W9127S20R0008 - IDC SATOC - Amendment 0001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is as follow s:

-add the Key Personnel under Volume I Factor 2, correct the TABs under Volume II, and add the Basis of Aw ard verbiage to the solicitation;

-and include responses to the ProJNet questions, and Draw ing 14_2105 as attachments.

NUMBER OF COPIES. Offerors shall submit one (1) electronic copy (CD) of their non-price proposal (Volume 1); and one (1) electronic copy (CD) of their price proposal (Volume 2).

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 12

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 W9127S20R0008

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

06-Jul-2020

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.

U0001

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

29-Jul-2020

CODE

CONTRACTING DIVISION

USACE, LITTLE ROCK (W9127S)

700 W. CAPITOL AVE, RM 7315

LITTLE ROCK AR 72201-3225

W9127S 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W9127S20R0008

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The Issued By organization below has been added:

CONTRACTING DIVISION

USACE, LITTLE ROCK (W9127S)

700 W. CAPITOL AVE, RM 7315

LITTLE ROCK AR 72201-3225

The following have been modified:

SECTION 00 21 11

The following section describes the procedures for submittal of proposals in response to this Request for Proposal.

This project is will be solicited as a competitive 8(a) solicitation. The NAICS for this project is 237990, with a size standard of $39.5M, as determined by the U.S. Small Business Administration.

Where to Submit Bidder Inquiries:

A Request for Information (RFI) Review will be set up for this RFP in ProjNet.org. The Bidder Inquiry Key is XG8985-BCHY7Z. The review is open from 13 July 2020 – 23 July 2020. All questions and inquiries will be accepted only via the ProjNet website.

Where to Submit Proposals:

US Army Corps of Engineers ATTN: Contracting Division (Vonda S. Rogers) CESWL-CT 700 W. Capitol Avenue, RM 7315 Little Rock, AR 72201

All proposals must be marked on the outside as follows:

W9127S20R0008, SWL IDC SATOC Minor Construction Projects

“DO NOT OPEN”

Submission Deadline: Proposals shall be received by the Corps of Engineers no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of the Standard Form 1442 which is 05 Aug, 2020 2:00 PM Central.

Offeror is required to submit a bid guarantee with its proposal in the amount of 20% or $3,000,000.00, whichever is less.

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

The proposal shall describe the capability of the Offeror to perform the requirements of the Statement of Work. The proposal should be specific and complete in every detail; and should be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward and concise description of capabilities to satisfactorily perform the requirements. The proposal should be practical, legible, clear, and coherent. In order to effectively and equitably evaluate all proposals, the Contracting Officer must receive information containing sufficient detail to allow review and evaluation by the Government. Proposal clarity, organization, and cross-referencing are mandatory. Failure to submit and organize proposals as requested may adversely affects an Offeror's evaluation.

Proposals shall not exceed the page limits described. Provide all information in tabbed sections.

Appendices and/or attachments are not permitted and will not be evaluated.

SUBMISSION FORMAT

COVER SHEET & TABLE OF CONTENTS. Proposals shall consist of two (2) volumes. A cover sheet identifying the Offeror (name, address, point of contact) and solicitation number shall be provided. The second sheet shall be a table of contents. The proposal shall contain a detailed table of contents. Offers that violate these rules unnecessarily delay the evaluation process and may be rejected by the Government after the initial evaluation without receiving any further consideration. Neither the cover sheet nor the table of contents count toward the page limitations.

TABS. Written proposal materials shall be submitted in standard three ring loose-leaf binders.

Proposals shall be tabbed and labeled as specified in a manner to afford easy identification from a Table of Contents.

FONT SIZE. Shall not be less than 10 point. Pages will be double-sided and each page shall be identified with the appropriate page number centered at the bottom of the page.

SHEET SIZE. Shall be 8-1/2 inches x 11 inches; however, if drawings, charts, or other graphics are submitted, sheets no larger than 11 inches x 17 inches and folded to 8-1/2 inches x 11 inches shall be used. Sheets that are 11 x 17 inch will be counted as two 8-1/2 inch x 11-inch sheets. All sheets shall be dated and numbered.

PAGE LIMITS. The proposal shall not exceed the specified page limits. The Government will not review any information in excess of the page limits or information submitted in an appendix or attachment to the proposal. The Offeror shall not submit verbatim sections of this solicitation as part of their proposal. Offers that do not meet these requirements may be subject to rejection.

NUMBER OF COPIES. Offerors shall submit one (1) electronic copy (CD) of their non-price proposal (Volume 1); and one (1) electronic copy of their price proposal (Volume 2).

