B.08_19R21P01.pdf

W66QKZ80535848-0001

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to change the language regarding submitting electronic proposals in Section L.

All other erms and conditions remain unchanged.

POC: Jason Tanamor, Jason.N.Tanamor@usace.army.mil

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 11

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 16-Nov-2018

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 W9127N19R0021

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

08-Nov-2018

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

16-Nov-2018

CODE

USACE PORTLAND DISTRICT

333 SW 1ST AVE

PORTLAND OR 97204-3440

W9127N 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W9127N19R0021

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The following have been modified:

BIDDER INQUIRIES

(All inquiries regarding this solicitation are to be submitted via ProjNet-Bid. Telephone and email inquiries will not be accepted. ProjNet-Bid is a web-based program that allows offerors to post questions regarding the solicitation, and to view all questions by other offerors, and answers by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

ProjNet-Bid can be accessed through the ProjNet website: https://www.projnet.org/projnet/.

To access the ProjNet-Bid website the first time:

1) Register.

2) Click Quick Add Key. (The Agency is USACE.)

3) Enter the following information for access:

The Bidder Inquiry Key: 3PDH7G-UFC8PX.

Valid business contact information (e.g. Company name, contact person, business address, phone number and email address). (required on first project only)

Establish secret question and answer which will be used as a password (required on first project only)

4) For subsequent access use your email address, the Bid Inquiry Key and response to the secret question to access the ProjNet-Bid Module 00100.

5) Submit questions or review questions and answers. (A bidder who submits a question will receive an automated email notification that their question has been received. When an answer is posted to a question, the question and answer is then available for all other bidders to review.

6) For a specific step-by-step for POSTING YOUR INQUIRIES, is available in the Reference link on the Contract Viewer.

7) For questions about the ProjNet-Bid, please contact the Call Center help desk. The contact information is listed on the ProjNet website.

No response will be posted to inquiries after the Close of Business on the 7th business day preceding the solicitation due date. All bidders will be held to have reviewed the questions and responses in ProjNet-Bid prior to bid submission.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

I. INTRODUCTION

Your firm is invited to submit a proposal in response to Request for Proposal (RFP) Number W9127N-19-R-0021 for the project entitled “John Day Dam New 20-Ton Trash Rake Gantry Crane”. The Government intends to procure this requirement on a competitive basis in accordance with the provisions set forth in FAR Part 15 Contracting by Negotiation, and within this RFP.

The Offeror’s proposal shall be submitted electronically as detailed below. It is the Offeror's responsibility to confirm receipt prior to the proposal submission deadline. If the Offeror does not receive the confirmation, it is the Offeror’s responsibility to follow up to ensure the Government has received the information.

ELECTRONIC PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

1. File format

The electronic proposal shall be Portable Document Format, filename extension: “.pdf” and suitable for viewing in Adobe Reader. Offerors shall bookmark and label each electronic PDF to afford easy identification from the proposal table of contents.

2. Number of files The volume contents shall be presented as two files; Volume I - Technical Proposal and Volume II - Price.

3. Method of submission: Proposals shall be submitted using the RepliWeb system at https://filetransfer.usace.army.mil/.

The RepliWeb Application is used to send large files to individuals that would normally be too large to send via email. Access to the RepliWeb Application requires registration. To register, please email Jason.N.Tanamor@usace.army.mil requesting access. You will then receive an invitation via email that will allow you to register for the site and subsequently submit your proposal. As obtaining access to the RepliWeb Application is a multi-step process, Offerors are encouraged to request access well in advance of the proposal submission deadline.

***NOTE: The account creation process will not work with Google Chrome. Please open link using Internet Explorer or Firefox.***

1. Once registered, you will then be able to submit proposals. In the body of the email, please provide the following:

• Your Name - Your name;

• Your Email address - Your email address;

• Description of File(s) - Enter W9127N19R0021-Volume I or II-COMPANY NAME.

• Add File(s) - Click the "Browse" button to select your file(s). The total file size cannot exceed 2GB;

2. Clicking the "Send" button will upload the files and submit the package.

Once you’ve submitted your proposal, please email Jason.N.Tanamor@usace.army.mil to ensure receipt.

