W912DY-16-R-0077_AMD_0005.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

1. The purpose of this amendment is to remove evaluation language in Section M, under Factor 1, Technical Capability and Management, Element 3- Key Personnel & Other Resources. The Government is removing the statement that reads: " The Government places a high value on: resource plans that demonstrate experience w ith projects using Government Furnished and/or Contractor Acquired Property or Equipment". This sentence is being removed and it is strikethrough in red.

2. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

U 1 12

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 22-Jan-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 W912DY-16-R-0077

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

18-Sep-2017

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

22-Jan-2018

CODE

US ARMY ENGINEERING & SUPPORT CENTER

4820 UNIVERSITY SQ.

HUNTSVILLE AL 35816-1822

DACA87 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912DY-16-R-0077

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

BASIS FOR AWARD

This requirement will be competed on a restricted small business set-aside basis using the FAR Part 15 best value tradeoff method. Awards will be made on the basis of technical capability and management, technical approach to the sample task order, past performance, and price/cost. The price/cost proposal, which consists of pricing for the sample task order and pricing for the professional categories and supplemental direct and indirect rates to establish maximum ceiling rates will be used to conduct a price evaluation for the award of the IDIQ contract. The Government intends to make awards(s) without discussions; however, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions if necessary in accordance with FAR 15.306. If a competitive range is established, the Government may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range for purposes of efficiency. The Government reserves the right to make staggered awards. Later awarded contracts will have an initial period of performance that will be less than the full three year base period in duration and will end on the same date as all other contractors which receive a basic IDIQ award. The option period will be the same for all awardees, if exercised. If determined to be in the Government’s interest to hold discussions, discussions may be held with Offerors remaining in the competitive range after initial awards have been made to some Offerors.

All evaluation factors other than price/cost, when combined, are significantly more important than price/cost (Factor 4). Factors 1: Technical Capability and Management and 2 Technical Approach to the Sample Task Order when combined are significantly more important than Factor 3: Past Performance. All factors will be considered in the tradeoff to determine Best Value. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for Factors 1 and 2. A rating of no less than “Satisfactory Confidence” or “Unknown Confidence” must be achieved for Factor 3 Past Performance. The proposed prices in Factor 4 will be evaluated as follows: FFP elements will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness.

CPFF elements will be evaluated for fairness, reasonableness and realism.

All offerors should draw attention to the limitations on subcontracting clause found in FAR 52.219-14 when addressing this factor in their proposals

After the Government individually evaluates and rates each proposal, the source selection authority (SSA) will determine which proposal represents the best value. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer, or to reject all offers. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001. If there is/are lower priced, conforming offer(s), the source selection official must determine that the added value of a more expensive proposal would justify award to that Offeror. For the purpose of the best value tradeoff for the IDIQ awards, the prices for the sample task order will be used.

NOTE. FACTOR 2 IS THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR. FACTOR 1 IS LESS

IMPORTANT THAN FACTOR 2 AND MORE IMPORTANT THAN FACTOR 3.

FACTOR 3 IS LESS IMPORTANT THAN FACTORS 1 AND 2. FACTOR 4 IS THE

LEAST IMPORTANT FACTOR. WHEN COMBINED, ALL NON-PRICE RELATED

FACTORS, FACTORS 1, 2, AND 3, ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE PRICE-

RELATED FACTOR, FACTOR 4.

FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

VOLUME I, FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY AND MANAGEMENT

Tab 1 - Technical Capability Tab 2 - Organization/Management

Element 1 - Quality Management/Quality Control Program and Corporate Business Practices Element 2 - Contractor Safety and Health Program Element 3 - Key Personnel and Other Resources Element 4 - Organizational Structure

VOLUME II, FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL APPROACH TO THE SAMPLE TASK ORDER

Tab 1 - Discussion of Site, Assumptions, and Required Submittals Tab 2 - Staffing Plan Tab 3 - Field Work Tab 4 - Hazards and Safety Identification Tab 5 - Performance Based Milestones and Time Schedule Tab 6 - Basis of Estimate