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Offerors shall submit their proposals in accordance with the following:

VOLUME 1:

TAB A - Standard Form 1442 and Proposal Data Sheet. (See the format provided as Attachment 1.) Proposal must include offeror’s telephone number, FAX number, email address, and DUNS number. DUNS number will be used to access CPARS Data.

TAB B - Factor 1 - Project Management TAB C - Factor 2 - Personnel Qualifications TAB D - Factor 3 - Experience TAB E - Factor 4 - Past Performance

VOLUME 2:

TAB A - Co-Efficient TAB B - Price Schedule TAB C - Offer Guarantee

FACTOR 1 - PROJECT MANAGEMENT (VOL 1, TAB B)

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT: Page Limit - Twenty-four (24) Pages. Describe (via illustration and/or narrative) how your company will manage the contract and administer task orders. The proposal shall address the information below.

a) Management Plan. Describe how the contract and task orders will be implemented and managed. Describe simultaneous coordination of multiple subcontractors on concurrent projects at various locations, and of varying degrees of complexity. Describe procedures for providing sketches, plans, working drawings, and calculations.

b) Resourcing/Staffing Plan. Describe how the Offeror's corporate and on-site staff will interface with the Government. Describe the measures that will be taken by the Offeror's staff to ensure that response times and critical deadlines are met. Address how staff levels will adjust to accommodate variations in workload at different locations. Include type and number of staff positions to be utilized and responsibilities and contractual authority of proposed personnel.

c) Subcontractor Work Plan. Describe how the Offeror will utilize subcontractors/small business in performance of the contract while complying with FAR Clause 52.219-14 – Limitations on Subcontracting (Jan 2017). The Offeror shall describe its current capacity (or the workforce the Offeror intends to hire) and discuss why the prime cannot perform any work proposed to be subcontracted. The offeror shall state the percentage of work and dollar value of work to be performed by the prime and all proposed subcontractors as measured against 100% of the work as it applies to labor costs only. The offeror may also discuss previous successful performance of compliance with FAR Clause 52.219-14 and the use of subcontractors/small businesses.

d) Quality Control and Safety Plan. Describe quality control requirements and how the requirements of Occupational Safety Health Administration (OSHA) and EM 385-1-1 will be implemented and met. Describe what will be included in the Quality Control and Safety Plans, and how the Offeror proposes to insure that Quality Control and Safety Measures will be enforced. Describe the positions required to implement the Quality Control and Safety plans and the educational requirements, experience, and specialized training required for these positions.

NOTE: The Offeror is not required to submit a Quality Control Plan or Safety Plan as part of the proposal; but to describe how these plans will be implemented. The Quality Control Plan and the Safety Plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Contracting Officer prior to issuance of the first task order.

EVALUATION CRITERIA - The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which it:

a) Demonstrates the ability to coordinate multiple subcontractors on multiple projects at various locations, simultaneously.

b) Demonstrates the offeror has applied the right skill sets during the course of a given project in order to meet the requirements outlined in the Statement of Work.

c) Demonstrates the offeror’s understanding of internal and external communication protocols, roles and responsibilities.

d) Demonstrates the offeror has a formal process in place to control quality and safety throughout the course of the project; whether the offeror has implemented a process of checks and balances to meet the desired result.

FACTOR 2 - PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS (VOL 1, TAB C)

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT: Page Limit - Eighteen (18) Pages. Provide a narrative listing the personnel required to administer the contract and subsequent task orders. Submit an organizational chart showing the relationship of project staff to corporate staff and clearly define the lines of responsibility of key personnel. Positions listed in the Offeror's proposal for required staffing must list the qualifying factors determined by the Offeror for the selection of employees filling the position. The proposal shall include the information below.

a) Key Personnel. Describe the key personnel required to administer the contract and subsequent task orders. Key personnel must be experienced with Job Order Contracting, or other indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract vehicles which utilize the issuance of multiple, concurrent task orders. Key personnel must be experienced with the development of cost proposals using RS Means Software. List the educational requirements, experience, and any specialized training required for each position. Provide a resume for each person proposed to fill the position, including the name, education, experience, and specialized training for that person.

Key Personnel:

-Project Manager - 15 years of experience, degree preferred but not required

-Quality Control Manager - 10 years of experience, degree in construction management, architecture or engineering

-Site Safety Health Officer - 10 years of experience as dedicated safety rep, and EM 385-1 required safety certificates; cannot be dual hatted

-Construction Quality Control Representative - 5 years of experience

b) Project Management Staff. Describe the project management staff required to implement the requirements the contract and subsequent task orders (other than the Quality Control and Safety Staff and Administrative Support Staff listed below). List the educational requirements, experience, and any specialized training required for each position. Provide a resume for each person proposed to fill the position, including the name, education, experience, and specialized training for that person.

c) Quality Control and Safety Staff. Describe the positions required to implement the Quality Control and Safety Plans. List the educational requirements, experience, and any specialized training required for each position. Provide a resume for each person proposed to fill the position, including the name, education, experience, and specialized training for that person.

d) Administrative Support Staff. Describe the Administrative Support Staff required to administer the contract and subsequent task orders. List the educational requirements, experience, and any specialized training required for each position. Provide a resume for each person proposed to fill the position, including the name, education, experience, and specialized training for that person.

