Amendment_0002_16-R-0031.pdf

W68SBV60567218

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to incorporate the changes to the solicitation as outlined in the summary of changes.

The proposal submisison date remains unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 11

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 29-Apr-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 W912EF-16-R-0031

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

06-Apr-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 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

29-Apr-2016

CODE

USAED, WALLA WALLA - CONTRACTING DIV.

HILLARY A. MORGAN

201 N. THIRD AVENUE

WALLA WALLA WA 99362

W912EF 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912EF-16-R-0031

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

LITTLE GOOSE BRIDGE CRANE MAIN HOIST REHABILITATION

SUMMARY OF CHANGES – AMENDMENT 0002

W912EF-16-R-0031

SOLICITATION:

• REVISED SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SPECIFICATIONS:

NO CHANGES

DRAWINGS:

• G-401: ADDED NOTE 7. CHANGED NOTE 9 REFERENCE FOR DIMENSIONS FOR PLYWOOD

COVERING TO NOTE 7.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value-tradeoff) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the four (4) evaluation factors:

Technical; Past Performance; Small Business Participation Plan; and Price.

All sub-factors of Factor 1, Technical, are equal in importance. Factor 1, Technical is more important than Factor 2, Past Performance. Factor 2, Past Performance is more important than Factor 3, Small Business Participation Plan.

When combined, the non-price factors (Factors 1, 2 and 3) are significantly more important than Factor 4, Price. As proposals become more equal in their technical (non-price) merit, the evaluated price becomes more important in determining the best value proposal.

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.

1. FACTOR 1 Technical - The technical evaluation will be comprised of three (3) Sub-Factors. Risk assesses the degree to which the offeror’s proposed technical approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased price, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Risk will be evaluated as one aspect of the technical evaluation, inherent in the technical evaluation factor or subfactor ratings.

Sub-factor 1A: Fabrication Experience Sub-factor 1B: Installation Experience Sub-factor 1C: Schedule

The three (3) sub-factors are of equal importance.

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each subfactor as it applies to the scope of work. 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 subfactor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

2. FACTOR 2 Past Performance - Each offeror’s current and past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence.

3. FACTOR 3 Small Business Participation Plan – The extent of Small Business Participation will be evaluated for unrestricted acquisitions.

4. FACTOR 4 Price - The resulting award will be a firm-fixed price contract. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the proposal.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals will be evaluated by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB).

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and sub-factors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP. Marginal levels of overall detail could indicate a lack of understanding concerning the requirements and may result in the entire factor receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range.

2. Factor 1 Technical - This factor is comprised of the following sub-factors:

a. Sub-factor 1A: Fabrication Experience

Offerors shall submit the following for Sub-factor 1A:

Proposals will be evaluated to determine experience with the fabrication of crane hoist equipment relevant with the scope and complexity required in the solicitation. Offerors shall provide sufficient information to clearly demonstrate the breadth and depth of the Offeror’s fabrication experience.

Offerors shall clearly identify the fabrication firm(s) that will be utilized during performance of the contract to supply the new main hoist drums and the new main hoist open gear sets. If the prime contractor proposes to self-perform the fabrication of the required crane hoist equipment, ensure the proposal is clear that the Offeror will be performing this function. If the prime contractor proposes to use a subcontractor for the fabrication of the required crane hoist equipment, the offeror must submit a signed Letter of Commitment from the subcontractor with the proposal.

If a subcontractor is proposed, the proposal will be considered more favorable if the proposal contains evidence of the prime and subcontractor working successfully together previously on relevant projects, than an offer with a prime and subcontractor with no prior experience working together on relevant projects.

If a joint venture is proposed, the proposal will be considered more favorable if the proposal contains evidence of the joint venture entity working successfully together previously on relevant projects, than an offer with a joint venture with no prior experience working together on relevant projects.

Offerors must demonstrate fabrication experience of a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of six (6) crane hoist drums completed within the last ten (10) years that meet the relevancy requirements defined in this sub-factor.

Offerors must demonstrate fabrication experience of a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of six (6) crane hoist gear sets completed within the last ten (10) years that meet the relevancy requirements defined in this sub-factor.