VOLUME III, FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

Tab 1 - Past Performance Project Narratives Tab 2 - Past Performance Questionnaires

VOLUME IV, FACTOR 4: PRICE/COST AND OTHER COST RELATED INFORMATION

SECTION I: General Information Tab 1 - SF33 Tab 2 - Representations and Certifications Tab 3 - Joint Venture / Mentor-Protégé Agreements and approvals (if applicable)

SECTION II: Price/Cost/Cost Related Information Tab 1 - Supplies or Services and Prices/Cost Schedule Tab 2 - Supporting Documentation for Rates in Attachment H Tab 3 - Sample Task Order Costs and Basis of Estimate Tab 4 – DCMA ACO Data or Other Equivalent Information

EVALUATION APPROACH

FACTOR 1, TECHNICAL CAPABILITY AND MANAGEMENT

NOTE. INDIVIDUAL ELEMENTS OF TAB 2 - ORGANIZATION/MANAGEMENT

DISCUSSED BELOW WILL BE EVALUATED BUT NOT SEPARATELY RATED.

Tab 1 - Technical Capability - The Offeror’s team (i.e., “team” meaning collectively the prime contractor consisting of a company or corporation, prime contractor with key subcontractor(s) identified with a signed letter of commitment from the key subcontractor(s) {A key subcontractor is considered any subcontractor that equals 20% or more of the prime contractor}, or legally-binding partnering companies or corporations, e.g., partnership or joint venture) experience will be examined to determine the breadth and depth of the team’s experience in relation to providing the services described above.Description of the Program, second paragraph at diverse locations inside the United States, including Alaska and Hawaii, the U.S. territories, outlying areas as defined by FAR 2.101, and territorial waters.

The offeror’s technical capabilities will be examined for the breadth and depth of their experience in performing the full range/all of the tasks required. Breadth of experience is defined as the Offeror’s experience in performing the above range of services. Depth of experience is defined as the magnitude, significance, and applicability/relevance of the Offeror’s experience in performing the above range of services. Gaps in demonstrated capability may result in a lower rating. As part of Factor 1 the Government will evaluate the team’s corporate experience (not individual employee experience) of the entity that is proposed to perform the work and will not consider experience of subordinate or affiliated offices that are not part of the execution team.

The Government places a high value on the following (listed in no particular order):

a presentation of an array of completed projects demonstrating a wide breadth and depth of experience projects where work was successfully performed at multiple sites environmental remediation removal projects that were accomplished using performance based requirements and/or under FFP contracts where the contractor assumed greater risk projects that required remediation of both MEC/UXO and MC/HTRW contamination a presentation that demonstrates that the prime contractor has extensive experience in self-performing the above range of services rather than heavily relying on its key subcontractor(s) experience in which the Offeror and/or its subcontractors successfully performed in locations within scope of this contract, working in remote, or rugged environments experience working with the proposed team members providing services similar to those listed above projects that implemented innovative technology and/or processes to cut design or removal/remedial action response time and costs for the customer projects which have regulatory interface, stakeholder interface, and performance-based milestones

Tab 2 - Organization/Management

Element 1 - Quality Management/Quality Control Program and Corporate Business Practices

- The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s discussion of its corporate QM/QC Program, corporate business practices and data management. The Government places a high value on:

innovative practices, programs and comprehensive operational approaches which have resulted in or demonstrated an increase in the quality of outputs/products/services a program which demonstrates that data quality control measures are in place and how they have successfully been used on previous projects

Element 2 - Contractor Safety and Health Program. - The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Accident Prevention/Safety and Health Program to include procedures and requirements for the variety of work proposed under this contract and its efficacy in accident prevention. The Government places a high value on:

Innovative practices or programs which demonstrate a successful prevention/reduction in Health and Safety accidents

Programs with an experience modifications rate (EMR) below 1

Element 3 - Key Personnel & Other Resources - The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s resource plan to determine if it demonstrates that the Offeror currently possesses, or has the ability to obtain and retain the necessary personnel required to perform the services specified under Factor 1 "Technical Capability". The Government will verify that program level key personnel meet the qualification requirements under this solicitation through evaluation of the résumés of the program level key personnel.

