Amendment_0001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpsoe of this amendment is to update Section M.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 12

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 13-Jun-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 W912GB18R0030

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

12-Jun-2018

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

13-Jun-2018

CODE

CONTRACTING DIVISION

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

KONRAD ADENAUER RING 39

D-65187 WIESBADEN GERMANY

WIESBADEN 65187

W912GB 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912GB18R0030

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

A. Basis for Award The Government will utilize the Best Value Tradeoff Process for Source Selection in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 to determine best value. This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors. Award will be made to the Offerors proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the proposals received, including the evaluation factors described in paragraph B of this section. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for all non-price factors. The government considers it to be in its best interest to allow award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror. The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal shall merit the additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs must be documented in the file in accordance with FAR 15.406.

The Technical Approach factor is more important than the Experience factor, which is more important than the Management Approach, which is more important than Past Performance.

To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the technical factors. Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered. ALL TECHNICAL FACTORS COMBINED ARE SIGNIFICANTLY

MORE IMPORTANT THAN FACTOR 5, PRICE.

B. Factors to be Evaluated The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offerors whose proposals are most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors listed below.

VOLUME I: TECHNICAL FACTORS

FACTOR 1 - Technical Approach FACTOR 2 - Experience FACTOR 3 - Management Approach FACTOR 4 - Past Performance

VOLUME II: PRICE FACTOR

FACTOR 5 - Price

The Technical Approach factor is more important than the Experience factor, which is more important than the Management Approach, which is more important than Past Performance. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the technical factors. Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered. ALL TECHNICAL FACTORS

COMBINED ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN FACTOR 5, PRICE.

C. Evaluation Factors for Award (Section M) All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST).

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all 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 solicitation. 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 solicitation.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

The Rating Scale below will be used on the following Technical evaluation factors:

FACTOR 1 - Technical Approach FACTOR 2 - Experience FACTOR 3 - Management Approach ***See the Past Performance Evaluation Criteria for the Rating Scales for Past Performance***

For these factor, Offerors will be assigned a combined technical/risk rating from the following tables, based on the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal in accordance with the requirements of the solicitation:

Table 1 - NON-PRICE FACTOR COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weakness. 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 Un-acceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is unawardable.

Risk levels as described in the adjectival ratings in the combined technical/risk rating table will be assessed according to the following guidelines:

Table 1a - NON-PRICE FACTOR TECHNICAL RISK RATING

Adjectival Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

1. FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH

The Government will evaluate the proposed technical approach to accomplishing the Appendix A PWS requirements for reasonableness, validity, and for how well the offeror has complied with the requirements of this Solicitation. Approaches that “assume away” the major issues and problems that may be faced on the project will be evaluated unfavorably and be considered to have additional risk to the Government. In performing the evaluation, the Government will evaluate the following in accordance with the methodology described above:

The degree that the proposal demonstrated a reasonable process and rationale for the number and capability of staff to perform the tasks in a cost effective manner, provide an adequate safety program, comply with regulatory requirements, and achieve the specific performance metrics

The degree that the proposal demonstrated the contractor’s ability and approach to developing technical work packages in accordance PWS requirements that are also compliant with specified UFCs and Host Nation regulations

The methodology utilized when making materiel/equipment selections and how performance metrics and regulatory requirements will be validated for compliance

How the Offeror will use proposed personnel and sub-contractor resources to assure the delivery of quality projects in accordance with contract provisions; and

A Technical Approach that demonstrates the least risk to the operations at DoD fuel facilities.

There is a limit of ten (10) single spaced typed pages (A4 or letter size), using at a minimum a 12 pitch font, front and back equals two pages. If more than 10 pages are submitted, only the first 10 pages will be reviewed and evaluated.

2. FACTOR 2: EXPERIENCE

The Offeror’s Experience will be evaluated base on the direct relevancy to Performance Work Statement. Capability for accomplishing additional scope will not be evaluated.

