amd1.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

Change Title for Attachment 3A from "Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire for Non-Government w ork" to "Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire" and updated the attachment to reflect changes.

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES: The revised Section listed below (revised by Amendment No. 0001) is hereby added to and made a part of the solicitation. Revised or added information is underlined and deleted information is struck out. Revisions can be located in the appropriate volume of specifications by searching for an asterisk and amendment number (i.e., *1).

Revised Section 31 05 19

CONTRACT DRAWINGS: There are no draw ing changes w ith this amendment.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 14

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 12-Jan-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 W912HN-16-R-0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

22-Dec-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

12-Jan-2016

CODE

SAS EXECUTION BRANCH

USAED SAVANNAH

100 WEST OGLETHORPE AVE

SAVANNAH GA 31401

W912HN 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912HN-16-R-0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SECTION 00 00 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS

1. OVERVIEW.

1.1 This Request for Proposal (RFP) solicits for the construction of the DCMA 14A Dike Raising and Weir Improvements. This will be a Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) contract.

1.2 The purpose of the Source Selection Plan is to establish a uniform evaluation procedure for the technical evaluation of proposals by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the development of the Best Value Decision by the Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO) using the Trade-Off Process (See Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.101-1). In as much as the proposal shall describe the capability of the Offeror to perform any resulting contract the proposal should be specific and complete in every detail as well as be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward and concise description of capabilities to satisfactorily perform the contract issued thereafter.

1.3 For the purposes of this solicitation, the Government will utilize a Best Value Trade-off Process. In this process, interested Offerors submit certain specified performance and capability proposals in conjunction with a coefficient pricing schedule for review and consideration by the Government. The Government will evaluate these performance capability proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein.

2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 Who May Submit: Any legally organized firm may submit a proposal.

2.2 Contractor Team Arrangements. Contractor Team Arrangements are considered an arrangement in which (1) two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor; or (2) a potential prime contractor agrees with one or more other companies to have them act as its subcontractors under a specified Government contract or acquisition program. In accordance with FAR Subpart 9.6, the Government will recognize the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements;

provided, the arrangements are identified and company relationships are fully disclosed in the offer. The Offeror shall identify the major or critical aspects of the requirement to be performed by those identified in the Contractor Team Arrangement. The submission must contain a narrative that clearly explains the relevance to a particular factor of information concerning a company that is part of a Contractor Team Arrangement. The Government will consider the adequacy of this explanation in deciding the relevance of the information to this procurement. Any narrative provided should be incorporated into the Offeror’s proposal at Tab G.

2.3 Notwithstanding the specific requirements of any other area of the RFP, information submitted about any company other than the Offeror, whether a predecessor company, affiliated company, subsidiary (including wholly owned subsidiaries), or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of this requirement, or other associated business, WILL NOT be evaluated for any factor unless the proposal contains a detailed narrative explaining why this submitted information is relevant to this acquisition. The Government will consider the adequacy of this explanation in deciding the relevance and weight, if any, of the information to this procurement. Where information about a subcontractor is properly submitted and given significant weight during the evaluation, the failure of the Offeror to actually perform with that subcontractor may be grounds for termination for default.

2.4 Proposals are due no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442.

3. GENERAL PROPOSAL FORMAT:

3.1 Title Page. Include the title of the solicitation, solicitation number, Offeror name, and date of the submittal.

3.2 Table of Contents. Each volume of the proposal shall contain a detailed table of contents. If more than one binder is used, the complete table of contents shall be included in each. Any materials submitted but not required by this solicitation (such as company brochures) shall be relegated to appendices.

3.3 .

Electronic Matter Submissions. Written material shall be on 8 ½ x 11 size pages in no less than a 10 pitch or 10 font. Page limitations, where specified in the RFP, shall be considered a maximum. Pages in excess of any specified limitation shall not be evaluated. Proposals shall be submitted electronically and Bid Bonds shall be mailed to address specified below in paragraph 3.5, TAB E.

3.4 Number of Copies. Offerors SHALL submit an electronic version (PDF Format) of the original Volume I and Volume II. Offerors SHALL submit only two files in PDF format (i.e. Volume I and Volume II). These two files should be named in a specific format:

Solicitation Number, Offerors Company and the volume (i.e. W912HN-13-R- 0018_USACE_VolumeI.pdf). Given the limited time and resources of the evaluation board, failure to provide proposal in the correct format may hinder the board's ability to evaluate the Offeror's proposal.

3.5 Tabs. Proposal shall be organized and tabbed as follows:

VOLUME I

TAB A – Standard Form 1442, completed and signed by authorized individual(s) of the Offeror. Offers submitted in the name of a Joint Venture must be signed in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the joint venture agreement as evidenced in the proposal.

