W912ER15T00190002.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this solicitation amendment is to revise the Experience Factor that is listed in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.212-2 Evaluation -- Commercial Items. No other changes w ere necessary and all terms and conditions remain the same.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 12

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 01-Jul-2015

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 W912ER-15-T-0019

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

30-Jun-2015

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

01-Jul-2015

CODE

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS-CETAM-CT

MIDDLE EAST DISTRICT, CETAM-CT

PO BOX 2250

WINCHESTER VA 22604-1450

W912ER 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912ER-15-T-0019

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

1. ELIGIBILITY FOR CONTRACT AWARD

In accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), no contract shall be entered into unless the Contracting Officer ensures that all requirements of law, Executive Orders, regulations, and all other applicable procedures, including clearances and approvals, have been met. Additionally, the Contracting Officer shall make an affirmative determination of a proposal’s responsiveness. To be determined responsive, a proposal shall meet the requirements set forth in the solicitation. A proposal that is determined to be non-responsive will not be evaluated or considered for a contract award.

2. BVTO SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS

The Government shall evaluate all proposals that are complete and responsive to the solicitation. Evaluations for technical acceptability will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.305 Proposal Evaluation.

The Government cannot make the contract award to an Offeror that is determined to have a technical proposal that is unacceptable. An unacceptable rating will make the Offeror ineligible for the contract award, unless the Government elects to enter into discussions with Offeror’s and all reasons for an unacceptable rating are remedied in a revised proposal. It is the intent of the Government to award a contract without discussions, although the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is determined to be in the Government’s best interest.

Therefore, an Offeror that desires consideration for the contract award is advised to comply with all mandatory requirements of this solicitation for proposal submission of price and non-price proposals.

The Offeror that submits the proposal with the best combination of technical and price aspects shall be selected for the contract award. Incumbent to this approach is that the Government will not select the winning Offeror based on either the lowest price or the highest technical rating. To be selected an Offeror must provide the appropriate balance of each aspect by having a highly qualified technical proposal but at a reasonable price.

3. BASIS OF AWARD

Basis for Award: Subject to the provisions contained herein, award of a contact will be made to one Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), conforms to the solicitation requirements, and whose proposal, judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in this solicitation, represents the Best Value (using the Cost/Technical Trade-off process) to the Government. . The proposals will be evaluated on four (4) evaluation factors: Factor 1 - Experience, Factor 2 – Past Performance, Factor 3 – Technical/Management Approach, and Factor 4 – Price. Factor 1 Experience, is slightly more important than Factor 2 Past Performance which is in turn slightly more important that Factor 3 Technical/Management Approach. When combined the three Non-Pricing Factors are approximately equal to Factor 4 Price. The greater the equality of the non-pricing proposals, the more important price shall become in selecting the Best Value to the Government. Unreasonably high or low proposed prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competitive range based upon assessment that the Offeror does not understand the requirement or the Offeror has made an unreasonable proposal. The Government intends to make one award for completion of the project indentified in the solicitation. The award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal represents the best overall value to the Government. Competing proposals shall be evaluated against the requirements of the RFP to assess strengths, weaknesses and associated risks and deficiencies. The trade off process of evaluation between non-price and price aspects of the Offerors’ proposals will be used to determine the offer that represents the best value to the Government and may result in award of a contract.

4. PROPOSAL FORMAT AND PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

1. The Government will not make assumptions concerning intent, capabilities, or experiences. Clear identification of proposal details shall be the sole responsibility of the Offeror. The proposal shall meet the following basic requirements.

a. The Proposal shall be typed, submitted in English and be in 12 font, double spaced.

b. Proposal shall be organized, concise, and submitted electronically in two volumes. Volumes shall be clearly identified and tabbed. Each factor shall be described in a separate tabbed section.

c. Each volume shall be identified by the solicitation number, volume number, and name, address, and telephone number of the prime Offeror on the cover.

d. Volume I: Offeror’s shall submit technical (non-price) proposal and verify that the information for all forms submitted is current, correct and complete including names of the points-of-contact, email address, and telephone number.

