Fort Hood JOC Amendment 1.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 Solicitation for Job Order Contract (JOC); Fort Hood, Texas is amended as follows.

See SF30 Continuation Sheet(s)

NOTE: Proposal Receipt date is 12 June 2020; at 11:00 a.m.,CST

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 2

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

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 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

W912620R0007

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

11-May-2020

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

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

4 -June-2020

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:

X 1

W912620R0007

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

CHANGES TO SOLICITATION W912620R0007

CHANGES TO DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

1. Section 00 21 00 INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS: The following changes have been made to section 00 21 00, each page bearing the notation W912620R0007-0001.

End of Summary of Changes

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SECTION SF30 - CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

The following have been added by full text:

52.228-1 BID GUARANTEE (SEP 1996)

(a) Failure to furnish a bid guarantee in the proper form and amount, by the time set for opening of bids, may be cause for rejection of the bid.

(b) The bidder shall furnish a bid guarantee in the form of a firm commitment, e.g., bid bond supported by good and sufficient surety or sureties acceptable to the Government, postal money order, certified check, cashier's check, irrevocable letter of credit, or, under Treasury Department regulations, certain bonds or notes of the United States.

The Contracting Officer will return bid guarantees, other than bid bonds, (1) to unsuccessful bidders as soon as practicable after the opening of bids, and (2) to the successful bidder upon execution of contractual documents and bonds (including any necessary coinsurance or reinsurance agreements), as required by the bid as accepted.-

(c) The amount of the bid guarantee shall be 30 % percent of the bid price or $3 Million, whichever is less.-

(d) If the successful bidder, upon acceptance of its bid by the Government within the period specified for acceptance, fails to execute all contractual documents or furnish executed bond(s) within 10 days after receipt of the forms by the bidder, the Contracting Officer may terminate the contract for default.-

(e) In the event the contract is terminated for default, the bidder is liable for any cost of acquiring the work that exceeds the amount of its bid, and the bid guarantee is available to offset the difference.

(End of provision)

The following have been modified:

SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS

SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS

A. OVERVIEW

The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria described herein, using the evaluation rating systems outlined for selection procedures. Price information will be evaluated for fairness, reasonableness, and for material unbalancing, as described herein.

Evaluation will be conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15.

B. BASIS OF AWARD

The Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed-price contract to that responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to the RFP, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, considering the non-price factors described herein, and price (coefficient) as determined by the Source Selection Authority. All evaluation factors, other than price (coefficient), when combined, are considered significantly more important than the price (coefficient). The intent of this RFP is to obtain the best value proposal. After the Government individually evaluates each proposal, the Contracting Officer/Source Selection Authority will compare proposals to determine which proposal represents the best value. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced (coefficient) offer or to reject all offers. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001. If there is a lower priced (coefficient), conforming offer(s), the Contracting Officer/Source Selection Authority must determine that the added value of a more expensive proposal would justify award to that Offeror.

C. PROPOSAL CONTENTS AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

D. VOLUME 1 - SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR VOLUME 1 - TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

Submit the Technical proposal in a searchable, unsecured PDF file titled:

“W9126G20R0007_Firmname_Volume 1_Technical.pdf”

*Enter your firm’s name for Firmname.

Factor

Location

Description

Relative Importance

FACTOR 1 Vol. 1 Management Approach Most important Factor

FACTOR 2 Vol. 1 Quality Control Program 2nd Most Important Factor, less important than Factor 1, more important than Factor 3 and Factor 4

FACTOR 3

Vol. 1

Past Performance

3rd Most Important Factor. Less important than Factor 1 and Factor 2, more important than Factor 4

FACTOR 4

Vol. 1

Sample Problem

4th Most Important Factor. Less important than Factor 1, Factor 2 and Factor 3.