The Government places a high value on:

resource plans that demonstrate experience with both FFP and CPFF pricing structures resource plans that demonstrate experience with performance-based milestones resource plans that demonstrate experience with projects using Government Furnished and/or Contractor Acquired Property or Equipment resource plans that demonstrate the ability to provide the breadth of skill sets (personnel) needed to provide the services listed in Factor 1, Tab 1, "Technical Capability" and provide a depth of field supervisory/ management, quality control, and safety assurance personnel, i.e., field managers, SUXOS, UXOSO, etc.

personnel who have experience on U.S. Government projects and who have proven their expertise through demonstrated participation on projects provided under Factor 1, Tab 1, "Technical Capability" personnel whose qualifications exceed the minimum requirements specified in this solicitation personnel with recent relevant experience (recent defined as within past 5 years and relevant defined as experience that specifically fits the qualifications of the position to be filled and the services to be provided).

personnel with relevant advanced education and/or professional credentials beyond that minimally specified under this contract

Element 4 - Organizational Structure of the Proposed Team - The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s organizational team structure to determine if the Offeror proposes a team structure that shows clear roles and responsibilities and effective communication networks. The Government places a high value on:

Organizational relationships which have been used on other projects such as those presented in Factor 1, Tab 1 - "Technical Capability". Organizational relationships that demonstrate repeated successful team performance, i.e., over the course of multiple projects are viewed as highly valuable.

Proposals that provide a description of the relationship with the proposed Subcontractors

FACTOR 2, TECHNICAL APPROACH TO SAMPLE TASK ORDER

Tab 1 - Discussion of the Sites, Assumptions, Regulatory Process and Required Submittals

- The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s discussion of each site, the assumptions made, and the discussion of the required submittals. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of each site as it relates to the work to be performed, regulatory process followed and how it will reach each of the milestones for the sample project provided. The Government will evaluate the assumptions made for understanding, reasonableness and validity for the offeror’s technical approach and whether the Offeror’s approaches “assume away” the major issues/problems that may be faced on the types of sites described by the PWS. The Government will evaluate the likelihood of the Offeror’s technical approach being accepted by the regulators.

The Government places a higher value on:

Those approaches that do not “assume away” the major issues/problems that may be faced on a real project.

Tab 2 - Staffing Plan - The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed usage of specialized expertise and labor categories which will be employed to execute the efforts identified in the sample task, including any categories which are filled by a subcontractor. The Government will determine whether the proposed staffing is appropriate for the technical approach and the number of personnel employed in relation to the proposed level of effort. The staffing plan will be evaluated for how personnel turnover is addressed and managed throughout the period of performance.

Tab 3 - Field Work - The Government will evaluate Offeror’s discussion to determine how well the Offeror understands how to execute the field work that needs to be performed under the Sample Task Order. The Government will evaluate the feasibility, efficacy, and efficiency of the approach in satisfying the performance requirements and how the approach addresses quality control. The Government will determine if the work is being carried out in a manner consistent with the assumptions that the Offeror discussed under Tab 1 of this factor.

Tab 4 - Hazards and Safety Identification - The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s discussion to determine how well the Offeror understands the types of hazards that may be encountered and the safety precautions that are necessary when performing the type of field work required of the Sample Task Order. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s discussion of safety management and hazard mitigation.

Tab 5 - Performance-Based Milestones and Time Schedule - The Government will evaluate the technical approach used, then will evaluate the time to reach each of the payment/deliverable milestones, as well as the overall schedule to complete the work under the Sample Task Order.

The Government will evaluate this submission to determine the Offeror’s ability to develop reasonable milestones and time schedules for work that may be performed under these Contracts and the methods proposed by the offeror. Prices and costs for the Sample Task Order are not to be provided on this schedule or in this Volume (Prices and costs for this Sample Task Order shall be provided in Volume IV).

Tab 6 - Basis of Estimate - The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s basis of estimate to determine how well the Offeror understands the requirements necessary to accomplish the work to be performed under the Sample Task Order.