e. Volume II: The Price proposal shall be completed in full. Volume II shall include verification of all amendments received.

f. Offeror’s shall submit an electronic copy of each Volume, including the Electronic Price proposal.

g. Proposals shall completely and adequately address the requirements of this solicitation. Offeror’s are reminded that elaborate corporate marketing information, formatting, special reproduction techniques, etc., are not necessary.

h. Contractors are cautioned against submitting conditional proposals. All questions and concerns shall be addressed, in writing, to the Contracting Officer and Contracting Specialist prior to the closing date of the solicitation, providing adequate time for the Contracting Officer to answer the concerns.

i. Failing to submit attachments or failing to complete the proposal properly, may result in rejection of the offer without further evaluation. Therefore, Offeror’s are urged to follow instructions and speak with the Contracting Officer and Contracting Specialist if instructions are not understood.

The Request for Proposal (RFP) does not commit the Government to pay any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of a proposal or for any other costs incurred by any firm submitting a proposal in response to this solicitation. All Offeror’s submitting a proposal for this solicitation shall be actively registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) at the time of proposal submittal. Offeror’s that are not actively registered in SAM will be considered unacceptable. Offeror’s should complete the registration process in SAM at least two weeks prior to the proposal due date to ensure active registration. Offeror’s may register in SAM on the internet at:

https://www.sam.gov.

2. Joint Ventures

An Offeror that is part of a Joint Venture must submit a legally binding joint venture agreement. The Government will not evaluate the capabilities of any Offeror’s that are not included in the Joint Venture agreement. Joint Ventures must include a copy of the legal joint venture agreement signed by an authorized officer from each of the firms comprising the Joint Venture with the chief executive of each entity identified and must be translated into English, if the original agreement is in a language other than English.

If submitting a proposal as a Joint Venture, the technical (i.e., experience, past performance, etc.) information of each of the Joint Venture Partner’s can be submitted for the Joint Venture Entity. However, if the Joint Venture has no action on this project its information will not receive much consideration as it is not germane to the project at hand.

3. Key Subcontractors

If an Offeror wishes to be credited with the experience of a key subcontract or supplier (i.e., a firm that is not the prime contractor part of the Joint Venture) a letter of commitment signed by the Key Subcontractor and the Prime Contractor shall be submitted with the proposal. The commitment letter shall be submitted even if the firm is in some way related to a Joint Venture Partner (for example, the Key Subcontractor is subsidiary of a Joint Venture Partner, or a subsidiary of a firm to which the Joint Venture partner is also a subsidiary). If a letter of commitment is not submitted, the experience will not be considered. Make sure to include as part of Volume I.

4. Proposal Package

Volume 1 – Technical Proposal

Factor 1 – Experience Factor 2 – Past Performance Factor 3 – Technical/Management Approach

Volume 2 – Price and Contract Documentation

Factor 4 – Price Acknowledgement of all amendments Points-of-Contact with the authority to legally bind the Contractor JV Letter of Commitment (If Applicable) Key Subcontractor Letter of Commitment (If Applicable) DUNS Number, CAGE Code, and Tax Identification Number

4.1 Proposal Format for Volume I

When the word “Offeror” is encountered, it is intended to mean a company seeking to do business with the Government that submits a proposal in response to this solicitation. When the word “Government” is encountered, it is intended to mean U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

4.1.1 FACTOR 1 – EXPERIENCE

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s experience and will rate each Offeror on the basis of their relative depth of experience in managing and executing projects of similar cost, complexity and function as the Statement of Work for this requirement.

a. Offerors shall submit projects that are relevant to the work required by the Statement of Work. The Offeror shall submit no more than three (3) relevant projects that have been successfully performed in the Middle East Region (i.e., Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Iraq, UAE, Bahrain, and Qatar), and includes operation and maintenance (O&M) of items listed in Appendix A of the solicitation where the Offeror was the prime contractor.