TAB B – Section 00 10 00 – Proposal Pricing Schedule – Schedule B.

TAB C - Section 00 45 00 – Representations and Certifications.

TAB D – Proposal Data Sheet – See Attachment 1 provided at the end of this section.

Offerors should ensure telephone number, fax number, e-mail address and DUNS number are all included. The DUNS number provided will be used to access Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) data. Offerors should also provide any other assigned number that identifies them in the PPIRS database. If a separate DUNS has been created for a joint venture (J-V) it must be submitted. A DUNS number shall also be provided for each company identified in any other proposed association of firms or Contractor Team Arrangement. The offeror should also submit their Tax ID number on the proposal data sheet.

TAB E – Bid Bond – See Clause 52.228-1 and any other notes, for required bond information. The Offeror is required to mail a bid bond in hard copy format including raised seal. Bid Bonds shall be received no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442. Any bid bond found to be insufficient may affect an Offeror’s responsibility determination. Photocopied bonds will not be accepted (they are legally insufficient). THE ORIGINAL BID BOND MUST BE SENT TO: U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SAVANNAH, ATTN: CECT-SAS-E (Brent Ingram), 100 W.

OGLETHORPE AVE., SAVANNAH, GA 31401. THE PACKAGE MUST BE CLEARLY

IDENTIFIED WITH THE CONTRACTOR’S NAME, ADDRESS AND THE

SOLICITATION NUMBER.

TAB F – Financial Information (e.g. the last three years financial statement, Annual Reports, Dun and Bradstreet ratings and/or number, etc.) a bank reference, and a letter from your company on company letterhead authorizing the release of financial information from your bank, with point of contact and telephone numbers for verification.

Provide a list of all current contracts held, total dollar value, award date, anticipated completion, performance and payment bond amount.

TAB G – Teaming Agreements and Narratives, if applicable. See paragraph 2.2 and 2.3.

VOLUME II Technical

TAB G –Teaming Agreement (Duplicate of Volume I)

TAB H– FACTOR 1 Past Performance

TAB I – FACTOR 2 Corporate Relevant Experience

TAB J – FACTOR 3 Summary Schedule

4. TAB H - FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

4.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS.

4.1.1 The Offeror shall demonstrate a record of performance on recent relevant projects using the Past Performance Questionnaire Summary Sheet, Attachment 2, the Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire for Non-Government work, Attachment 3A, and the Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire for Government work, Attachment 3C at the end of this section. Attachment 3B is provided as definitions for Attachment 3C. The Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) are provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client (Point of Contact) for each relevant project submitted. Offeror must ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client. Completed PPQs must be submitted with your proposal by the specified closing date and time. Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a point of contact for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror shall complete blocks 1 – 5 of the PPQ and submit the first page of the PPQ with the proposal which will provide contract and client information and must contain sufficient information for the government to determine the relevancy of the project. The Government may call and confirm information provided by the Offeror on the PPQs with the points of contact, to the extent necessary to verify the information in the PPQ or to obtain additional information. The Government reserves the right to interview other individuals if the point of contact is not available. By exception, the client may request to submit questionnaires directly to the Government’s point of contact, Contract Specialist Brent Ingram. Such requests may be made via email to brent.w.ingram@usace.army.mil. This request must be coordinated by the client in advance not later than 5 business days before the proposal due date. PPQ’s submitted directly to the Contract Specialist shall be mailed via trackable means (certified US Mail, FedEx, UPS). If the PPQ fails to arrive before the closing date and time, or if the information on the PPQ is insufficient to determine the Offeror name and appropriate solicitation number, it will not be considered.

Project Information submitted in a format other than or in lieu of the PPQ (to include CCASS) will not be considered. If there is insufficient space on the PPQ form to provide the information required by section 4.2.2. below, Offerors may attach a single 8 ½” x 11” continuation page with no less than 1” margins and no smaller than 12 point font to each PPQ, to list the required information. 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. Offerors may submit PPQ’s submitted on other procurements.

In addition to the PPQ, the Offeror’s proposal shall include the Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire Summary Sheet (Attachment 2) to provide a summary of the PPQs included and/or submitted to clients. The summary sheet at a minimum shall include the following: 1) Project name; 2) Team member submitting the project; 3) Contract Number; 4) Construction percent completion at the time of solicitation; and 5) Completion date. The Past Performance Questionnaire Summary Sheet can be altered so that all information can fit appropriately, however, it must include all required information as stated above.

Offerors may identify state and local government and private contracts that are similar to the Governments requirements described in paragraph 4.1.2 and 4.2.2 below. If the Offeror is a joint venture, each firm shall provide information, demonstrating experience relevant to their expected role on this contract. 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.

