W912BV-16-R-0011_Amendment_0001.pdf

W912BV-16-R-0011

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

This amendment w ill incorporate a revised Instruction to Offerors (ITO's)(add Appendix D) and extend the due date of proposals to 22 March 2016.

POC: Rudy Morales 918-669-7275

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 28

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 10-Mar-2016

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 W912BV-16-R-0011

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

17-Feb-2016

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 X is extended, 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

10-Mar-2016

CODE

CONTRACTING DIV

USACE, TULSA 1645 S 101 E AVE

TULSA OK 74128-4609

W912BV 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

The following have been added by full text:

ITO'S (REVISED)

D. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION (Section L) – INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

1. Type of Award:

The Government contemplates award of a firm-fixed price Indefinite Delivery Contract (IDC) to provide Real Estate Appraisal Services for United States Air Force Installations in accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS) incorporated herein at Section C

2. Basis for Award:

Award will be made to the contractor representing the best value to the Government as determined by use of the trade-off source selection process. The source selection decision will be made based on the proposal that offers the best value to the government. The Government reserves the right to make award to other than the firm submitting the lowest price.

3. Oral Presentations:

The solicitation does not include provision for use of oral presentations.

4. Time for Receipt of Transition and Price Proposal:

The Real Estate Appraisal (Volume I) and PRICE (Volume II) proposals are due in the Tulsa District Contracting Office by 4:00 PM, CST, on Tuesday, 22 March 2016. Proposal submissions shall be comprised of one hard copy original with CD and three hard copies with CDs. **Please note – Self extracting exe Files are not acceptable. Proposals will not be accepted by e-mail or any other form of electronic delivery.

5. Submission of Technical Proposal and Price Proposal:

The Technical and Cost/Price Proposals must be submitted as separate volumes. The Technical, or Transition, Proposal will be designated as Volume I and the Price Proposal will be designated as Volume II. Each volume shall be submitted in a separate three-ring binder.

The mailing address for submission is:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District Attn: CECT-SWT-E, Mr. Rudolfo J. Morales Jr.

1645 South 101st. East Ave. Tulsa, Oklahoma 74128 Tel: 918-669-7275

If your submission will be hand-carried, you must make arrangements at least one working day in advance with Mr. Morales (Tel: 918-669-7275) to be met in the building lobby, as unescorted visitors are not allowed in the building.

Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the requirements or the PWS with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

6. Proposal Instructions:

The proposal shall be clear, concise and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiation of the validity of stated claims.

Below are Assembly Instructions.

Volume

Tab

Title Maximum # Pages No. of Copies Hardcopy CD/DVD

I

VOLUME I - TECHNICAL

1 original and 3 copies

4 copies

NA Cover Letter

Factor 1 – Technical Approach

20 pages 8 ½” x 11” for text pages. (This includes PPQs provided in proposal)

Factor 2 - Past Performance

Factor 3 - Experience

4 Factor 4 – Small Business Subcontracting Plan

VOLUME II – PRICE and Contract Information

1 SF1449 (and any Amendments)

II

DFARS 252.209-7999-

Representation by Corporation

No Limit

1 original and 3 copies

4 copies

-- Factor 5 – Price 3 Pricing Schedule

Notes:

The Cover Letter shall be signed by an individual authorized to represent the offeror and shall identify the point of contact (POC) [name, phone number and e-mail address] for any questions regarding the submitted proposal and the POC shall have authority to negotiate and bind the company.

One page is 8.5 x 11-inch, single-sided print. Each page shall be numbered. Double-sided pages are acceptable and one double-sided page containing printed material will count as two pages.

Foldout pages shall be submitted on no larger than 11 x 17 inch paper (count as one side of a page) may only be used for schedule, large tables, charts, graphs, figures, and schematics and not for pages of text.

Pages shall be typed with, at minimum, single line spacing.

The font shall be Arial or Times New Roman, no smaller than 12 point for general text, text in tables, charts, graphs, and figures.

Margins, on all four edges of each sheet, shall be at least one inch.

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.

If the page limit for Volume I, Technical, is exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal.