Offeror’s with previous working experience as a prime contractor in Egypt will receive greater consideration in the evaluation. Offeror’s with experience working on all of the systems listed in Appendix A, either through their home office or subsidiaries, in Egypt will receive more consideration as well. Offeror’s can also receive consideration if they have experience working with local Egyptian subcontractors that have experience working on all of the systems listed in Appendix A. Offerors with experience working on military bases will also receive more consideration in the evaluation process.

All three (3) projects submitted have occurred within the past five (5) years. Offerors that are prime contractors on all three (3) projects submitted will receive more consideration.

b. The contract value for each of the three (3) projects submitted shall be greater than or equal to $2,000,000.00.

c. The three (3) projects submitted for evaluation shall be either complete or at least 50% complete at the time proposals are submitted. If more than three (3) projects are submitted, only the first three (3) projects will be evaluated.

d. If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV) the proposal shall clearly address the experience of each of the partners and the relationship of the JV partners on any ongoing or previously completed projects applicable to this requirement. The Offeror shall identify the roles of the JV partner to ensure that their previous experience is relevant to the role they will be performing on the solicitation project.

1. Each JV member may submit up to three (3) separate relevant projects for consideration of their experience.

2. Experience shall be reflected on separate documents and shall be identified as “Experience”. The document shall not exceed one (1) page for each project.

e. Projects that are more relevant to the solicitation project will receive more consideration for award. Relevancy is described below.

Evaluation Requirements:

The Offeror shall be evaluated on the relevancy of their experience as it relates to the solicitation project. For the purposes of this evaluation a fully relevant project is one in which the Offeror has performed at least $2M worth of work, was completed in the last five years or is at least 50% complete, was performed in the Middle East Region (i.e., Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Iraq, UAE, Bahrain, and Qatar), and includes operation and maintenance (O&M) of items listed in Appendix A of the Solicitation. Offerors experience response shall list the items in Appendix A for which O&M actions were performed. Not all need to be listed in the Offeror’s proposal to be fully relevant, but the more items that are listed the greater weight it will be given in the evaluation process. Note that operation and maintenance includes performing inspections and purchasing spare parts to complete the O&M action.

Experience performing operation and maintenance actions, including inspections and spare parts procurement, on the items listed in Appendix A in Egypt will receive greater weight in the evaluation process.

For projects that do not meet the definition of a fully relevant project above, other project experience which meets one of the following criteria will also be considered. The following criteria are listed in descending order of importance:

1. Projects that are similar in cost ($2M), was completed in the last five years or is at least 50% complete, includes operation and maintenance (O&M) of items listed in Appendix A of the Solicitation, but was completed in areas outside of the Middle East as defined above.

2. Projects are less in cost (<$2M) but were still completed in the last five years or is at least 50% complete, includes operation and maintenance (O&M) of items listed in Appendix A of the Solicitation, and was completed in the Middle East as defined above.

3. Projects are less in cost (<$2M) but were still completed in the last five years or is at least 50% complete, includes operation and maintenance (O&M) of items listed in Appendix A of the Solicitation, and was completed in areas outside of the Middle East as defined above.

4. Projects that do not meet any of the above criteria will be considered not relevant to the solicitation project and will not be considered.

5. If a Joint Venture, more consideration will be given to Offerors who have demonstrated relevant experience utilizing the same Joint Venture team that is being proposed for this solicitation project.

6. The Government reserves the right to verify the experience record of cited projects or other projects by any means available or as deemed appropriate by the Government. The Government reserves the right to exclude experience that cannot be verified from the evaluation.

The following combined technical/risk ratings definitions will be utilized in the evaluation of the Factor 1:

Experience

4.1.2 FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

The Offeror shall submit past performance for each completed project submitted under Factor 1 Experience. To be evaluated the Offeror shall submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) or a DD Form 2626 (Contactor Performance Assessment Report) for each project submitted under the Experience Factor. Only PPQ and DD Form 2626 will be considered for evaluation. Offerors shall NOT submit additional past performance information, such as certificates, awards, etc., as they will not be evaluated. Only past performance information associated with the projects submitted under the Experience Factor will be considered for evaluation. The Government reserves the right to authenticate any past performance information submitted by the Offeror.