1. VOLUME 1, FACTOR 1 - MANAGEMENT APPROACH

GENERAL: Offerors shall describe their Plan and Resources for execution of a Job Order Contract (JOC). Offerors shall possess an overall management capability to manage and execute JOC task orders. Describe management of work scope systematically and efficiently in order to maximize operational and financial performance, to minimize project risk.

a. Submission Requirements:

PLAN: Describe your plan and capabilities to respond to the Government's notification of a proposed Task Order requirement. Include your plan and capabilities to estimate, prepare, submit, and negotiate Task Order proposals within the range anticipated under the awarded contract; your plan to interface with the Government for informational, collaborative, and historical purposes regarding a wide variety of construction, maintenance and repair projects constructed simultaneously;

your plan for task order management under the awarded contract, including your plan for conducting meetings and tracking the high volume of task order projects simultaneously. Limit the Plan description to two (2) pages.

RESOURCES: Provide an organization chart depicting work responsibilities, reporting relationships, lines of communication, and authority to approve new work / changes to current work. Describe your corporate systems and capabilities to maintain the execution and completion of a JOC contract. Demonstrate your corporate reach- back capabilities for successful JOC task order execution, i.e.: plan of action for providing corporate support in a timely manner by providing resources from other parts of the corporation for unusual needs such as increased workload in a compressed timeframe, and how the Government will benefit. Demonstrate the ability to manage/construct (i.e. as many as 50 or more) small to medium-scale construction, maintenance and repair projects (typically in the range of $2,500 - $1,000,000 each), in different locations, simultaneously within the same military installation. Also, demonstrate the ability to respond to multiple concurrent requests for proposal by Government as this will be a common occurrence. Limit the Resources description to two (2) pages.

b. Evaluation Criteria:

PLAN - The Government will review the clarity, adequacy, capabilities and strengths of the Offerors described plan to respond to the Government's notification of a proposed task order requirement. The plan will be evaluated to determine the Offeror's understanding to estimate, prepare, submit and negotiate task order proposals within the range anticipated under the awarded contract, the Offeror' s plan to interface with the Government for informational, collaborative, and historical purposes regarding a wide variety of construction, maintenance, and/or repair projects simultaneously; the Offeror's plan for task order management under the awarded contract, including their plan for conducting meetings and tracking a high volume of task order projects simultaneously. Offerors who describe a clear understanding of the JOC process plan may receive a higher rating for this factor.

RESOURCES - The Government will evaluate the Offerors proposed corporate systems and capabilities to maintain the execution and completion of a JOC contract. An Offeror must clearly demonstrate their existing corporate resources and plan to procure new resources in a timely manner for unusual needs such as increased workload in a compressed timeframe. Offerors will be evaluated on their ability to manage/construct as many as 50 or more small to medium-scale construction, maintenance and repair projects in different locations, simultaneously within the same military installation.

The Government will evaluate strengths and weaknesses of the Offeror's description of their corporate systems and proposed personnel dedicated to the JOC team as well as the Offeror's plan to manage and staff the JOC team during both low, and high, volume proposal construction periods.

2. VOLUME 1, FACTOR 2 - QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM

1. Do not submit a quality control plan. Offeror shall describe their plan for inspection and acceptance of work.

Address how QC plans will be made project specific and provide pertinent information regarding inspection of work, correction of nonconforming work, and acceptance and close-out procedures for task order projects.

2. Offeror shall describe their plan to communicate and enforce task order requirements, workmanship and safety standards to work force (i.e. in house and subcontractors).

3. Offeror shall describe their plan for submittals and conformance to a Job Order Contract and its individual task order specifications.

4. Offeror shall provide information on how it will handle internal and external requests for information, shop drawings, progress meetings, site visits, contract completion, closeout, as-built and completion documentation.

5. Offeror shall describe their plan for providing; testing, quality control reporting, shop drawing support, proposed plan for quality control staffing levels and quality control responsibilities.

6. Offeror shall explain the development of the Job Order Contract safety plan as a living document and how Activity Hazard Analysis for individual task orders will be implemented into the safety plan.

7. The page limitation for Factor 2 is limited to fifteen (15) pages. Offers exceeding the page limitation for this factor will not be reviewed past the fifteenth page.

1. The Offeror will be evaluated on the following items and how they relate to JOC. Evaluations will be based on their narrative plan for inspection and acceptance of work, how the QC plans will be made project specific and provide pertinent information regarding inspection of work, correction of nonconforming work, and acceptance and close-out procedures for task order projects.