4.1.2. Offerors shall submit not more than five (5) PPQs (Attachment 3). Project information shall be limited to the PPQ (and continuation sheets attached in accordance with paragraph 4.1.1 above, if utilized). The project description in the PPQ and continuation sheets, if used, shall include ALL the relevant characteristics of the project in order to best determine the level of relevancy. The Government will not assume anything that is not specifically identified. "Where a project was awarded as a task order or delivery order under an IDIQ type contract, Offerors are cautioned to submit information specific to the specific task or delivery order considered relevant to the requirements of this RFP, rather than the umbrella contract. For purposes of this Request for Proposal, if the Offeror represents the combining of two or more companies in a Contract Team Arrangement as defined in paragraph 2.2 above, no more than five

(5) total project examples may be submitted for the entire team. If an Offeror submits more than five (5) total project examples, only the first five (5) will be evaluated.

Offerors are advised to submit projects wherein the Offeror, or proposed team members, played a significant role and to clearly define those roles.

4.1.3 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.

4.1.4 While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the offeror must provide detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information for evaluation by the Government.

4.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA.

4.2.1 Past Performance Evaluation. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Government’s confidence in the ability of the Offeror to meet the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance on recent and relevant projects that involve a similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each Offeror after evaluating the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements.

4.2.2 Relevancy Evaluation: The aspects that will be considered in determining the level of relevancy are: 1) similarity of the scope of work, 2) magnitude of effort, 3) contract dollar amount, 4) recency of performance, 5) complexity, 6) characteristics of the environment in which work was performed; and 7) degree of subcontracting or teaming. The more similarities a project has compared to the effort to be acquired through this solicitation within the areas specified above, the more relevant the project may be considered. The project description in section 4 of the PPQ shall include ALL the relevant characteristics of the project in order to best determine the level of relevancy. The Government will not assume anything that is not specifically identified. Do not alter Section 4 to expand the text block.

4.2.3 Offerors shall submit projects with a minimum value of no less than $2 million that demonstrate experience in the construction of water storage impoundments, levees or dams with an earthen fill volume of no less than 100,000 cubic yards. Projects constructed with wet soil are preferred. The projects must have been completed within the last eight (8) years or are at least 80% complete at the date of the issuance of the solicitation. The characteristics identified are not intended to be a comprehensive list.

4.2.4 The Government will not consider multiple projects, such as individual task orders, combined to meet the minimum requirements in paragraph 4.2.3.

4.2.5 Relevancy Ratings. The criteria described in paragraph 4.2.3 above are the minimum for a project to be considered involve some of the scope, magnitude and complexity to the requirements under this solicitation.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings.

Ratings Definitions 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 Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and

Relevant 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.

4.2.6 Confidence Assessment. The past performance record will be evaluated to determine how well the contractor performed on past projects.

4.2.7 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance using the sources available to it including but not limited to: the example projects identified by the Offeror and submitted on the PPQs and any additional information received from references and CCASS or other sources. Offerors may be provided an opportunity to address any negative past performance information about which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond if such information is determined to impact the rating to be assessed.

4.2.8 The Government will consider past performance of the prime construction contractor. The Government may also consider the past performance information submitted on any other team member. However, in accordance with paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3, above, the consideration and weight given to past performance information concerning other than the prime contractor will be based on the extent of involvement of the team member in the project and the adequacy of the proposal in identifying and addressing such arrangements and roles. Past performance information submitted on a team member who does not perform a major or critical role on the project or whose role has not been clearly or adequately described as required may not be considered.

4.2.9 Other Sources. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources other than those provided by the Offeror for evaluating past performance.

These other sources may include but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the proposal on the Proposal Data Sheet, 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.

The Government will also consider available CCASS ratings on relevant projects submitted by the Offeror under this factor and may consider up to five (5) additional CCASS ratings on recent, relevant projects as needed to evaluate past performance for any team member.

4.2.10 Rating Methodology for Factor 1 The Government will consider the relevant past performance information, source of this information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance on recent projects to reach a performance confidence assessment using the ratings in 4.2.12.

4.2.11 If 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 this factor will be assigned a rating of “Unknown Confidence (Neutral).

4.2.12 Past Performance Confidence Ratings

4.2.12.1 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.

4.2.12.2 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.

4.2.12.3 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.