COLOR ADJECTIVE

RATING

DEFINITION AND CRITERIA

Blue Outstanding

Proposal exceeds requirements and indicates an exceptional understanding of the requirements with the experience provided.

Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple

Good

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough understanding of the requirements with the experience provided. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements with the experience provided. 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 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 unawardable.

Past performance refers to the quality of project experience from the owner’s perspective. It relates to how well an Offeror accomplished a project, not what they did as this is experience information. The Offeror shall provide an English speaking customer reference name(s), company affiliation, and current contact information for each of the projects submitted under the Experience Factor. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division, unit or team member submitting the offer. The project owner points of contact/clients shall have firsthand knowledge and information of the Offeror’s past performance in connection with the projects submitted. The points of contact/clients provided cannot be affiliated with the Offeror in any manner or capacity, must be independent, and must be willing to answer questions. The Government may contact and interview points of contact/clients and reserves the right to interview other individuals with knowledge of the listed project performance. FALSIFIED PPQ’S MAY BE GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF THE OFFEROR’S

PROPOSAL.

The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the Solicitation is provided for the Offeror to submit to the client for each project included in the Experience Factor. The Offeror should include the performance rating by the owner on the form, if the Offeror was rated. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposals PPQ’s previously submitted in response to other Solicitations. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the Past Performance Evaluation.

A PPQ or DD Form 2626 (CCASS) shall be submitted for each project. If Offerors are unable to obtain a completed PPQ for a project then they must, at a minimum, complete the client contact information on the first page of the PPQ to allow the Government to ability to attempt to contact the client, if they so choose. Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality of work, timeliness, on budget, safety, management, warranty, client satisfaction, etc. The Government will not release any interview information to the Offeror at any time, in order for the Government to solicit candid, unbiased interview comments.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating current and past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), using applicable CAGE/DUNS numbers of the team members, Federal Awardee Performance and integrity Information Systems (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), the Offeror’s Dun & Bradstreet Report, and any other sources not provided by the Offeror. The Government reserves the right to contact Government field representatives, or any other sources that they deem appropriate.

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. If the Offeror is a joint venture of partnership, past performance information should be presented for each partner in the joint venture or partnership.

Although the Government prefers all members of a joint venture or partnership to have satisfied or excelled in all areas pertaining to past performance, the Government will consider the complimentary aspects of the separate participants in a joint venture or partnership, by evaluating the joint venture or partnership as a whole.

A Joint Venture or partnership with previous successful past performance as a Joint Venture or partnership as proposed will be given greater weight in the evaluation process than a newly formed joint venture or partnership that has no previous past performance history together. Completed PPQ’s should be submitted with the Offeror’s proposal. Offerors should follow up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client/reference requests, questionnaires can be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, Ms. Holly K. Watson, via email at Holly.K.Watson@usace.army.mil prior to the proposal closing date.

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.

Evaluation Requirements:

The Past Performance evaluation will result in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of successfully meeting the solicitation requirements. The offerors past performance will be evaluated based on its own past performance, and on the past performance of any Joint Venture member, or other partners who will be performing the work.

Proposals will be evaluated based on the information provided and any other information determined appropriate by the Government.

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: relevance and confidence. The Government will perform a performance confidence assessment of the Offeror’s probability of successfully meeting the contract requirements considering the degree of success of the Offeror’s recent and relevant experience. (See the Experience Factor for definitions of recent and relevant as it pertains to this Solicitation).

Relevancy Assessment: One aspect to the Past Performance evaluation is to evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine its relevancy to the solicitation requirement; i.e., how relevant is the past performance to the solicitation project? The criteria to establish what is recent and relevant as defined under the Experience criteria.

With respect to relevancy, the more relevant the past performance the stronger it is as an indicator to predicting future success by the Offeror on this solicitation project.

The evaluation team shall use the terms described in the table below to assign past performance ratings:

Confidence Assessment: The second aspect of the Past Performance evaluation is to determine how well the Offeror performed on contracts submitted in their proposal. The Government will consider the relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the Offeror’s performance. After determining its relevancy, the next question to answer is how well did the Offeror perform on the particular project?