Breadth and depth of experience is determined by evaluating the number of projects that are both relevant in size and nature and cover the breadth of projects anticipated for this solicitation. The Offeror shall submit five (5) projects that have been completed within the past five (5) years. Projects shall be completed or at least 85% completed that best demonstrate the offeror’s relevant experience as required on this solicitation as referenced above and in the PWS. If more than five (5) projects are submitted, only the first five (5) will be evaluated; less than 5 may result in a lower rating. Offerors are responsible for providing descriptions in sufficient details to permit evaluation of project relevancy. Projects that are completed by the Offeror as the Prime Contractor are considered more relevant.

The Projects submitted will be evaluated on the relevancy of the experience as submitted in the proposal.

The Government will evaluate the Contractor’s:

Experience with the United States Department of Defense (DoD);

Experience in the geographical locations listed in the Performance Work

Statement (PWS);

Experience with DoD and Host Nation regulations;

Experience with DoD fuel systems repair projects;

Experience of executing multiple projects of similar work to the PWS at the same time;

Experience managing multiple projects and subcontractors in different locations at the same time;

Experience with the proposed subcontracting team(s)

The Government will give additional considerations, in the form of assigned strengths, to company experience on fuels system maintenance and fuels systems repair project determined to meet the criteria listed below:

Projects where the Offeror was the Prime Contractor on the submitted projects Projects where significant fuels system maintenance and repairs have been executed within the last five (5) years

Projects performed within the USACE Europe District’s area of responsibility.

Additional consideration may be given for up to five submitted projects meeting this criteria

Projects where fuels related minor construction has been executed within the last five (5) years

Projects where the contract was more than $500,000 Experience with the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) fuel systems repair projects Experience with DLA fuels related minor construction projects

The description should clearly identify specific examples of how the Section M criteria were demonstrated for the project being submitted.

The Government requires that of the 5 relevant projects submitted, all of the projects demonstrate the Offeror’s experience in doing work of a similar size (valued between €50,000 and €2,500,000). Highlight any experience last was directly relatable as described in the bullets above.

If no previous work experience with the US Government can be shown, this alone will not disqualify a contractor from consideration.

If a Key Subcontractor or Joint Venture is submitted for evaluation purposes, project examples that demonstrate experience working with those Key Subcontractors and/or Joint Venture Partners are considered more relevant. Project examples that do not demonstrate experience working with those Key Subcontractors and/or Joint Venture Partners are considered less relevant.

There is a limit of ten (10) single spaced typed pages (A4 or letter size), using at a minimum a 12 pitch font, front and back equals two pages. If more than 10 pages are submitted, only the first 10 pages will be reviewed and evaluated.

3. FACTOR 3: MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Evaluators will determine whether the Offerors demonstrate an understanding of the complexity and magnitude of requirements set forth in the Performance Work Statement.

The proposal submission for this factor shall include a brief narrative (conceptual work plan) that clearly demonstrates an understanding of requirements of the solicitation. The narrative should address and contain a description of the items below, and more consideration will be given to an Offeror that demonstrates greater understanding via their descriptions to these items:

i. Whether the proposal clearly delineates lines of authority, responsibility, and communication between corporate staff, key on-site staff, subcontractors, and the Government. This information should be depicted on an organizational chart organized in a precise and logical manner, including all offices and key personnel involved with the management and execution of the contract. Offerors shall additionally detail which personnel are authorized to communicate directly with the U.S. Government.

ii. Project Life Cycle Management: Whether the proposal clearly details in a logical and reasonable manner how the Contractor will approach project life cycle management from project award through closeout. Specifically Address:

a. Involvement of key personnel and roles per major phase of the project (i.e.

project initiation, development of technical packages, installation/construction activities, Government acceptance, and closeout).

b. Hiring personnel: How/when new employees will be hired to augment personnel already employed for new requirements.

c. Compliance with security requirements.

d. Approach to ensuring conformance with host nation and other requirements specified in the PWS.

e. Validating work conformance to PWS requirements.

f. Warranty management

g. Corporate involvement and oversight

iii. Difficulties, uncertainties and risks associated with the work and how the Offeror will minimize these risks;

iv. The Offeror’s plan for management and start-up of five (5) concurrent task orders in the coverage area for SRM projects in the range of €50,000 to €2,500,000, to include mobilization to the site; how to staff multiple field offices with key personnel currently employed by the prime, and/or JV, key subcontractor, and letters of commitments from additional personnel required to meet the minimum requirements of the contract and key personnel; and in general, work that will be done by the prime and that to be accomplished by subcontractors. Offerors are encouraged to become familiar with personnel requirements located in Attachment D USACE Quality Control and Attachment E Safety Requirements.