Each reference project used to demonstrate fabrication experience must include relevant scope of work, but is not required to involve all of the fully relevant elements defined in this subfactor. Proposals will be determined to be acceptable if three (3) reference projects combined demonstrate fully relevant experience, as defined in this subfactor. Proposals that demonstrate fully relevant experience across more than three (3) projects will be considered more favorable.

Fully Relevant Fabrication Experience for this sub-factor is defined as projects including all of the following:

• New manufacture crane hoist drums with a minimum diameter of 60 inches, a minimum length of 20 feet, and minimum weight of 35,000 pounds.

• Fabrication of gears with a minimum pitch diameter of 70 inches. Fabrication of helical gears and double helical gears will be considered more relevant than spur gears and will receive a more favorable evaluation.

• Fabrication of crane hoist drums and open gear sets completed within 10 years from the date of the proposal submission. For projects that are ongoing, the fabrication of the crane hoist drums and gears must be complete, but it is not necessary for the components to be fully installed or operational.

Use Attachment “Offeror Experience Form” to describe the projects in which the Offeror has relevant fabrication experience. Project experience shall include adequate detail such as configuration and dimensions to demonstrate the relevancy of the scope of work for comparison to that required in this solicitation.

c. Sub-factor 1B: Installation Experience

Offerors shall submit the following for Sub-factor 1B:

Proposals will be evaluated to determine experience with the installation of crane hoist equipment relevant with the scope and complexity required in the solicitation. Offerors shall provide sufficient information to clearly demonstrate the breadth and depth of the Offeror’s installation experience.

Offerors shall clearly identify the firm(s) that will be utilized during performance of the contract to perform the removal, installation, commissioning, and load testing of the main hoist equipment. If the prime contractor proposes to self-perform the removal, installation, commissioning, and load testing of the main hoist equipment, ensure the proposal is clear that the Offeror will be performing this function. If the prime contractor proposes to use a subcontractor for the removal, installation, commissioning, and load testing of the main hoist equipment, the offeror must submit a signed Letter of Commitment from the subcontractor with the proposal.

If a subcontractor is proposed, the proposal will be considered more favorable if the proposal contains evidence of the prime and subcontractor working successfully together previously on relevant projects, than an offer with a prime and subcontractor with no prior experience working together on relevant projects.

If a joint venture is proposed, the proposal will be considered more favorable if the proposal contains evidence of the joint venture entity working successfully together previously on relevant projects, than an offer with a joint venture with no prior experience working together on relevant projects.

Offerors must demonstrate crane installation experience of a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of six (6) projects completed within the last ten (10) years that meet the relevancy requirements defined in this sub-factor.

Each reference project used to demonstrate installation experience must include relevant scope of work, but is not required to involve all of the fully relevant elements defined in this subfactor. Proposals will be determined to be acceptable if three (3) reference projects combined demonstrate fully relevant experience, as defined in this subfactor. Proposals that demonstrate fully relevant experience across more than three (3) projects will be considered more favorable.

Fully Relevant Installation Experience for this sub-factor is defined as projects including all of the following:

• Construction of new or rehabilitation of an existing bridge crane, gantry crane, special purpose service crane, or semi-gantry crane that has at least one hoist rated at a minimum of 250 tons. Crane installation projects for a crane located inside a hydroelectric powerhouse will be considered more relevant than other types of cranes and will receive a more favorable evaluation. Crane installation projects for new or rehabilitated bridge cranes will be considered more relevant than gantry special purpose service or semi-gantry cranes and will receive a more favorable evaluation.

• Demolition, installation, setup, and testing of crane mechanical equipment including hoist drums, wire rope, gears, gearboxes, motors, brakes, bearings, couplings, and machinery bases.

• Removal, installation, commissioning, and testing of crane electrical and control systems, including the configuration of variable frequency drives (VFD).

• Load testing and commissioning of new or rehabilitated cranes rated at a minimum of 250 tons.

• Completed within 10 years from the date of the proposal submission. For projects that are ongoing, the on-site construction must be 50% complete at the date of the proposal submission.