The Offeror’s proposal shall consist of two (2) volumes; The Volumes I – Technical Proposal and Volume II – Price Proposal. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited.

Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Propriety information shall be clearly marked.

II. PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE AND SITE VISIT

A site visit will be scheduled as detailed in provision 52.236-27 alt. 1.

III. SUBMITTING QUESTIONS

Questions and answers will be handled via a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) bidder inquiry system, ProjNet/DrChecks, found at https://www.projnet.org/projnet/binKornHome/index.cfm. An account has been created under the solicitation number W9127N19R0021; the Public Access Key is 3PDH7G-UFC8PX. Use this website to submit technical questions about the project. The website will be monitored by USACE personnel who will post answers to submitted questions. All Offerors are able to see the questions and answers from all submissions. This ensures all interested parties have an equal opportunity to gain project insight from the questions submitted by other potential Offerors.

IV. GENERAL PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

a. Each volume (Volume I-Technical Proposal, and Volume II-Price Proposal) shall be submitted as a separate file in AMRDEC and shall be in PDF format. The printed number of pages (single sided) should not exceed and size limitations detailed elsewhere in this document. Any pages that are changed (as a result of negotiations or proposal revisions) should be of a different color and have changed information clearly marked by a vertical line in the right margin of the page. Revised pages shall be dated.

b. ORGANIZATION – VOLUMES

The following volumes of material shall be submitted:

1. Volume 1: Technical Proposal

2. Volume 2: Price Proposal

c. CONTENT – GENERAL

Proposals must set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by this RFP. Absence of information will be deemed as if no support for that criterion was provided. Offerors submitting proposals should limit submission to data essential for evaluation of proposals so that a minimum of time and money is expended in preparing information required by the RFP. Penalty for making false statements in proposals is prescribed in 18 U.S.C. 1001.

1. Format

Proposals may be in PDF or DOC format but should format to 8 ½ x 11-inch paper, when printed. Any drawings shall be 11x17-inch paper,when printed, can be folded to the same dimensions as the 8 ½ x 11-inch paper. Elaborate artwork, expensive paper and bindings, and expensive/ extensive visual and other presentation aids are not necessary. Each proposal should address the requests for information in the order identified in Section L.

2. Page Numbering

All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and RFP number in the header and/or footer.

3. Page Limits

Volume I Technical Proposal shall not exceed 75 single sided pages, when printed.

4. Signatures

Original signature from the Offeror’s responsible party is required in box 15 of the SF33 submitted with the Price Proposal.

REQUIRED TABS FOR VOLUME 1: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

Factor 1 –Past Experience

Factor 2 –Past Performance

REQUIRED TABS FOR VOLUME 2: PRICE PROPOSAL

Factor 3 – Price Proposal

SF33, Solicitation, Offer, and Award

Price Schedule

Representations and Certifications

V DETAILED CONTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR VOLUME 1: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

Offerors shall submit the information noted below.

Factor 1 – Past Experience

This project will consist of designing, fabricating, factory testing, transporting, erecting, and field testing a new 20‐ton gantry crane with one trolley with dual main hoists. The four major project phases are: (1) design of the new crane, (2) manufacture of the new crane, (3) installation and testing of the new crane, and (4) demolition/removal of the existing crane.

The Offeror shall submit information for up to three projects* best demonstrating the Offeror’s experience performing projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to this project, as further described in the RFP specifications.

To be evaluated, each project must have been completedor must be substantially complete** by the Prime or the Prime’s major subcontractor*** within 10 years of the date that proposals are due.

Each of the three projects must have involved at least one or more of these four major phases: design, manufacture, installation/testing of a crane with a capacity at least 20 tons, or demo/removal of an existing crane.

NOTE: Although each project submitted need not demonstrate experience in all four major project phases (design, manufacture, installation/testing and removal), the Offeror’s Factor 1 proposal in its totality must demonstrate that the Offeror has experience in all four major project phases: design, manufacture, installation/testing, and demolition/removal.