NOTE: Substitution of the personnel submitted in the technical proposal after award must be approved by the Contracting Officer.

EVALUATION CRITERIA - The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which it:

Evaluation of staffing will be performed on qualifying factors, not on the content of personal resumes. Resumes submitted for positions described in the Offeror's proposal will be reviewed only to verify that the qualifying factors are met. Failure of a personal resume to meet the Offeror’s qualifying factors for the position may result in an Unsatisfactory rating.

FACTOR 3 – EXPERIENCE (VOL 1, TAB D)

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT: Page Limit - Eighteen (18) Pages. Submit project information for five (5) projects/task orders completed within the last five years that are similar in scope, costs, complexity, and duration to the task orders anticipated on this contract.

Information can include narratives, drawings, photos etc. Government and/or private sector projects may be included. All projects referenced shall provide location and description, point of contact information, project cost, and scope.

The Government will use the Offeror’s relevant experience to assess the Offeror’s probability of successfully performing the scope of work described in this solicitation. If the JV or teaming arrangement has little or no recent, relevant projects performed by the JV, then each member of the JV may provide a combined total of five projects. An Offeror representing the combining of two or more companies for the purpose of this RFP, must describe the nature of the association;

indicate whether the firms have experience working together in construction ventures, including how long and how many projects.

The Government will consider the experience of a parent/divisional office and/or an affiliate company, provided that the offeror submits a letter or memorandum detailing the resources (workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) that will be provided for this contract, and which demonstrates how said resources will be provided or relied upon by the offeror in its contract performance.

EVALUATION CRITERIA - Proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which it:

a) Demonstrates the offeror has utilized Job Order or other IDIQ contracting processes utilizing the issuance of multiple/concurrent task orders in the last five years.

b) Demonstrates the offeror has the capability to accomplish multiple, concurrent projects being performed at multiple geographic locations.

c) Demonstrates the offeror has successfully completed projects of similar scope and complexity.

d) Demonstrates that the Offeror can manage multiple subcontractors.

FACTOR 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE (VOL 1, TAB E)

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT: Page Limit - Twenty-five (25) Pages. Submit completed Past Performance Questionnaires (Form PPQ-O) (Attachment 2) from at least three (3) customers demonstrating past performance completed within the past five (5) years. The Government will use the information to determine the Offeror’s probability of successfully performing the scope of work described in this solicitation.

NOTE: Teaming arrangements and Joint Ventures. Provide a copy of the teaming/joint venture agreement. If required, JV approval must be obtained in accordance with Small Business Administration policy.

The Government will consider the past performance of a parent/divisional office and/or an affiliate company, provided that the offeror submits a letter or memorandum detailing the resources (workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) that will be provided for this contract, and which demonstrates how said resources will be provided or relied upon by the offeror in its contract performance.

EVALUATION CRITERIA:

The Government will evaluate how well the contractor performed on these contracts (See Past Performance Relevancy Ratings and Rating and Performance Confidence Assessments below).

The Government may contact sources other than those provided by the Offeror for information with respect to past performance. These other sources may include, but are not limited to, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), or other databases; telephone interviews with organizations familiar with the Offeror’s performance, and Government personnel with personal knowledge of the Offeror’s performance capability.

COEFFICIENT FACTOR (VOL 2, TAB A)

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT: Submit the required Coefficient Factor; submit a detailed description of the types of costs included in the proposed coefficient factors; provide aggregate construction bonding capacity.

EVALUATION CRITERIA: The Government will perform a price analysis after completion of technical evaluations. Price analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, to determine completeness, reasonableness, and understanding of the work. The evaluation will determine the adequacy of the offer in fulfilling the requirements of the proposal. Completeness addresses the extent to which the elements of the price proposal are consistent with the requirements of the RFP. Reasonableness will be established using historical price information, price competition information, the IGE, and any other pricing tools necessary. A clear audit trail must be evident as to the conversion of costs to the coefficients to accomplish the tasks described herein. Price will not be rated, but will be a factor in making the final best value determination for award.

PRICE SCHEDULE (VOL 2, TAB A)

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT: Submit the required Price Schedule for the seed project in RSMeans CostWorks format.