For the electronic copy, both of Volumes I and II of the Proposal shall be provided on separate

CDs. In addition, the Offeror must ensure that the information in the CD is identical to the information provided in the hard copy. The CD shall be marked with the Offeror’s name, RFP number, and project title. Offeror’s are responsible for submitting electronic copies that are virus free.

One hardcopy proposal and CDs (Volume I and Volume II) shall be marked “Original” and will be used as the Proposal of Record; the remaining 3 hard copies and CDs shall be marked “Copy 1 of 3, 2 of 3” etc. If any discrepancy arises between the electronic version and the hardcopy version, the hardcopy marked “Original” shall prevail.

Responses to this RFP shall strictly adhere to the requirements set forth in the RFP. Submissions that do not adhere to format and content requirements may be considered non-compliant to the RFP. The Government reserves the right to eliminate any such proposals from consideration for award.

Any pages that are changed (as a result of discussions or proposal revisions) shall be of a different color and have changed information clearly marked by a vertical line in the right margin of the page. The revised pages shall be dated.

Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

SPECIFIC SECTION INSTRUCTIONS:

Cover Letter: The Cover Letter shall be submitted with Volume 1 and identify the point of contact (POC) [name, phone number and e-mail address] for any questions regarding the submitted proposal and the POC shall have authority to negotiate and bind the company.

DFARS 252.209-7999 Representation by Corporations Certificate: The Offeror shall submit the completed “Representation by Corporations Regarding an Unpaid Delinquent Tax Liability or a Felony Conviction under any Federal Law” certificate in Volume 2.

VOLUME I – TECHNICAL (Factors 1 thru 3). The volume shall be organized into the following sections:

Factor 1 (TAB 1) – Technical Approach:

Provide certifications and ability to conduct appraisals/business in several states and a comprehensive proposal to complete the seed project within the period of performance specified therein.

Factor 2 (TAB 2) – Past Performance Factor:

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS.

a. Offerors shall follow the basic format identified in Appendix D, but can provide additional information, to identify projects submitted to demonstrate their successful Past Performance. The Offeror must identify whether they were the Prime or Sub-contractor; if the Sub-contractor, the specific role and work performed must be explicitly identified, as well as the dollar value they performed in relation to the total contract value.

b. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all RFP requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. Major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform ten (10) percent or more of the proposed effort. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process.

c. Offerors shall submit no more than five (5) projects to demonstrate their past performance history for the Offeror, as either the Prime or Sub-contractor, and major Sub-contractors during the past three (3) years or actively being performed and at least 50% complete, which are of a nature similar to and required by the efforts identified in this solicitation.

Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ): The Offeror shall ensure a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) is submitted for each of the projects identified in Factor 4 – Past Experience. Offerors shall submit the PPQ with their proposal submission to the Contracting Office designated proposal submission location. The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 4 Past Experience. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact.

Completed Past Performance Questionnaires 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 18 March

2016, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Appendix D Enclosure 2), 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, Rudolfo Morales via email at rudolfo.morales@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date 7 March 2016. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

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 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), 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.

Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned an “unknown confidence (Neutral)” rating and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

Factor 3 (TAB 3) – Experience:

The Offeror must adequately demonstrate experience successfully accomplishing Real Estate Appraisals nationwide by submission of a maximum of five (5) projects to demonstrate their past performance history for the Offeror, as either the Prime or Sub- contractor, and major Sub-contractors during the past three (3) years or actively being performed and at least 50% complete, which are of a nature similar to and required by the efforts identified in this solicitation. Offerors shall follow the basic format provided titled “Format for Submission of Recent/Relevant Experience Information”, (provided later in this document) but can provide additional information, to identify projects submitted to demonstrate their successful Past Performance. The Offeror must identify whether they were the Prime or Sub-contractor; if the Sub-contractor, the specific role and work performed must be explicitly identified, as well as the dollar value they performed in relation to the total contract value. Each project summary must be limited to one page.

Offerors are encouraged to use Appendix F as a guide/format for submission of their 1-page project summaries.