Use Attachment “Offeror Experience Form” to describe the projects in which the Offeror has relevant crane installation experience. Project experience shall include adequate detail such as equipment types, ratings, capacities, and configuration to demonstrate the relevancy of the scope of work for comparison to that required in this solicitation.

d. Sub-Factor 1C: Schedule

Proposals shall include an overall project schedule to verify the Offeror’s experience in understanding the project scope, submittal schedules, equipment procurement and delivery, installation, commissioning and testing, key milestones, and contract required schedule constraints. The schedule shall depict and display the sequence and interdependence of the work, task durations, Government review times for submittals where applicable, and start and finish milestones. The Offeror's schedule shall consist of a one (1) 11X17 page Network Diagram with Gantt chart that includes the description of the activity, duration of the activity, and logic flow arrows for the complete network diagram. The schedule shall also contain a five (5) page maximum Narrative that details the Offeror's schedule management approach to ensure successful completion of the project and compliance with the requirements of the solicitation. Microsoft Office Project is the minimum accepted format for the schedule included in the Offeror's proposal.

For proposal purposes only, the offeror should use the arbitrary, non-binding Notice of Award and start of on-site construction activities:

Notice of Award date of August 5, 2016 Start date for Crane Out of Service of May 2, 2017

The schedule shall be task oriented, indicating the number of calendar days by which milestones are to be achieved.

At a minimum, the schedule must address:

1. Mobilization and preparatory work

2. Preparation, submission and Government review of preconstruction submittals

3. Long lead fabrication and procurement items (i.e. Main Hoist Drums, Gear Sets, Gear Boxes)

4. On-site work schedule (days per week, shifts per day, hours per shift)

5. Testing and commissioning activities

6. Training of Government personnel

7. Crane return to service

8. Close-out submittals

Include necessary, extra, or unusual efficiencies that will be required to meet the schedule. The maximum allowable schedule shall not exceed the stated duration specified in Contract Clause, FAR 52.211-10 Commencement, Prosecution, and Completion of Work.

The Government will evaluate the schedule to assess the Offeror’s understanding of the scope and complexity, and the Offeror’s capability to execute the project.

Sub-factor 1C will be rated more favorably if:

The project schedule clearly demonstrates a crane return to service date that is significantly earlier than required by the Contract, rather than simply demonstrating an adequate understanding of the scope, restrictions, major milestones and general understanding of the various events that can affect start and completion of the project.

Significantly shorter duration is defined as a minimum of 4 weeks. This shorter duration schedule must be accompanied with a narrative that explains how the shorter duration will be achieved and what measures will be taken to ensure that work will not deviate from the proposed earlier schedule.

Note: If the Offeror is awarded the Contract, and the submitted proposal includes a Schedule that demonstrates a crane return to service date that is significantly shorter than required by the Contract, the Government will incorporate the schedule into FAR Clause 52.211-10 Commencement, Prosecution, and Completion of Work to reflect the offered on-site construction duration.

The Technical Factor Ratings, excerpted below focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the offeror’s proposal. The rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements.

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 not awardable.

3. Factor II - Past Performance

The past performance evaluation will result in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The Offeror's past performance will be evaluated based on its own past performance and/or Joint Venture Partners, and on the past performance of any Major Subcontractors and/or Suppliers. Offerors will be evaluated based on the information provided in the proposal and any other available information determined appropriate by the Government.

When evaluating past performance the following will be taken into consideration:

a. The relevance of the project to the requirements of the solicitation. Relevancy of past performance information will be determined on the same basis as under Factor 1. The proposal will be considered more relevant if the projects submitted under Factor 1, Technical are included in the past performance submission.

b. How well the contractor performed on recent projects.

c. Trends in the Offeror’s past performance.

d. The number of problems, type and severity of the problems, and the effectiveness of corrective actions taken to ensure progress with project completion to minimize the schedule and cost impacts, and overall quality.

e. Evaluations, letters of appreciation, and commendations from customers.

f. Negative comments may negatively impact evaluation of Offeror’s past performance. If the negative past performance information (either pertaining to the Offeror or any of the Offeror’s major subcontractors) adversely impacts an Offeror’s proposal assessment, the Offeror will have an opportunity to address any such information on which it has not had a previous opportunity to comment. This opportunity may occur during clarifications, communications or discussions, at the discretion of the Contracting Officer, dependent upon whether discussions are anticipated, and, if they are, if they have been opened. At no time during this process, will the names of the individuals providing reference information about an Offeror’s past performance be revealed to a third party.