2. Offeror will be evaluated on their plan to communicate and enforce task order requirements, workmanship and safety standards to work force (i.e. in house and subcontractors).

3. Offeror will be evaluated on the description of their plan for submittals and conformance to a Job Order Contract and its individual task order specifications.

4. Offeror will be evaluated on provided information on how they will handle internal and external requests for information, shop drawings, progress meetings, site visits, contract completion, closeout, as-built and completion documentation.

5. Offeror shall describe their plan for providing, testing, quality control reporting, shop drawing support, proposed plan for quality control staffing levels and quality control responsibilities.

6. Offeror will be evaluated on their explanation on the development of the Job Order Contract safety plan as a living document and how Activity Hazard Analysis for individual task orders will be implemented into the safety plan.

3. VOLUME 1, FACTOR 3 - PAST PERFORMANCE

1. The Offeror shall demonstrate past performance through the submission of similar projects, using the Past Performance Assessment Worksheet – (Attachment 1). If the Offeror is a joint venture, provide past performance information for construction projects relevant to each of the proposed roles on this project. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division or unit submitting the offer. Offeror shall submit a minimum of one (1) and no more than five (5) projects completed or substantially completed within 6 years from the date of this solicitation that best represents their experience similar to the scope of work for this solicitation. If the project is an IDIQ contract, such as JOC or SABRE, substantially completed is defined as completion of the base year. If submitting an IDIQ contract, a list of completed task orders should be provided. The list should include task order number, period of performance of the task order, and dollar value of the task order. If more than one project is submitted, the Offeror may submit one project that is currently in progress and at least 50% completed. If Offeror is proposing as a Joint Venture (JV) and past performance cannot be provided as a JV, individual partners may submit his/her past performance information, not to exceed the maximum of five (5) projects total.

2. The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation (Attachment 2) is provided for the Offeror to submit to the client for each project the Offeror included in its proposal for Factor 3, Past Performance that does not have a final CCASS or CPARS evaluation or is a non-Federal Government project. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQ should be submitted with your 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). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If any negative past performance information is received to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond, the contractor will be given an opportunity to provide rebuttal. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, SFC Deltori Thompkins, via e-mail at:

kristi.m.pagan@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposals PPQ's previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

3. Do not request a PPQ on project(s) that have final evaluations. If a final CCASS or CPARS evaluation exists and a PPQ is provided for the same project, the CCASS or CPARS evaluation will be reviewed as the official past performance record for the project, and the PPQ will not be considered by the Source Selection Evaluation Board or the Source Selection Authority.

4. For USACE or other DoD projects which are underway but do not yet have an interim CPARS evaluation, one PPQ per contract may be submitted; to be considered, the PPQ shall be signed by the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) for the contract.

5. Offerors may submit performance recognition documents received within the last six (6) years, such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition relevant to the submitted projects to demonstrate the Offeror's performance capabilities and customer satisfaction.

6. Offerors may submit information on past performance issues and corrective actions taken to prevent these issues from reoccurring. Discuss whether these corrective actions have been implemented on contracts awarded subsequent to the performance issues, the effectiveness of the corrective actions, and POC information for the subsequent contracts.

7. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluation of past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS number(s) 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 Awardees Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

8. Projects will be considered relevant to this procurement if they are similar in complexity, in type, scope, or magnitude. Relevancy is defined as:

a) The highest project relevancy will be considered if Offeror is the Prime contractor of base JOC/ SABER contract. Provide list of JOC or SABER task orders awarded under the contract tor include contract values in Attachment 1 - Past Performance Assessment Worksheet.

b) The next highest project relevance will be considered if Offeror demonstrated management of contracts that contain multiple and concurrent renovation projects valued from $2,500 to $1,000,000.