Factor 1 “Technical Capability and Management” and Factor 2 “Technical Approach to Sample Task Order” will be evaluated using the following adjectival rating methodology:

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Adjective Description

Blue 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.

Purple 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.

Green 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.

Yellow 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.

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

FACTOR 3, PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's likelihood of success in performing the solicitation's requirements and delivering high quality products and services as indicated by that Offeror's record of past performance. In this context, “Offeror” refers to the proposed prime contractor and its proposed key subcontractors. A “contractor team arrangement” (meaning collectively the prime contractor consisting of a company or corporation, prime contractor with key subcontractor(s) identified with a signed letter of commitment from the key subcontractor(s), or legally-binding partnering companies or corporations, e.g., partnership or joint venture). The prime contractor(s) and proposed key subcontractor(s) will be assessed individually, and the results will then be assessed in their totality to derive the Offeror’s Past Performance rating. For prime contractors or key subcontractors whose firms are divided into severable segments (i.e.

division, group, unit, etc.) the past performance will only be evaluated as it relates to those segments of the firm(s) that will actually perform the work.

Past Performance references will first be reviewed to determine the relevancy of the past performance information. Past performance must have occurred within the five years prior to the closing date of this solicitation and be similar in scope and complexity to be considered relevant. The evaluation will use four levels of relevancy as shown in the bullets below. More relevant past performance will be treated as a stronger predictor of future success and will therefore have more influence on the overall performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

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 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.

When determining the overall Performance Confidence Assessment for an Offeror, the Government will take into consideration the following areas: demonstrated record of successful performance in relevant projects; demonstrated ability to select, retain, support and, when necessary, replace subcontractors; demonstrated implementation of corrective measures that have been implemented to resolve performance issues; demonstrated record of reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction; demonstrated record of cost and schedule management; and the degree of relevancy of all of the considered efforts. The Government will evaluate performance ratings by the customer (e.g. Past Performance Questionnaires). If the Government does not receive past performance information for the project(s) identified by the Offeror and cannot establish a past performance record for the Offeror through other sources, or if the Offeror has no past performance record, the Offeror will be given an “Unknown Confidence” assessment rating.

The Offeror is cautioned that in conducting the performance risk assessment, the Government may use data provided in the Offeror's proposal in addition to data obtained from other sources.

Since the Government may not necessarily obtain information on all of the listed contract references and may not contact all of the identified points of contact (POCs) provided by the Offeror, it is incumbent upon the Offeror to explain the relevance of the data provided. The Government may elect to consider data obtained from sources other than those identified by the Offeror.

Factor 3 - “Past Performance” will be evaluated using the following adjectival rating methodology:

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Definition

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.

FACTOR 4, PRICE/COST AND OTHER COST RELATED INFORMATION

The price/cost portion pertaining to Volume IV, Section II of the proposal will be evaluated and a best value analysis of the proposal as a whole performed to determine best value to the Government. Price/cost will not be an adjectivally rated criterion. The Government will evaluate all aspects of the price/cost proposal:

price for fairness and reasonableness;

cost for fairness, reasonableness and realism; and providing the best value to the Government

The “FFP Ceiling Burdened Hourly Rates” tables, and the "CPFF Ceiling Unburdened Hourly Rates” tables, and the “Ceiling Indirect Rates” tables in Attachment H, of Section J provided by the offeror will be evaluated to determine fairness and reasonableness and the overall best value to the Government for the base period and option period of this contract.

Firm Fixed Price Evaluation, FAR 15.404-1(b) (Price Analysis):

a. The Offeror’s proposed price for the Sample Task Order will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness.

b. The Government will evaluate the price for fairness and reasonableness when compared to the Offeror’s technical approach for the scope of services specified in the Sample Task Order to determine whether the proposal reflects a clear understanding of the requirements.

c. The information provided by the Offeror will be evaluated to determine fairness and reasonableness, and the overall best value to the Government for the base period and option period of this contract.