How confident are we with this Offeror that they will perform satisfactory or above?

The Government places higher value on projects which document successful outcomes and are supported by outside source confirmation, such as telephone interviews with points of contact, computer generated evaluations, evaluations from other agencies, Offeror furnished references or personal knowledge of Government employees that have worked closely with the Offeror. The rating for this factor is expressed as the degree of confidence that the Government has on the Offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the contract requirements. The rating system used for the performance confidence assessment is described below.

Unavailability of Past Performance Information: In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv) if an Offeror has no record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is unavailable, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the Past Performance. The Offeror shall receive an Unknown Confidence (i.e., Neutral) rating.

The Government will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in the table below.

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 involves none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Description

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

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

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

No Confidence Based on the offerors 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 offerors performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

4.1.3 FACTOR 3 – TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT APPROACH

The Offeror shall provide a Management Plan with a detailed narrative that identifies the Offeror’s understanding of the Statement of Work for this solicitation and its approach for completing the work. The narrative shall clearly state how the Offeror intends to accomplish each of the requirements identified in the Statement of Work including activities that will take place immediately after contract award (i.e. identifying subcontractors, coordination with customer). The narrative shall also specifically address the topics listed below:

a. Performance of Bi-weekly Inspections/Routine Maintenance: Identify personnel completing inspections and their titles, management responsibility, location of staff and management, lines of communication, and equipment utilized.

b. Spare Parts Procurement: Describe purchase procedures, logistical management including delivery to the designated freight forwarder, quality control, personnel performing the procurement, and the location performed.

c. Urgent Repairs: Describe management plan for urgent repairs and strategy for successful results. Identify personnel responsible for conducting the inspections/repairs, location of personnel responsible, and the time management to achieve successful completion as defined by the Statement of Work.

d. Normal Repairs: Describe management plan for normal repairs and strategy for successful results. Identify personnel responsible for performing these repairs, their location, and their reporting structure.

The Offeror’s Management Plan shall include an organizational chart identifying key personnel by title, their location, Sub-contractors, Subsidiaries, Joint Venture partners, and methods of communication. The Management plan shall not exceed a total of six (6) pages including the organizational chart. The Offeror’s narrative shall demonstrate a clear understanding of their approach and show how it meets the Statement of Work requirements with specific reference to the four topics above. The Technical/Management Approach submission will be evaluated for strengths and weaknesses using information provided by the Offeror. Proposals that fail to present a clear description of the Offeror’s approach, or fail to meet the Statement of Work requirements, will be viewed as less favorable during the evaluation process.

The Government is looking for those firms that can step in immediately after contract award and begin the actions specified by the Statement of Work. The Government does not want a firm that has on-site staff with little or no training to accomplish these tasks and thus needs more time to accomplish. The Government cannot afford any delays in performing the repairs and inspections provided by this contract.

Evaluation Requirements:

The proposal will be evaluated based on the clarity, completeness, and consistency of the Offeror’s approach and its ability to demonstrate a clear understanding of the contractual requirements of the Statement of Work with specific reference to the four topics above. Proposals that are unclear, disjointed (i.e., organizational chart not matching the narrative), or fail to clearly articulate the Offeror’s approach will be viewed less favorably in the evaluation process.

Furthermore, approaches that vary from the Statement of Work requirements will be viewed less favorably as well.

However, proposals that realistically demonstrate a prompt response to the Statement of Work requirements will be given greater consideration in the evaluation process.

The proposal clearly delineates lines of authority on the organizational chart and is organized in a logical manner, including all involved with the management of the contract including Subcontractors, Subsidiaries, and Joint Venture partners. Organizational charts that fail to clearly show lines of authority will be viewed less favorably.

The proposal contains comprehensive description of duties, roles (including which roles and personnel are identified to communicate with the Government), major responsibilities, and authorities for key personnel, including roles and authorities for Subcontractors, Subsidiaries, and Joint Venture partners and whether this presents a logical approach to perform the work associated with this contract. Roles and responsibilities that are clearly defined and compliment the Offeror’s technical and management approach will be viewed more favorably in the evaluation process.