9. The Offeror may provide a supplemental narrative (not project lists), not to exceed two (2) pages four (4) pages, explaining how any corporate past performance that is not directly related to the specific projects above is applicable to this project and how the Government will benefit.

b. RELEVANCY DETERMINATION:

1. The Government will evaluate the Offerors past performance to determine how relevant the past performance is to the project under consideration. Past performance on the projects identified in the project forms will receive more consideration than past performance provided in the supplemental narrative. The Government will place greater value on projects performed as a prime contractor than as a subcontractor, depending upon overall role and relevancy considerations. Federal Government project past performance will not be rated inherently more important than non- Federal Government project past performance.

2. More relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

3. Contracts with lower degrees of relevance will not be as strong of predictors of likely future contract performance success and will typically have less influence on the final past performance confidence rating.

4. Contracts that have little or no relevance typically do not influence the performance confidence rating; however, any contracts with adverse past performance could reflect larger company-wide concerns and may impact upon the past performance confidence rating.

5. Based on the relevancy of the projects submitted, an overall relevancy determination will be assessed as an interim step prior to establishing a confidence rating. For an overall relevancy determination of "relevant" or higher, the Offeror must demonstrate past performance that meets any defined aspects of relevancy on this project.

c. CONFIDENCE EVALUATION CRITERIA:

1. The SSEB will review the past performance information available, to include CCASS, CPARS and other past performance information deemed relevant, to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate past performance of the division or unit submitting the offer. If the Government cannot establish the Offeror' s relevant past performance, it reserves the right to utilize the Past Performance Questionnaire to conduct telephone interviews on any source it deems relevant to the evaluation. Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality of construction, timeliness, management of the work, subcontractor management, including timely payment to subs or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and contractor, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting construction errors, warranty work, etc. The Government will not release the information gathered to the Offeror at any time, in order for the Government to solicit candid, unbiased interview comments. The Government's evaluation is not limited to past performance information on the cited example projects.

2. In determining the performance confidence rating for Past Performance, the degree of relevancy/recency of all of the considered efforts; the overall performance record of the offeror on each contract assessed; number and severity of problems, the demonstrated effectiveness of corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised); and trend data will be considered. Contracts with higher degrees of relevance will typically have a greater influence on the final performance confidence rating. Contracts with lower degrees of relevance will typically have less influence on the final performance confidence rating however, any contracts with adverse past performance could reflect larger company-wide concerns and may impact upon the past performance confidence rating. Contracts which are comparatively more recent may be better predictors of likely future success than older contracts. The resulting relevant/recent assessment conclusions will then be combined, along with the assessed quality of performance on prior contracts, to arrive at a single performance confidence rating for the Past Performance Factor.

3. The confidence rating will be established based on the past performance of the firms or that of its predecessor, if applicable. An entity may not establish past performance based on the past performance of its key personnel apart from that of the entity. If the Government does not obtain past performance information and cannot establish a past performance record for the Offeror through other sources, a rating of Unknown (Neutral) confidence will be assigned. If negative information is received, the Offeror will be given an opportunity to provide input as required by FAR 15. CCASS and CPARs that are part of the official record will be utilized as if the Offeror has already had an opportunity to respond.

4. VOLUME 1, FACTOR 4 - SAMPLE PROBLEM

1. Offerors shall complete the sample JOC Problem below, and provide a cost proposal utilizing the given information below.

Use only the sample coefficients and CCI provided. Do not use your coefficients provided under Volume 2 - Price/Cost proposal.

SAMPLE PROBLEM - A customer located in an Administrative Building at Fort Hood has been approved to make renovations to their Conference Room. A HAZMAT survey was previously performed and determined there is asbestos under the existing VCT flooring. The building will be occupied during construction, so a portion of the work must be performed after normal working hours. The features of work were previously determined and the bare cost line items provided below are to be used in proposal development. Apply the appropriate coefficient(s) and CCI to the bare cost line item totals in order to determine the total cost for the project. Show all work. Do not add additional line items. Limit the sample problem proposal to one (1) page.