There is a limit of ten (10) single spaced typed pages (A4 or letter size), using at a minimum a 12 pitch font, front and back equals two pages. If more than 10 pages are submitted, only the first 10 pages will be reviewed and evaluated. The organization chart is not considered part of the 10 pages.

4. FACTOR 4: PAST PERFORMANCE

There are two aspects to the Government’s evaluation of past performance. The first aspect is to evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant project work is, as described in Factor Two (2) Experience, for recent projects. The second aspect is to evaluate the offeror’s performance to determine a confidence assessment of the offeror’s performance. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future performance and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

The Offeror's past performance will be evaluated based on performance on projects submitted under Factor 2 Experience, to include the past performance of any Subcontractors or Joint Venture partners whose projects the Offeror may have submitted. Proposals will be evaluated based on the information provided and any other Past Performance information obtained by the Government. Past performance will be evaluated in accordance with the following criteria:

1. Quality: The degree to which the Offeror has complied with the contract requirements ; met quality standards; was timely in regard to problem resolution without extensive customer guidance; and the shown effectiveness of his prior quality control program.

2. Schedule/Timeliness of Performance: Whether the Offeror met contract completion dates including significant milestones and where schedules were exceeded, whether the Offeror identified valid justifications for the delays or if liquidated damages were assessed due to late delivery by the Offeror.

3. Customer Satisfaction: The degree to which end-users were satisfied with the project; whether the Offeror was reasonable and cooperative in regard to resolving disagreements; whether the Offeror was responsive and businesslike with concern for the customer, and whether the Offeror achieved customer satisfaction.

4. Management Personnel/Labor: Whether the Offeror used effective business practices for on-site management for subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and labor force. Whether and the extent to which the Offeror displayed an ability to hire and retain a qualified workforce; controlled government/ owner property when applicable; provided a workforce with the required expertise; successfully managed multiple projects simultaneously and multiple disciplines of construction; easily assimilated and incorporated changes in requirements and priorities in response to the owner; and provided an effective overall management and control of projects and programs.

5. Cost/Financial Management: Whether the Offeror met the contract requirements by completing the project at the agreed to price and where not, the extent to which the Offeror was responsible for cost increases; whether the Offeror provided alternative methods that benefited the client; whether the Offeror submitted invoices timely with sufficient documentation to substantiate requested payment and avoided significant unexplained variances from the original price.

6. Safety/Security: The Offeror’s prior record for maintaining an environment of safety, adherence to a safety plan, and compliance with safety requirements, including following safety regulations, housekeeping, and correcting noted deficiencies, as well as the Offeror’s prior compliance with all security requirements and personnel security requirements when applicable. The Offeror’s experience modification rate (EMR) shall be submitted within this factor for evaluation. The EMR is a numeric representation of the Company’s claims history and safety record as compared to other companies in the same industry. The EMR will be evaluated based on below:

This company is riskier than average (EMR > 1.0) This company is no more or no less risky than average (EMR = 1.0) This company is safer than average (EMR < 1.0)

The Offeror shall also submit a log and summaries of work-related injuries and illnesses reports.

1. In evaluating relevancy and determining a confidence assessment of past performance, shall also be evaluated in accordance with the following criteria:

a. The relevance of past performance;

b. How recent the project submitted was performed;

c. Trends in the Offeror’s performance;

d. Evaluations, letters/certifications of appreciation, commendations, and awards from clients; and

e. Positive and/or negative comments that impact evaluation of the Offeror’s past performance.

