the evaluation, the Government will consider "corrective potential" when a deficiency is identified. The Government reserves the right to make an award to other than the lowest priced offer or to the offeror with the highest technical rating if the SSA determines that to do so would result in the greatest value to the Government.

Award may be made to the superior offer, regardless of cost or price, provided that price is determined reasonable and affordable. Offerors must recognize that the subjective judgment of the Source Selection Authority is implicit in the evaluation process.

Factor Elements of the Factors Factor 1:

Technical Capability a.

Comprehension of Solicitation.

b. Feasibility of Proposal evaluated.

c. Quality, Efficiency and Flexibility of Proposal d.

Management Capability

Factor 2:

Performance Risk

a. Past Experience.

Relevance of past experience (within last 5 years) to anticipated requirements.

b. Past Performance.

Overall performance which includes quality of service;

timeliness of performance;

effectiveness of management (including subcontractors);

response to technical direction and responsiveness to performance problems.

Factor 3: Small Disadvantaged Business Utilization Plan

a. Each offeror shall provide a Small Disadvantaged Business Utilization Plan that contains all the elements (in the order and format specified) required by FAR 52.219-9.

Factor 4: Price a. Evaluation of pricing data submitted with the proposal.

AM R1 Factor 1 is approximately equal to Factor 2. Factor 2 is slightly more important than Factor 3. Factors 1, 2, and 3, when combined, are approximately equal to Factor 4.

SOURCE SELECTION PLAN

A. DEFINITIONS

1. Rating. The rating for the Technical factor and sub-factors and the Small Business Subcontracting Plan factor will be expressed as an adjectival assessment of Excellent, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, Susceptible to Being Made Acceptable, or Unacceptable.

2. Deficiency. A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

3. Strength. Any aspect of a proposal when judged against a stated evaluation criterion enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful performance of the contract.

4. Significant Strength. A significant strength appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably increases the probability of successful contract performance.

5. Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

6. Significant Weakness. A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

7. “Discussions” are negotiations that occur after establishment of the competitive range that may, at the Contracting Officer's discretion, result in the offeror being allowed to revise its proposal.

8. “In writing”, “writing”, or “written” means any worded or numbered expression that can be read, reproduced, and later communicated, and includes electronically transmitted and stored information.

9. “Proposal modification” is a change made to a proposal before the solicitation's closing date and time, or made in response to an amendment, or made to correct a mistake at any time before award.

10. “Proposal revision” is a change to a proposal made after the solicitation closing date, at the request of or as allowed by a Contracting Officer as the result of negotiations.

11. “Time”, if stated as a number of days, is calculated using calendar days, unless otherwise specified, and will include Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. However, if the last day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, then the period shall include the next working day.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION ADJECTIVES, DEFINITIONS AND CRITERIA

1. TECHNICAL EVALUATION ADJECTIVES, DEFINITIONS AND CRITERIA. The following rating definitions will be utilized in the evaluation of the technical factor:

Adjective Definition and Criteria Excellent The proposal has exceptional merit and reflects and excellent approach which will clearly result in the superior attainment of all requirements and objectives.

This clearly achievable approach includes numerous advantages characteristics of substance, and essentially no disadvantages, which can be expected to result in outstanding performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very low as the proposal provides solutions which are unquestionably feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered very low risk in that they are exceptionally clear and precise, fully supported, and demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirements.

Risk Level: Very Low

Good The proposal demonstrates a sound approach which is expected to meet all requirements and objectives. This sound approach includes and advantageous characteristics of substance, and few relatively minor disadvantages, which collectively can be expected to result in satisfactory performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is low as the proposal contains solutions which are considered feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered to reflect low risk in that they are clear and precise, supported, and demonstrate an understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: Low

Acceptable The proposal demonstrates an approach which is capable of meeting all requirements and objectives.

The approach includes both advantageous and disadvantageous characteristics of substance, where the advantages are likely to result in acceptable performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate, as the proposal solutions are generally feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered to reflect moderate risk in that they are somewhat clear and precise, partially supported, and demonstrate a general understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: High

Marginal The proposal demonstrates an approach which may not be capable of meeting all requirements and objectives.

The approach has disadvantages of substance and advantages, which if they exist, are outweighed by the disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages and disadvantages are not likely to result in satisfactory performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is high as the proposal contains solutions which may not be feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered to reflect high risk in that they lack clarity and precision, are generally unsupported, and do not demonstrate a complete understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: High

Poor The proposal demonstrates an approach which, based on very high risk, will very likely not be capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. This approach has numerous disadvantages of substance, and advantages which, if they exist are far outweighed by disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages will not result in satisfactory performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very high as the proposal contains solutions which are not feasible and practical. The solutions are further considered to reflect very high risk in that they lack any clarity or precision, are unsupported, and do not demonstrate an understanding of the requirement.

Risk Level: Very High

2. Performance Risk Factor Rating Adjectives, Definitions and Criteria. A rating of High Risk, Moderate Risk, Low Risk or Unknown Risk (as defined below) will be assigned to the Performance Risk Factor:

Adjective Definition and Criteria Excellent Essentially no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on their performance record.

Risk Level: Very Low

Good Little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on their performance record.

Risk Level: Low

Acceptable Some doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on their performance record.

Risk Level: Moderate

Marginal Significant doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on their performance record.

Risk Level: High

Poor It is extremely doubtful that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on their performance record.

Risk Level: Very High

Unknown The offeror has little/no relevant past performance upon which to base a meaningful performance risk prediction. However, “unknown” for performance risk is not below “acceptable” for purposes of receiving consideration for award.