City Cost Index (CCI) Weighted Average 62.7%

Sample Coefficients

Item Description Coefficient Factor 0001 Normal Working Hours 1.12 0002 Other Than Normal Working Hours 1.20 0003 Non-Pre-priced Items 1.29 0004 Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint 1.37

Bare Cost Line Item Totals (All below totals are applicable to this sample project)

Normal Working Hours Total $ 18,486.00 Other Than Normal Working Hours Total $ 7,400.00 Non-Pre-priced Items $ 1,750.00 Asbestos Abatement Total $ 2,600.00

Offerors will be evaluated on their understanding of the utilization and application of the information provided in the sample problem. Offerors will also be evaluated on the correct application of the coefficients to the bare cost line item totals listed in the sample problem and the correct application of the City Cost Index. Offerors will be evaluated to ensure that items listed in the Coefficient Inclusions (Section 00 11 00) were not added to the total cost in the sample problem. Failure to provide the correct answer to the sample problem, or the inclusion of additional line items, may result in a deficiency for Factor 4. Offerors shall be able to apply JOC processes, line item estimating and proposal procedures utilizing appropriate coefficients correctly.

5. DEFINITIONS

Deficiency. A deficiency is 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. See FAR 15.001.

Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that significantly increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Strength. Any aspect of an Offerors proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Significant Strength. An aspect of an Offerors proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g. more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

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

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

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

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

Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable. Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is un- awardable.

a. Performance Ratings. A single confidence rating shall be assigned to Past Performance.

The relevancy determination will assess the Offerors past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired under this solicitation.

The confidence rating assesses the risks associated with each Offerors likelihood of success in performing the requirements stated in the RFP based on the Offerors demonstrated performance on recent contracts. SSEB members and the SSA may use personal knowledge or information from other sources in its evaluation of an Offerors past performance, provided such information is consistent with the established evaluation criteria of the RFP. Offerors that have no relevant performance record will be given a neutral/unknown confidence rating.

b. Relevancy Determination Definitions

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.

c. Confidence Rating System

Unknown Confidence (Neutral). No relevant performance record is identifiable upon which to base a meaningful performance risk prediction. A search was unable to identify any relevant past performance information for the Offeror or key team members/subcontractors. This is neither a negative or positive assessment.

Substantial Confidence. Based on the Offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence. Based on the Offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence. Based on the Offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence. Based on the Offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the

Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

E. VOLUME 2 - FACTOR 5 - PRICE AND OTHER REQUIRED INFORMATION

Submit the price proposal as one separate PDF file titled:

“W9126G20R0007_Firmname_Volume 2_Price.pdf”

*Enter your firm’s name for Firm name.

Location Description

Vol. 2 TAB A Proposal Cover Sheet

Vol. 2 TAB B FACTOR 5 - Section 00 11 00, Pricing Schedule

Vol. 2 TAB C The SF 1442 and Acknowledgement of Amendments

Vol. 2 TAB D Bid Guarantee (Bid Bond) Required.

Vol. 2 TAB E Joint Venture (JV) Agreement and/or Articles of Organization for LLC, if applicable.

Vol. 2 TAB F Section 00 45 00, Representations and Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors or Clause 52.204-8 if Offeror has electronic certifications in SAM

Vol. 2 TAB G Responsibility Information

Offeror proposal will be reviewed to ensure documentation is provided, as required.

1. GENERAL

Size Restrictions and Page Limits. Use only 8 ½" x 11" pages in PDF format. There are no page limits set for the price proposal.

However, limit your response to information required by this solicitation. Excess information will not be considered in the Government's evaluation.

Format and Contents of the Price Proposal and List of Tabs. The Price Proposal shall be appropriately labeled as such and shall be organized as indicated in the above chart. Note: If the Offeror is not required to submit any information under a listed Tab in accordance with the instructions below, that tab can be omitted. However, do not renumber the subsequent tabs.

2. VOLUME 2, TAB A - Proposal Cover Sheet

The proposal cover sheet is required by FAR 52.215-1(2)(c)(i)-(v) and must be submitted by all Offerors. This provision, titled "Instructions to Offerors-Competitive Acquisition," and the format for the proposal cover sheet is shown here:

3. VOLUME 2, TAB B - Section 00 11 00, Pricing Schedule

Submit the properly completed Pricing Schedule containing proposed line items. See instructions in Section 00 21 00.

All elements of the Offeror's technical proposal shall be included in each of the applicable coefficients listed for the project.