The proposal contains the right mix of personnel for the Offeror’s approach, both on and off site, to accomplish all Statement of Work requirements. This includes, but is not limited to, contract management, spare parts procurement and on-site inspections and repairs. Offeror’s with too little or too many personnel for their approach will be viewed less favorably.

Proposals that contain maintenance and inspection personnel with more experience performing their proposed duties will receive more consideration in the evalution process; the greater the experience, the greater the consideration.

Conversely, Offerors whose proposed maintenance and inspection personnel have little to no experience in their area of responsibility will be viewed less favorably in the evaluation process.

Furthermore, Offeror’s who propose qualified and trained technical personnel to accomplish the inspection and repair actions listed in Appendix A will receive more consideration in the evaluation process.

The Technical/Management Approach submission will be evaluated for strengths and weaknesses using information provided by the Offeror. The proposal will be evaluated based on the clarity and completeness of the Offeror’s approach and its ability to demonstrate an understanding of the contractual requirements using an approach that is achievable. The evaluation will take into account the level of risk with the Offeror’s approach as well. Approaches that fail to address all topics related above in a clear and concise manner and/or submit an approach that is unattainable will be viewed as less desirable and with greater risk toward the Government. Approaches that clearly and completely address the topics above in a manner that is achievable will be more desirable and will have less risk for the Government. These proposals are more likely to achieve a higher rating in the evaluation process.

The following technical/risk ratings definitions will be utilized in the evaluation of the Factor 3 – Technical/Management Approach:

4.1.4 FACTOR 4 - PRICE

Offeror’s shall provide a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) proposal. This price shall include, but is not limited to, all oversight, ordering, delivery, technical support services, urgent support services, and spare parts as specified in the Statement of Work. An evaluation shall be performed on the proposal price for balance, completeness, and reasonableness.

1. Completing the Price Proposal

Offerors shall submit a completed Price Proposal as part of the Factor 4 – Price for Volume II.

a. In order to be considered acceptable, proposals shall be balanced.

b. The price proposal shall be complete. The proposal shall have pricing for all line items contained within the solicitation.

c. The proposal is reasonable. (Reasonableness has to do with whether an Offeror’s proposed prices compare favorably against the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) as well as against the proposed prices submitted by other Offeror’s).

4.1.5 Proposal Format for Volume II

a. For Volume II the Offeror shall provide the Price Proposal and Contract Administrative requirements at the same time as the submission of the Technical Proposal (Volume I).

b. Offeror’s shall submit a completed Price Proposal, containing the Offeror’s proposed price.

c. The Offeror shall submit a SF 1449 duly executed with an original signature by an official authorized to bind the company.

d. Acknowledgement of all amendments to the solicitation is accordance with the instructions on the SF 1449.

COLOR ADJECTIVE

RATING

DEFINITION AND CRITERIA

Blue Outstanding

Proposal exceeds 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 unawardable.

e. The name, address, telephone and fax numbers, e-mail addresses of the Point(s) of Contact with the authority to legally bind the Offeror.

f. Name, Address, Phone Number, E-Mail, DUNS, CAGE, and TAX Identification Number of the Offeror submitting the proposal.

Evaluation Requirements:

The Government will evaluate all proposals for the purpose of determining the reasonableness and completeness of the prices offered. Price proposals will be analyzed for unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g). Completeness includes review of the price proposals.

The Government will evaluate Offeror’s proposed price in order to identify risks to the Government based upon demonstration that:

a. The Offeror will successfully perform at the proposed price.

b. The prices are balanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of the price analysis techniques.

c. The price is complete. Completeness is the degree to which an Offeror has priced all aspects of the work to be performed as defined by the Government.

d. The proposal is reasonable. Reasonableness has to do with whether an Offeror’s proposed prices compare favorably against the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) as well as against the proposed prices submitted by other Offeror’s.

The Government will also determine the likelihood of an Offeror’s ability to successfully perform at the proposed prices. Risk is identified by the completeness and reasonableness of the Offeror’s price.

Technical and past performance, when combined, are equal to price.

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of provision)

(End of Summary of Changes)