Factor 4 (TAB 4) – Subcontracting Plan (Factor 4:

Small Business Subcontracting Plan is Required (FAR 52.219-9) Separate from Small Business Participation Plan, other than U.S. Small Business offerors must also submit a subcontracting plan meeting the requirements of FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS 252.219-7003. Other than U.S.

Small Businesses must submit acceptable subcontracting plans to be eligible for award. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be rated as either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”.

VOLUME II – Price (Factor 5)

This volume shall consist of all information, required to support proposed costs and prices. The information submitted in this volume shall comply with FAR 15.408, Table 15-2, and the requirements set forth below. There are no page limitations for this volume.

The contract will be a Firm-Fixed-Price IDC. The Government will evaluate price reasonableness for the fixed priced effort. The Base contract and all Options shall be included in the price calculation. Should the Government determine proposed prices are unreasonably low (an indication of “buy-in”), this will be considered a performance risk.

The Offeror shall submit their proposal in accordance with the following:

TAB 1 – Completed and Signed SF1449 and acknowledgement of all amendments.

TAB 2 – DFARS 252.209-7999-Representation by Corporation Certificate

TAB 3 – Pricing List The Pricing Schedule will be completed as a result of the prices entered into the Part 2,

7. Discussions

1. GENERAL INFORMATION. In accordance with FAR 15.306(d), discussion sessions with each offeror may be held. Should discussions take place, all offerors in the competitive range will be allowed to submit Final Proposal Revisions.

2. DISCUSSION SCHEDULING. If discussions are conducted, the Contracting Officer will schedule the discussion sessions, and each offeror will be notified of the time and place. Appropriate security clearances should be provided by the offerors in sufficient time to process the requests. The Contracting Officer will provide additional instructions with the notification. The discussion sessions will take place at a facility of the Government’s choosing.

3. AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS. The Government reserves the right to award this contract without conducting discussions.

SECTION II

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the five (5) evaluation factors:

Technical Approach, Past Performance, Experience, Small Business Sub-contracting Plan and Price. T h e e v a l u a t i o n f a c t o r s a r e l i s t e d b e l o w b y i m p o r t a n c e :

F a c t o r 1 - T e c h n i c a l A p p r o a c h – M o s t I m p o r t a n t F a c t o r 2 - P a s t P e r f o r m a n c e – S e c o n d M o s t I m p o r t a n t F a c t o r 3 - E x p e r i e n c e - T h i r d M o s t I m p o r t a n t F a c t o r 4 - S m a l l B u s i n e s s S u b - C o n t r a c t i n g P l a n - F o u r t h M o s t I m p o r t a n t F a c t o r 5 - P r i c e - F i f t h M o s t I m p o r t a n t

Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost/price offered.

NOTE: ALL NON-PRICED FACTORS WHEN COMBINED ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE

IMPORTANT THAN PRICE.

B. FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and sub-factors described below.

Factor 1: T e c h n i c a l A p p r o a c h . T h i s f a c t o r i s f u r t h e r d i v i d e d i n t o t h e f o l l o w i n g s u b - f a c t o r s :

a. SUB-FACTOR 1: Geographical Capabilities

b. SUB-FACTOR 2: Seed Project Approach

Sub-factor 1 is equally important to Sub-factor 2.

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each Sub-Factor in the factors above as it applies to the Performance Work Statement (PWS). A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign each Sub-Factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 2: Past Performance. Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment.

Factor 3: Experience. Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed and assigned an adjectival rating. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section.

Factor 4: Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Small Business Subcontracting Plan is Required (FAR

52.219-9) other than U.S. Small Business offerors must also submit a subcontracting plan meeting the requirements of FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS 252.219-7003. Other than U.S. Small Businesses must submit acceptable subcontracting plans to be eligible for award. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be rated as either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”.

Factor 5: Price. The resulting award will be a Fixed –Price Contract. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed price effort.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

The Technical Proposal (Volume I) will be evaluated based on the following five evaluation factors:

Factor 1 – Technical Approach, Factor 2 – Past Performance, Factor 3 – Experience and Factor 4-Small Business Subcontracting Plan, Factor 5 - Price. The overall relative order of importance is as follows:

Factor 1 – Technical Approach is more important than Factor 2 – Past Performance.