Note: The Government considers a coefficient below 1.00 to be unreasonable and that Offeror’s proposal with coefficients below 1.00 will not be considered for award.

Price will not be rated, but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of price analysis. The price evaluators will also check for appearance of unbalanced pricing schedule coefficients. Both parties shall presume that field overhead costs through the proposed contract duration are inclusive in the offered coefficients for the contract.

4. VOLUME 2, TAB C - The SF 1442 and Acknowledgement of Amendments

The SF 1442, Solicitation, Offer, and Award is to be completed by all Offerors and duly executed with an electronic or PDF scanned signature by an official authorized to bind the company in accordance with FAR

4.102. All amendments must be acknowledged by all Offerors in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30 or 1442, Amendment of Solicitation.

5. VOLUME 2, TAB D - BID GUARANTEE (Bid Bond) Required

PROPOSAL COVER SHEET

1. Solicitation Number: W9126G20R0007

2. The name, address, and telephone and facsimile numbers of the Offeror (and electronic address if available):

3. Names, titles, and telephone and facsimile numbers (and electronic addresses if available) of persons authorized to negotiate on the Offeror's behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation:

4. Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal. Proposals signed by an agent shall be accompanied by evidence of that agent's authority, unless that evidence has been previously furnished to the issuing office.

Provide a fully executed Bid Bond as required by FAR 52.228- 1 Bid Guarantee.

Submit a scanned copy of the completed bid bond, Standard Form 24, electronically with the proposal. Original bid bond must be received by this office within five days of proposal due date.

b. Evaluation requirement

This item is not rated. The Government will review the Bid Bond for legal sufficiency. The Bond must be legally sufficient.

Failure to submit a bid bond may make the Offerors proposal ineligible for award.

6. VOLUME 2, TAB E - Joint Venture (JV) Agreement and/or Articles of Organization for LLC, if applicable.

If the offeror is a joint venture, include a copy of the JV Agreement. If a JV Agreement has not yet been finalized/approved, indicate its status. JV Agreements must clearly indicate the percentages of the JV participants, in particular the percent of the controlling party, and a clear delineation of responsibilities and authorities between the JV parties. If the Offeror or any member of the JV is a Limited Liability Company (LLC), include a copy of the Articles of Organization. If the Offeror is a joint venture, each member will be required to submit the above defined certification.

7. VOLUME 2, TAB F - Section 00 45 00, REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

All Offerors must have electronically completed the annual representations and certifications in the "System for Award Management" (SAM) website or respond with the completed representations/certifications found in the solicitation.

The Offerors are responsible for ensuring that these on-line representations and certifications are updated as necessary to reflect changes, but at least annually to ensure they are kept current, accurate, and complete.

Additionally, the Offeror must also complete and return the "Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors" included in the solicitation.

If the Offeror is a Joint Venture, all participants must separately complete the SAM or respond with the completed representations/certifications found in the solicitation.

8. VOLUME 2, TAB G - RESPONSIBILITY INFORMATION

To be determined responsible by the Contracting Officer, the Offeror shall:

Have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them. The contractor will be required to provide the Name of the Financial Institution, POC, and phone number.

Have a satisfactory performance record as stated in the solicitation.

Have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics. The awardee will be required to provide at least three

(3) references for like work, to include Business Name, Point of Contact, and telephone number.

W9126G20R0007

Have the necessary organization, experience, accounting and operational controls, and technical skills, or the ability to obtain them (including, as appropriate, such elements as production control procedures, property control systems, quality assurance measures, and safety programs applicable to materials to be produced or services to be performed by the prospective contractor and subcontractors). Per FAR 9.104-3, acceptable evidence normally consists of a commitment or explicit arrangement that will be in existence at the time of the contract to acquire the needed facilities, equipment, other resources or personnel.

Have the necessary production, construction, and technical equipment and facilities, or the ability to obtain them; and

Be otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations

8. EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The Source Selection Evaluation Board will evaluate the proposals and assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor, utilizing the evaluation and rating system described.

End of Section 00 21 00

The following have been deleted:

52.228-1

(End of Summary of Changes)