EVALUATION CRITERIA: The Government will perform a price analysis after completion of technical evaluations. Price analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, to determine completeness, reasonableness, and understanding of the work. The evaluation will determine the adequacy of the offer in fulfilling the requirements of the proposal. Completeness addresses the extent to which the elements of the price proposal are consistent with the requirements of the RFP. Reasonableness will be established using historical price information, price competition information, the IGE, and any other pricing tools necessary. A clear audit trail must be evident as to the conversion of costs to the coefficients to accomplish the tasks described herein. Price will not be rated, but will be a factor in making the final best value determination for award.

RATING ADJECTIVES AND DEFINITIONS

RATING ADJECTIVES

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

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.

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

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

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.

DEFINITIONS

Clarifications. Limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated.

Communications. Exchanges, between the Government and offerors, after receipt of proposals, leading to establishment of the competitive range.

a. Offerors whose past performance information is the determining factor preventing them from being included in the competitive range. Such communications will address adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not had a prior opportunity to respond; and

b. Offerors (other than those discussed above) whose exclusion from or inclusion in the competitive range is uncertain.

c. Communications may be conducted to enhance Government understanding of proposals; allow reasonable interpretation of the proposal; or facilitate the Government’s evaluation process. Communications cannot be used to cure proposal deficiencies or material omissions, materially alter the technical or price elements of the proposal, and/or otherwise revise the technical or price elements of the proposal. Such communications may be considered in rating proposals for the purpose of establishing the competitive range, if required. Communications shall not provide an opportunity for the Offeror to revise their proposal, but may address ambiguities in the proposal or other concerns (e.g.

perceived deficiencies, weaknesses, errors, omissions, or mistakes and information relating to relevant past performance).

Discussions. Negotiations conducted in a competitive acquisition. Discussions take place after establishment of the competitive range.

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.

Strength - An aspect of an offeror’s 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 - A significant strength appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably increases the probability of successful contract performance.

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

Significant Weakness - A significant weakness in a proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Uncertainty - Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offeror 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).

Clarification - Limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated.

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

In performing the past performance evaluation, evaluators will apply the following relevance levels to assess the relevance of the prior contract effort(s) of offerors.

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.

RATING AND PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

The government will evaluate past performance information to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment. Each offeror will be assigned one of the ratings below for past performance.

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

Limited Confidence - Base on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) - No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offero may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past perfomance.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION WEIGHTS

For the purpose of this evaluation, the following terms will be used to establish the relative importance of the technical factors:

More Important: The criterion is greater in value than another criterion.

Equal: The criterion is of the same value or nearly the same as another criterion.

Less Important: The criterion is less in value than another criterion.

Weight among technical factors:

Factor 1 - Project Management -This Factor is Equal in Importance to Factor 4, and More Important than Factors 2 and 3, and Price.

Factor 2 - Personnel Qualifications - This Factor is Less Important than Factors 1 and 4, and more important than Factor 3 and Price.

Factor 3 - Experience - This Factor is Less Important than Factors 1, 2, and 4, and more important than Price.

Factor 4 - Past Performance - This Factor is Equal in Importance to Factor 1, and More Important than Factors 2 and 3, and Price.

Price - Price is less important than Factors 1, 2, 3, and 4.

EVALUATION

Each member of the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will independently consider all information provided in the technical proposal. Once these individual analyses are completed, the team will meet and determine a rating for each of the evaluation factors by consensus decision. The evaluation team will document strengths (e.g., advantages), weaknesses (e.g., disadvantages), and other comments (e.g., deficiency and/or clarification) to support the rating for each factor, as well as the overall rating. The ratings for Technical Factors will be expressed in an adjectival assessment of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal and Unacceptable.

Documentation and comments are required for all ratings. This consensus rating will be provided to the Source Selection Authority.

BASIS OF AWARD

Proposals must meet the criteria stated in the RFP in order to be eligible for award, to include responsiveness, technical acceptability and responsibility.

The Government intends to award without discussions based on initial proposals received;

therefore, the proposals shall contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions in accordance with FAR 52.215-1. The Government reserves the right to address any pertinent issues in the proposals.

The Government will award a firm fixed-price contract to the responsible Offeror(s) whose proposal the Source Selection Authority determines conforms to the request for proposal, is fair and reasonable with regard to pricing, and whose proposal offers the best overall value to the Government. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers. If the Government accepts other than the lowest offer, it must be significantly more advantageous than the lowest offer to justify the payment of additional amounts.

The combination of all technical (non-price) evaluation factors are significantly more important than the price. As technical ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages become less distinct, differences in price between proposals are of increased importance in determining the most advantageous proposal. Conversely, as differences in price become less distinct, differences in rating and relative advantages and disadvantages between proposals are of increased importance to the determination.

(End of Summary of Changes)