Factor 2 – Past Performance is more important than Factor 3 – Experience.

Factor 3 – Experience is more important than Factor 4 Factor 4 -- Small Business Subcontracting Plan is the least important factor.

Factor 1, Sub-Factor 1, Geographical Capabilities and Sub-Factor 2, Seed Project Approach are of equal weight. The ratings for the Sub-Factors will be rolled-up to determine the Factor rating. All evaluation factors when combined are significantly more important than Factor 5 Price. An Unacceptable rating at the Factor level will make the proposal unawardable. An Unacceptable rating at the Sub-Factor level will make the Factor rating also Unacceptable.

NOTE: ALL NON-PRICED FACTORS WHEN COMBINED ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE

IMPORTANT THAN PRICE.

FACTOR 1: Technical Approach [Adjectival Rating]

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Technical Approach to determine their complete understanding of the PWS and proposed approach to execute the requirements efficiently. The comprehensive approach includes itemizing the Geographic Capabilities (Sub-Factor 1) and Technical Approach to the Keesler AFB Appraisals Project (Sub-Factor 2), which shall be consistent with each other. The Government will evaluate the comprehensive technical approach based on the following:

Sub-Factor 1 – Geographical Capabilities Offeror’s proposal must provide a detailed summary of existing Licensing/Credentialing for Certified General Appraisers and the number of states in which the offeror is licensed to perform appraisals. The Types of appraisal Licenses, Office locations, Appraisers name and credentialing information shall be submitted for each state in which the offeror is licensed. Proposals will be evaluated to ensure that the geographical capabilities meets the required qualifications identified in the PWS. Offeror must include the following for each individual to demonstrate their qualifications/experience:

Name and Title Specific area of expertise Name of Firm (If different from Offeror) Number of years working as appraiser Education-Degree(s)-/year/specialization Any Active registration-certifications: type/ state/year

The Government will evaluate for a realistic approach that demonstrates the Offeror’s complete understanding of the requirements and provides a narrative explanation in sufficient detail to support Government evaluation of how all of the objectives and requirements in the PWS will be met or exceeded.

The Offeror will also be evaluated on how well their proposal identifies their understanding of associated risks, as well as their mitigation strategies.

Sub-Factor 2 Seed Project Approach The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach to scheduling and coordinating the Keesler AFB Appraisal Project. The Offeror must provide a proposal that clearly identifies capacity, competency, costs and licensing necessary to achieve of the objectives within the identified period of performance consistent with the Offeror’s proposed planning approach.

At a minimum, Offeror’s proposal must:

Include a detailed summary of existing state licensing authorizing the Offeror to perform this type of appraisal in the required locations.

Include a cost and completion schedule outlining preliminary meeting, site visits, appraisal anaylsis, report writing time and internal review periods.

A narrative explaining the Offeror’s methods, processes, and approaches to the schedule development, pricing and timely completion of the assignment.

FACTOR 2: Past Performance [Performance Confidence Assessment Rating]

The Performance Confidence Assessment (PCA) Rating is based on an integrated assessment of recency, relevancy, and performance. In addition, based on the nature of the PCA, the Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the Offeror in project summaries and data obtained from other sources in conducting the assessment.

The Offeror must ensure submission of Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs), for those projects submitted for Factor 2 – Past Experience.

The Government may contact references for the identified projects and/or contracts at the Government’s discretion. The Government may also take into consideration relevant information other than, and independent of, the Offeror’s submission for this Factor.

FACTOR 3: Experience [Adjectival Rating]

The Government will evaluate for recent and relevant experience of the Offeror, in the capacity as the Prime or Sub-contractor, and the Offeror’s major Sub-contractors in accordance with the scope presented in the PWS as represented by the submitted projects. Projects are deemed recent if a project has not concluded more than three (3) years prior to the date of the solicitation.

It is desirable that the Offeror’s project summaries demonstrate:

Evidence of successfully completing an appraisal project or currently performing a project that is at least 95% complete.