Risk Level: Unknown

3. Small Business Subcontracting Plan (SBSP) Factor Rating Definitions and Criteria. The following rating definitions will be utilized in the evaluation of the SBPP factor:

Adjectiva l Rating

Extent of Achievement of RFP Small Business Subcontractin g Objectives

Extent to which SBP Goal Rationale Supports Achievemen t of Successful

Extent to which Corporate/Divis ion SB Participation Goals Satisfy RPF Objectives

Realism of Proposed

SB

Participatio n Goals Based on Proposal & Performanc

Strengths and Weaknesses

Overall Contract Performanc e e Risk

Excellent Proposed Goals Achieve or Nearly Achieve Almost all

RFP

Objectives

Extensive and Compelling Rationale for All Proposed Goals

Goals Achieve or Nearly Achieve Almost all RFP Objectives

Highly Realistic

Strengths Far Outweigh Weaknesses

Good Proposed Goals Achieve or Nearly Achieve Most

RFP

Objectives, with Meaningful Goals Against Remaining Objectives

Substantive Rationale for Almost All Proposed Goals

Goals Achieve or Nearly Achieve Most RFP Objectives, with Meaningful Goals Against Remaining Objectives

Realistic Strengths Outweigh Weaknesses

Acceptab le

Meaningful Goals Proposed Against Almost all

RFP

Objectives

Reasonable Rationale for the Majority of the Proposed Goals

Meaningful Goals Against Almost all RFP Objectives

Somewhat Realistic

Strengths and Weaknesses Are Offsetting

Marginal Meaningful Goals Against Almost all

RFP

Objectives

Limited Rationale for the Majority of Proposed Goals

Meaningful Goals Against Almost all RFP Objectives

May not be Realistic

Weaknesses Outweigh Strengths

Poor Failed to Propose Meaningful Goals Against Almost All RFP Objectives

B. RATING METHOD

1. Rating Package. Each individual evaluation factor of the offeror's proposal will receive a rating package containing the following:

a. Evaluation Policies and Procedures (Sections IV and V of this Plan)

b. Basis for Award, Evaluation Factors and Evaluation Approach (Section M of the RFP and Section II of this Plan)

c. Proposal Instructions (Section L of the Solicitation and Section II of this Plan)

d. Summary Evaluation Form (Appendix C)

e. Item for Negotiation Form and Item for Negotiation Evaluation Form (Appendix D and E)

f. Request for Proposals or Solicitation (RFP)

2. Rating Structure. The price factors will be evaluated and rated based upon the general and specific instructions supplied in Section IV of this Plan. The Price factor will not have an adjectival rating assigned. The rating definitions above will be used for initial and interim evaluations. The ratings, with the exception of Susceptible to Being Made Acceptable, will be used for the final evaluation.

C. PROPOSAL EVALUATION

1. All proposals will be received by the SSA/PCO not later than the hour and date given in the RFP. The SSEB will control all copies of the offerors’ proposals and other associated data.

2. Upon receipt of proposals, evaluators will read their applicable section to gain an understanding of the level of the information and determine if errors, omissions or deficiencies exist. Major problems will be reported to the respective SSEB Chairperson. The SSEB Chairperson will notify the SSA/PCO of any major problems.

3. The SSEB will assign the appropriate rating to each factor as set forth above. The SSEB Chairperson will prepare an overall narrative summary along with recommended factor and forward them to the SSA/PCO.

4. The SSEB Chairperson will review the narrative summary and recommended factor and provide an overall summary report (Initial Evaluation Report). This report will be forwarded to the SSA/PCO and shall contain the adjectival assessments for each factor (excluding Price) and the supporting rationale.

5. Any proposal(s) which the SSA/PCO determines to not be among the most highly rated proposals will be considered outside the competitive range and will be eliminated from further consideration, and the offeror(s) will be so informed.

6. The SSA/PCO may conduct discussions with each offeror retained in the competitive range. After the conclusion of discussions, any new information received from the offerors will be evaluated. This evaluation will be documented in a supplement to the Initial Evaluation Report (Interim Evaluation Report) and will consist of an update, which addresses each factor of the Initial Evaluation Report.

7. Using the Interim Evaluation Report, the SSA/PCO will amend the competitive range.

The SSA/PCO will give all offerors within the revised competitive range an opportunity to submit final proposal revisions by a common cutoff date. Any final proposal revisions received will be evaluated and the re-evaluation will be documented in another supplemental report (Final Evaluation Report), which addresses each factor of the Initial and Interim Evaluation Reports.

The Final Evaluation Report will not contain a recommendation pertaining to which offeror should be selected for award.

D. SOURCE SELECTION. The SSA will make the final determination of the offeror selected for award. The SSA in making a selection is not bound by the findings of the SSEB. The SSA is only limited in that his/her selection must have a rational basis in terms of the evaluation factors/sub-factors in the solicitation and must meet all legal and procedural requirements of the evaluation process. The final decision, which will be an integrated assessment based on the entire evaluation process, will be executed by the SSA. The Contracting Officer, after appropriate legal review, will then make the AM R1 awards and debrief the unsuccessful offerors(s), if requested.

E. ANNOUNCEMENT OF SELECTION. The SSA/PCO will make the announcement of the selection of a successful contractor directly or through his/her designee.

F. DEBRIEFING OF UNSUCCESSFUL OFFERORS. Debriefing will be conducted by the SSA/PCO, in concert with the SSEB Chairperson, in a manner that will be prescribed by the SSA/PCO and in accordance with FAR 15.506.

END OF SECTION M

(End of Summary of Changes)