Cost Plus Fixed Fee Evaluation FAR 15.404-1(c) – (d) (Cost Analysis/Cost Realism Analysis):

a. The information provided by the offeror will be evaluated to determine fairness, reasonableness, and realism and the overall best value to the Government for the base period and option period of this contract.

b. The Government will evaluate the realism of the offeror’s CPFF proposal in order to determine whether the proposed cost is realistic for the work to be performed; reflects a clear understanding of the requirements; and is consistent with the methods of performance described in the offeror’s proposal.

c. CPFF proposals will be evaluated based on the Government’s Estimate of Most Probable Cost (MPC) per FAR 15.403-1(d).

d. The Government’s Estimate of MPC on CPFF tasks will be measured as follows: anticipated performance costs based on the offerors proposed technical approach and the offeror’s proposed fee. The most probable cost adjustment for each offeror will include technical risks identified during the evaluation of each offeror’s proposal and the associated costs.

e. Cost realism and cost risk/most probable cost to the Government are of significant importance in the overall contract award decision as related to the best value judgement.

f. The Government will evaluate most probable cost adjustments made to the sample task order.

The Offeror whose proposal requires minimum adjustment will be considered lower risk to the Government. The Offeror whose proposal requires significant adjustment will be considered higher risk to the Government.

g. Unrealistically low proposed costs or technical risks associated with the offeror’s proposal will be quantified and included in the cost realism assessment for each offeror. If the sample task order total price is found to be unreasonably high or unrealistically low, the proposal may be considered unacceptable and it may be rejected on that basis.

h. Sample Task Order Cost Proposal and Basis of Estimate - The Government will evaluate the costs proposed and Basis of Estimate when compared to the technical approach and schedule for each milestone.

NOTE. THE GOVERNMENT WILL EVALUATE ADJUSTMENTS MADE AS A

RESULT OF COST REALISM, TO THE SAMPLE TASK ORDER.

Each Offeror’s proposal is presumed to represent its best effort to respond to the solicitation. In an effort to verify the Offeror’s understanding of the work required and of its ability to perform the contract, any apparent inconsistency between promised performance and price will be addressed in the cost report with supporting documentation from the technical board. To assist in the crosswalk between the sample task order and cost, a basis of estimate will be required in both Volumes II and IV.

DCMA ACO Data or Other Equivalent Information. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s most recent accounting and billing systems are adequate.

RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINATION. In accordance with FAR Subpart 9.1, no award will be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of contractor responsibility. As a result, Offerors may be required to furnish additional information in order for the Government to make a determination regarding the Offeror’s responsibility. Additional information required may include, but is not limited to the Offeror’s Accounting System.

Offerors will be required to have an adequate accounting system in order to receive a contract as a result of this solicitation. Upon request of the Contracting Officer, Offerors will be required to describe the particular accounting system proposed for use when preparing cost/price proposals for task orders. Omissions or errors will be construed against the Offeror. The Offeror may be required to submit a completed SF 1408, Pre-award Survey of Prospective Contractor (Accounting System). The Offeror’s accounting system will be evaluated to assure that it is adequate for the performance of the contract requirements. Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) may perform a pre-award survey of the contractors’ accounting systems. Offerors who have recently had a successful audit of their accounting systems may provide the audit report in lieu of being audited by DCAA specifically for this contract. The main characteristics of an adequate accounting system are:

Proper segregation of direct costs from indirect costs.

Identification and accumulation of direct costs by contract.

Logical and consistent method for the allocation of indirect costs to contracts.

Accumulation of costs under general ledger controls.

Timekeeping system that identifies employees’ labor by contract.

Exclusion of unallowable costs from costs charged to Government contracts.

The approved accounting system of Offerors selected for award of a basic IDIQ contract, will be made part of the contract terms and conditions.

Financial Capability.

(1) In accordance with FAR 9.103(a) “…contracts shall be awarded to, responsible prospective contractors only.” To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must meet the standards at FAR 9.104. FAR 9.104-1(a) requires that a prospective contractor must have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them.

(2) The Government may evaluate the Offeror’s annual financial statements, current credit report(s), and plan to obtain sufficient financial resources to perform the contract requirements in order to determine if the prospective contractor has adequate financial resources to perform the contract or the ability to obtain them.

(End of Summary of Changes)