Evidence that team members possess technical knowledge and experience to perform as a Certified General Appraiser

Evidence that members of the team successfully meet milestone schedules and implement mitigation strategies when necessary to overcome unforeseen obstacles.

Offerors are encouraged to use Appendix F as a guide/format for submission of their 1-page project summaries.

Factor 4 – Small Business Subcontracting Plan

Small Business Subcontracting Plan is Required (FAR 52.219-9) other than U.S. Small Business offerors must also submit a subcontracting plan meeting the requirements of FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS 252.219-7003.

Other than U.S. Small Businesses must submit acceptable subcontracting plans to be eligible for award.

Subcontracting Plans shall reflect and be consistent with the commitments offered in the Small Business Participation Plan. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be rated as either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”.

FACTOR 5 – Price

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed price for each position listed on the price list and total proposed price for completeness and reasonableness. The total proposed price consists of all of the Offeror's proposed CLINs, inclusive of Options. A proposal is complete when all price data, as outlined in the RFP has been completed and submitted in the proper format in accordance with these Instructions to Offerors. A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. The Government will perform a price analysis for a) front loading, b) understanding of the work, c) fair and reasonableness to accomplish the work, and d) consistency with the technical approach. The Government may reject any proposal evaluated to be unreasonable in terms of including contract terms and conditions, or unreasonably high or low in cost when compared to Government estimate; such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

EVALUATION RATINGS:

A rating system will be used to depict how well each Offeror’s proposal meets the evaluation criteria for each factor identified above. As stated above, Price (Factor 4) will be evaluated for reasonableness and completeness, but will not be rated or scored as part of the Technical evaluation. Price will be used as a trade-off for the other factors. The Government may not evaluate Past Performance and Price (Factors 2 and 5) if an Offeror receives an Unacceptable rating in Technical Approach (Factor 1), Experience (Factor 3), and Subcontracting Plan (Factor 4).

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS FOR FACTORS 1, and 3:

RATING DESCRIPTION

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 unawardable.

Narratives to be used in conjunction with Ratings for FACTORS 1, 2, and 3:

NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION

STRENGTH An 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

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

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.

Relevancy for FACTOR 2:

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.

Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings for FACTOR 2:

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.

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

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.

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.

VOLUME II – Price (Factor 5)

This volume shall consist of all information, required to support proposed costs and prices. The information submitted in this volume shall comply with FAR 15.408, Table 15-2, and the requirements set forth below. There are no page limitations for this volume.

The contract will be a Firm-Fixed-Price IDC. The Government will evaluate price reasonableness for the fixed priced effort. The Base contract and all Options shall be included in the price calculation. Should the Government determine proposed prices are unreasonably low (an indication of “buy-in”), this will be considered a performance risk.

The Offeror shall submit their proposal in accordance with the following:

TAB 1 – Completed and Signed SF1449 and acknowledgement of all amendments.

TAB 2 – DFARS 252.209-7999-Representation by Corporation Certificate

TAB 3 – Pricing Schedule The Pricing Schedule will be completed as a result of the prices entered into the Part 2,

7. Discussions

1. GENERAL INFORMATION. In accordance with FAR 15.306(d), discussion sessions with each offeror may be held. Should discussions take place, all offerors in the competitive range will be allowed to submit Final Proposal Revisions.

2. DISCUSSION SCHEDULING. If discussions are conducted, the Contracting Officer will schedule the discussion sessions, and each offeror will be notified of the time and place. Appropriate security clearances should be provided by the offerors in sufficient time to process the requests. The Contracting Officer will provide additional instructions with the notification. The discussion sessions will take place at a facility of the Government’s choosing.

3. AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS. The Government reserves the right to award this contract without conducting discussions.

B. DEFINITIONS

1. Rating. The adjective/color descriptor assigned by the evaluators’ to the non-Cost/Price Factors and corresponding Sub-factors. It represents their conclusions as to the quality of the proposal, supported by narrative write-ups identifying the associated strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks, and uncertainties. The strengths, weaknesses, etc., are the findings that support the rating adjective/color.