For each project submitted, the Offeror shall provide an “Offeror Experience Form” using Attachment A (or document that addresses all of the information included in Attachment A). The Offeror must address all items included on Attachment A. Offerors may include photographs or drawings for each project submission to provide a visual basis for the written description.

*A maximum of three projects will be evaluated. If an Offeror disregards these instructions and submits more than three projects, only the first THREE projects submitted will be evaluated. Offerors should describe each project with enough detail to ensure that the Government can meaningfully assess the projects against the evaluation criteria described in Section M of the RFP.

**Substantially complete is defined as being 75% complete by the date that proposals are due. If an Offeror submits a project that it represents is “substantially complete,” the Offeror must reasonably explain why the project is considered at least 75% complete. If an Offeror submits an ongoing project without providing an accompanying reasonable explanation that explains how the project is at least 75% complete, the Government reserves the right to reject the project.

***Instructions on the use of major subcontractor experience: Offerors may use the past experience of major subcontractors to demonstrate experience in any of the four major project phases, however a letter of commitment is required in order for that experience to be considered. The letter of commitment must be signed by the subcontractor who is proposed to perform the work. The commitment letter must be submitted even if the firm is in some way related to a joint venture partner (for example, the subcontractor is a subsidiary of a joint venture partner, or a subsidiary of a firm to which the joint venture partner is also a subsidiary). If a letter of commitment is not submitted, the experience will not be considered.

Factor 2 – Past Performance The Offeror shall provide past performance information for each project listed by the Offeror under Factor 1: Past Experience.

Recent and relevant projects are those projects completed or substantially completed* in the past 10 years that are comparable in size, scope, and complexity with this project.

** Substantially complete is defined as being 75% complete by the date that proposals are due.

If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal. If there is not a completed CPARS evaluation, the standard Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for USACE is Form PPQ-0 (9/30/11) and it is provided as an attachment to this solicitation. PPQ-0 is provided for the Offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the Offeror includes in its proposal under Factor 1, Past Experience, and for which a completed CPARS evaluation is not available. (Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact.) Do not submit a PPQ when a completed CPARS evaluation is available.

Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal if a CPARS evaluation is unavailable. 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 the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, Jason Tanamor, via email at jason.n.tanamor@usace.army.mil, prior to proposal closing date. The Offerors shall instruct the clients to refer to the solicitation number in the subject line. The PPQs are Source Selection materials. All successfully submitted PPQs will receive an e-mail confirmation upon receipt. If the Offeror does not receive the confirmation, it is their responsibility to follow up to ensure the Government has received the information.

Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

Offerors may provide explanation on problems encountered on past projects and the corrective actions taken by the Offeror.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the PPIRS, including CPARS, using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), telephone interviews with organizations familiar with the Offeror’s performance, Government personnel with personal knowledge of the Offeror’s performance capability, 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.

Volume II – Price:

The Offeror shall submit their price proposal in a separate file consisting of the SF33, bid schedule, and reps and certs.

The Offeror must provide a complete bid schedule and acknowledge all amendments on the signed SF33.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

BASIS FOR AWARD

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. INITIAL REVIEW OF PROPSAL

Proposals will be reviewed for general conformance with the solicitation requirements.

2. SOURCE SELECTION

All proposals conforming to the solicitation requirements will be evaluated in accordance with the requirements of Sections “L,” “M,” and the Source Selection Plan. The principal objective of the evaluation process is to make award of a contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal is determined to be the “best value” to the Government, price and other Factors considered.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror's initial proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

3. EVALUATION FACTORS

The following table reflects the relative importance of all factors that will affect contract award.

TECHNICAL FACTORS RELATIVE IMPORTANCE___

Volume I – Technical Proposal; All non-price factors are approximately equal. All non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

Factor 1 – Past Experience Factor 2 – Past Performance Volume II – Price Proposal; All factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

Factor 3 – Price Proposal

3.1 Technical Rating Method – Factors 1

Technical Rating Evaluation Processes. 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 use the below combined Technical/Risk Rating table and the risk descriptions set forth in Table 2 for Factors 1.