2. Letters, Certificates, Commendations, and Awards: Additional consideration may be provided for letters of appreciation and commendations provided as part of an Offeror’s proposal, especially for projects submitted in response to Factor Two (2), Experience.

3. The Government reserves the right to verify statement the Offeror makes regarding its past performance to determine whether they are substantiated.

4. Unavailability of Past Performance Information: In accordance with FAR 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.

5. Additional Past Performance Evaluation Information:

a. Negative comments received from data gathered by the Government will not necessarily result in an adverse rating. However, negative comments from relevant past performance sources may negatively impact the evaluation of an Offeror’s past performance.

b. The Offeror shall ensure that the identified references and points of contact speak English, if possible, and are aware they may be contacted for information. Offerors are reminded that the Government reserves the right to obtain past performance information from any source available.

The Government may also consider other past performance information in evaluating overall risk associated with a particular Offeror.

c. At no time during the evaluation process, in the debriefing, or after award, will the names of the individuals providing reference information about an Offeror's past performance be revealed to the Offeror or to any other party.

d. The Government reserves the right to check other methods of past performance, i.e. PPIRS and eSRS, etc.

The adjectival ratings for FACTOR 4: PAST PERFORMANCE are listed and defined below:

For the Past Performance evaluation, the evaluation will include a relevancy rating and confidence assessment, as detailed below. Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)).

The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated, however. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings:

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

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

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

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

Performance Confidence Assessments:

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. In conducting the performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings identified below:

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.

5. FACTOR 5: PRICE

An evaluation will be performed on the proposed unit price for the base period and all option periods. The evaluation will not be assigned an adjectival rating, yet it will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness as follows:

1. Completeness – To be complete, the Offeror shall provide unit price for all base and all option line items. The Government will assess the extent to which the proposed unit prices comply with the content and format requirements set forth in this solicitation.

2. Reasonableness – The Offeror's proposal is evaluated through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1.

The base contract price portion of this evaluation will be subjectively evaluated and a best value analysis of the proposal as a whole performed to determine best value to the Government. The Government will evaluate all aspects of the price proposal for fairness and reasonableness for the Base Period, Option Period One, Option Period Two, Option Period Three, and Option Period Four. If the offer is found to be unreasonably high it may be considered unacceptable it may be rejected on that basis. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Base Labor Rate Pricing Template Worksheet A (Fixed Hourly Rates), and Worksheet B (Fees and Rates).

Basis for award for the Oil Water Separator Replacement and Pollutant Drainage System Repairs task order detailed in Appendix A will be based on the “Total Bottom Line Sum” which is the sum of all task. If any inconsistencies exist, whether real or apparent, between the proposed performance and proposed unit price, these inconsistencies shall be clearly explained in the Price Proposal. For example, if unique and innovative approaches or conditions are the basis for an unbalanced and/or inconsistently priced proposal, the nature of these approaches and their impact on price shall be completely documented.

As part of the price evaluation, the Government will evaluate the Option to Extend Services under FAR Clause 52.217-8. The labor rates for Option Period 4 (year 5) will apply to the additional six months of services beyond year 5, if awarded per FAR 52.217- 8.

In order to be considered acceptable, proposals shall contain unit price for all of the pricing schedule pre-priced line item unit price for the base period and the four (4) option periods.

The base period and all option periods shall be included in the price evaluation.

In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g)(3) an offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

The price proposal as detailed in Appendix C shall be packaged clearly as a separate price package and easily differentiated for evaluation from the price proposal for the base contract (Appendix B).

6. DISCUSSIONS

1. General Information: The Government does not intend to hold discussions.

However, in accordance with FAR 15.306(d), discussion sessions with each Offeror may be held. Should discussions take place, all Offerors in the competitive range will be allowed to submit Final Proposal Revisions.

2. Discussions Scheduling: If discussions are conducted, the Contracting officer may conduct discussions orally, in writing, etc. The method for discussions will be at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. The Contracting Officer will provide additional instructions with the notification.

(End of Summary of Changes)