2. Factor Rating Definitions. SSEB will use a common set of adjectival ratings to evaluate non-

Cost/Price Factors other than Past Performance (to include sub-factors, if applicable). Keep in mind that mere promises to comply with contractual requirements are insufficient basis for a favorable rating;

evidence is required in support of any statements relating to promised performance. Also, the chosen adjectival rating must be supported by the evaluator’s narrative reason(s) for the choice. The components of each sub-factor will be assessed for significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks, and uncertainties. Each sub-factor will be assigned an adjectival rating based upon these collective findings. The compilation of these sub-factor adjectival ratings will form the basis of the factor rating. Each proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the information set forth in the RFP, utilizing adjectival ratings as shown below:

Methodology 1. For any “Technical” Factor (meaning all non-cost factors excluding Past Performance), the most suitable rating methodology for most Army source selections is Methodology 1: Combined Technical/Risk Rating (DoD Source Selection Procedure 3.1.2.1). This methodology provides the most flexibility and least complexity in the rating process, conduct of the comparative analysis, and best value trade-off analysis process.

Methodology 1

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Adjectival Rating Definition

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 contract performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

Evaluators will apply the adjectival rating for the definition that most closely matches the evaluation.

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.

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

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.

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

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition 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.

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Directions: The respondent of the Past Performance Questionnaire shall submit directly to the Oferror’s point of contact.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner.

There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable

No information or did not apply to your Contract

Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0) CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E VG S M U N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance E VG S M U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

E VG S M U N

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes; responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

E VG S M U N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort

E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines

E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)?

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.

Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

Yes No

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below.

Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues? (Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.

E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues)

E VG S M U N

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below)

Yes No

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks. Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):

Record of Interview: (to be filled out by PPT member) (

) Discussed recentness and relevance of information

( ) Read summary to person contacted Date: ( ) Sent copy to person contacted Date:

PPT Member Signature Typed or Printed Name

Telephone Fax

Appendix F

Format For Submission of Recent/Relevant Experience Information (To be completed by Contractor)

1. Contractor:

Name:

2. Contract /TO/PO Number:

Address: 3. Solicitation Type:

RFQ RFP IFB

4. Contract/TO/PO Type: Fixed-Price

Cost Reimbursement Hybrid (explain)

Routine → Difficult

5. Complexity of Work 1 2 3 4 5

6. Contract/TO/PO Dollar Value:

7. Contract/TO /PO Status:

Active Complete Completion Date (w/ extensions):

8. Project Description, to include location & relevancy of work to the Scope of Work of this RFP (include role of Contractor involved with this project):

9. Problems encountered and how resolved:

APPENDIX D

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

INDIVIDUAL EVALUATOR REPORT

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

RFP No.:

EVALUATOR’S NAME: OFFEROR:

RFP REFERENCES:

FACTOR:

PROPOSAL/PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

SUBFACTOR: PAGE NUMBER:

Evaluation Rating:

(Insert appropriate rating from applicable adjectival rating; e.g., Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, Unknown Confidence (Neutral)) Consider relevancy assessment/quality of performance as it relates to the reference/project.

Evaluator’s Rating:

Initial Rating: Evaluator Initials/Date: Factor Chairperson Initials/Date:

Interim: Evaluator Initials/Date: Factor Chairperson Initials/Date:

Final Rating: Evaluator Initials/Date: Factor Chairperson Initials/Date:

RATIONALE: Include supporting rationale when applying the evaluation rating definitions. The Rating results from the merging of assessment information on (a) the extent of relevance/recency of current/prior contracts and (b) the quality of current/prior performance).

Support the Performance Confidence Assessment with your evaluation results in terms of overall findings (with specific strengths, weaknesses, uncertainties, risks, and deficiencies below.) Identify (e.g. Initial Rating (IR), Interim Evaluation Report (IER)), or Final Rating (FR). Use continuation sheets as needed

STRENGTHS:

(Precede the strength with an (S) if it identifies a significant strength. Address any risks associated with the strength.)

WEAKNESSES(identify EN…