The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

TABLE 1: Combined Technical/Risk Rating

COLOR RATING DESCRIPTION

Blue

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple

Good

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow

Marginal

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

TABLE 2: Technical Risk Descriptions

Adjectival Rating Definition

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

3.2 Past Performance Rating Method – Factor 2

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. Past Performance rating method that will be used is included under Factor 2.

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

The Government will evaluate the information submitted in Section L of the RFP in accordance with the following evaluation criteria:

Factor 1 – Past Experience The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to determine the breadth and depth of the Offeror’s experience designing, manufacturing, and installing new cranes (and removing old) that are similar in type, size, scope, and complexity to the work described in the RFP specifications.

In determining strengths and weaknesses, the Government will review projects to determine whether they include the following experiences or attributes (listed in descending order of importance):

1. Crane type. The design, manufacture, or installation of the following type of crane (listed in order of most relevant to least relevant): Cantilevered gantry cranes, general gantry cranes, semi‐gantry cranes, bridge cranes, and special purpose service cranes.

2. Crane scope. The design, manufacture, installation and load testing, or demolition/removal of similar sized crane frame and hoist machinery (gears, wire rope drums, and speed reducers) as required by this RFP.

3. Crane components or capabilities. The design and manufacture of cranes that use lifting beams, blocks, or wires made to go into water. The design and manufacture of cranes that can pick a load in water, such as clamshell or rake used to remove debris in water.

4. Onsite staging. Projects that included limited work area/restrictions around the crane erection/demolition site similar to that required by this RFP, which required the Contractor to accommodate staging due to restricted space and access.

NOTE: Although each project submitted need not demonstrate experience in all four major project phases (design, manufacture, installation with load testing, and removal), the Offeror’s Factor 1 proposal in its totality must demonstrate that the Offeror has experience in all these four major project phases.

Factor 2 – Past Performance

The Government seeks a contractor who maintains a strong commitment to customer satisfaction and superior performance. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to affirmatively document these qualities in its technical proposal. In doing so, be mindful that “past performance” and “past experience” are not the same. Past experience measures what you have done and how many times, or for how long, you have done it. Past performance, however, measures how well you have performed.

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These project characteristics are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each Offeror.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information). The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the work required by this RFP. Projects that are similar in scope and complexity to this project will receive higher relevancy ratings. The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the Offeror performed on the recent and relevant projects. A final Performance Confidence Assessment rating will be given for this factor based on the assessment of recent and relevant past performance information and the assessment of the quality of past performance on prior contract efforts.

With respect to relevancy, 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.

Relevancy will be determined based on how closely the Past Performance effort involved similarity of scope and magnitude of effort, dollar value, and complexities this solicitation requires.

There are four levels of relevancy as shown in the Table below.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

RATING DESCRIPTION

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 Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude

Relevant 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.

The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review the past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to the performance confidence assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings using the Table below.

If any performance issues are identified, the Government will consider the number, type, and severity of the problems and effectiveness of corrective actions taken. More favorable rating will be given to projects with higher satisfaction of past customers with the Offeror’s goods or services, a proven ability to maintain supply/installation schedules, and a record of accomplishing work within budget.

Performance Confidence Assessments

RATING DESCRIPTION

Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence

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

Neutral Confidence 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. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may receive a Neutral Confidence rating which is neither favorable nor unfavorable; it is considered neutral.

NOTE: The Government will consider 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 the instant acquisition.

Important Note: In addition to information provided in the technical proposal, the Government may consider other sources of past performance information including, but not limited to, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), references and personal knowledge. These other sources may include telephone interviews with organizations familiar with the Offeror’s performance, Government personnel with personal knowledge of the Offeror’s performance capability, and any other sources of past performance information. The Government reserves the right to conduct a pre-award survey. 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.

Volume II – Price PRICE Evaluation The Price Proposal will be evaluated using price analysis techniques to determine price reasonableness.

The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(End of Summary of Changes)