The Government reserves the right to verify claims made by the Offeror and not to consider relevant those projects that are not substantiated.

Unavailability of Past Performance Information: IAW FAR Part 15.305(a)(2)(iv), in the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

Instructions: The Offeror shall use the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in this solicitation. When completing the PPQ, ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact.

Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal. However, if the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before the proposal due date, the Offeror shall, at a minimum, submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ with blocks 1 through 4, as well as block 5 completed. This will allow the Government an opportunity to contact the client directly. Additionally, if the client requests, PPQs may be submitted directly from the client to the Government’s point of contact. In such cases, the client may submit to the Government point of contact listed in Block 7 of Standard Form 33.

Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal any PPQs previously submitted for other Solicitations/Requests for Proposals. 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 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.

d. The past performance factor considers each offeror’s demonstrated current and relevant past record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: relevancy and performance confidence assessment.

(i) RELEVANCY: The Government will conduct a performance assessment based on the relevancy of the

Offeror's current and past performance, as well as that of its major subcontractors and fabricators, as it relates to the probability of successful accomplishment of the required effort. These efforts include all aspects of schedule, performance and customer support, including the Offeror’s submitted subcontracting plan for this project and the Offeror’s record of: 1) Conforming to specifications and standards of good workmanship; 2) Maintaining program execution within price; 3) Adherence to contract schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance; 4) Ability to resolve technical and manufacturing problems quickly and effectively; 5) Businesslike concern for the interest of its customers; 6) Establishing and maintaining adequate management of subcontractors; and 7) Compliance with subcontracting plans submitted on previous projects.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Current/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Current/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Current/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Current/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(ii) PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The final step is for the team to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/current efforts gathered (documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment). Ensure the rationale for the conclusions reached are included.

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Definition

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

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) No relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

4. Factor 3 – Small Business Participation Plan

All Offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the extent of participation of small business concerns in performance of this contract opportunity. Offerors shall use Attachment C to provide their Small Business Participation Plan. All offerors will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of small businesses in the performance of acquisition (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and goals established herein. The government will evaluate:

1. The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals;

2. The extent of commitment to use such firms. The proposal will be rated more favorably under this sub-factor if it contains an enforceable commitment in the form of a signed letter of commitment (LOC);

3. Identification of the complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform;

4. The extent past performance is in compliance with FAR 52.219-8 “Utilization of Small Business” and maximizing opportunities for U.S. Small Business Subcontractors.

5. The extent to which the offeror meets or exceeds the goals. The goals for this procurement are:

• Total Small Business (any type of small business) 10% of the total contract value;

• Subcategory Small Business o Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) 1.5% of the total contract value;

o Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB) 1.0% of the total contract value;

o Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) 0.5% of the total contract value;

o Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB) 0.5% of the total contract value;

o Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) 1.0% of the total contract value;

Note – for example – a participation plan that reflects 1% of the contract value for WOSB would also count towards the overall Small Business Goal; and percentages for SDVOSB also count towards VOSB).

Evaluation Methodology for Factor 3 shall uses Combined Technical/Risk Ratings as follows:

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.

5. Factor 4 – Price

Offerors must submit completed Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) with unit price, quantity, and extended price.

All extensions of the unit prices shown will be subject to verification by the Government. In case of discrepancy between the unit price and the extended price, the unit price will govern.

An evaluation will be performed on the proposed prices. The evaluation will not be assigned an adjectival rating.

However, it will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness as follows:

a. Completeness - To be complete, the Offeror must provide all data that is requested and necessary to evaluate the price. The Government will assess the extent to which the proposed prices comply with the content and format requirements set forth in this solicitation.

b. Reasonableness - The Offeror's proposal is evaluated through price analysis techniques as described in FAR Subpart 15.305(a) (1) and 15.404-1(b). For price to be reasonable, it must represent a price that provides best value to the Government when consideration is given to prices in the market, (market conditions may be evidenced by other competitive proposals), and technical and functional capabilities of the Offeror. The Offeror's price will be evaluated to determine if any are unreasonably high or low in relation to the anticipated work under the contract, as well as with current industry standards.

(End of Summary of Changes)