4.2.12.4 NO CONFIDENCE - Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

4.2.12.5 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. TAB I - FACTOR 2 CORPORATE RELEVANT EXPERIENCE

5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

5.1.1 Offerors shall submit at least 3 and a maximum of 5 examples of contracts it has performed demonstrating corporate relevant experience with the performance of work similar to this procurement using the Corporate Relevant Experience Questionnaire, Attachment 4 only, additional information attached to corporate relevant experience will not be evaluated. Offerors shall submit projects with a minimum value of no less than $2 million that demonstrate experience in the construction of water storage impoundments, levees or dams with an earthen fill volume of no less than 100,000 cubic yards. The projects must have been completed within the last eight (8) years or are at least 80% complete at the date of the issuance of the solicitation.

Experience constructing projects with wet soil may be more desirable. Experience may be shown by demonstrating that any intended subcontractor or team member with a significant role in performing the contract requirements has the requisite experience, provided that: (1) the proposal adequately describes the role(s) the subcontractor(s) or team member(s) will perform in meeting the Government’s requirements (see paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3), and (2) there is a signed teaming agreement with the subcontractor(s) or team member (s) who will perform the significant role(s).

5.2 EVALUATION:

5.2.1 The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror has successfully performed a minimum of 3 projects meeting the criteria set forth in section 5.1.1 above and the breadth and depth of experience, which will also include the experience of team members, if applicable. If the Offeror cannot demonstrate the minimum number of relevant experience, the evaluation will result in a rating of “unacceptable.”

5.2.2 Rating Methodology for Factor 2: Factor 2 will be rated using the following adjectival descriptions.

5.2.2.1 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.

5.2.2.2 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.

5.2.2.3 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.

5.2.2.4 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.

5.2.2.5 UNACCEPTABLE - Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

6. TAB J – FACTOR 3 - SUMMARY SCHEDULE

6.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

6.1.1 Detailed Summary Schedule: Submit a NAS or Microsoft Project Construction Schedule electronically with all tasks clearly identified, showing the critical path, float, milestones, associated costs and dates of completion. The total performance period shall include all review period required by the Government and specified in Section 01

33 00 SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES.

6.1.2 Schedules or diagrams may be provided separately in a size that is easily read, but shall be bound and clearly labeled as Tab J.

6.1.3 The Offeror shall also submit a narrative, not to exceed One (1) page, 12-pitch, and double-spaced, explaining how the schedules will be achieved.

6.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

6.2.1 The Government will evaluate the Summary Schedule and the narrative provided.

The Government may take into account how well the summary schedule supports the duration, as well as use other information, such as but not limited to independent judgment concerning logic, constraints and typical construction durations. A narratives with greater detail and specificity will be given greater credit than general statements and commitments.

6.2.2. Factor 3 Evaluation Standards. Factor 3 will be rated using the following adjectival descriptions. .

6.2.2.1 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.

6.2.2.2 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.

6.2.2.3 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.

6.2.2.4 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.

6.2.2.5 UNACCEPTABLE - Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

7. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS

7.1 NON-COST FACTORS:

FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE: This factor is equally important as FACTOR 2 and more important than FACTOR 3.

FACTOR 2: . CORPORATE RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: This factor is equally important as FACTOR 1 but more important than FACTOR 3.

FACTOR 3: SUMMARY SCHEDULE. This factor is less important that FACTOR 1 or

FACTOR 2.

7.2 PRICE: All non-cost factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Price.

7.2.1 PRICE EVALUATION PROCEDURES: The Contract Specialist will perform the price analysis, in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b), to determine fairness and reasonableness as well as to assure the Offeror’s understanding of the work and ability to execute the task order at the price proposed. The Contract Specialist will:

1. Ensure the price proposals and results of the evaluation are not compromised by those team members not directly, or authorized to be, involved in the price evaluation process.

2. Review all proposals to determine price submission errors or omissions and areas requiring clarification.

3. Evaluate proposals for price reasonableness. Reasonableness will be established using available pricing tools such as historical price information, price competition information, or the Independent Government Estimate.

4. Submit evaluation documentation to the PCO.

8. PROPOSAL RATING

8.1 The SSEB will be established to conduct the evaluation of proposals received in response to this solicitation. The evaluation will be based on the content of the proposal, proposal corrections and any information obtained from other sources, e.g.

past performance information. The SSEB will not consider any documents incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

8.2 Each member of the SSEB will independently consider all information provided in the proposal. Once these individual analyses are completed, the SSEB will assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor. It is the responsibility of each member of the SSEB to provide and document sufficient strengths, weaknesses, and/or deficiencies to support the assigned rating for each factor. Comments are required for all ratings.

8.3 The final ratings on individual factors, to include all support documentation, will be provided to the Source Selection Authority. The Source Selection Authority, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will determine which Offeror, if any, will receive the contract award.

9. EXCEPTIONS. Exceptions to the contractual terms and conditions of the solicitation (e.g., standard company terms and conditions) may result in a determination to reject a proposal.

10. RESTRICTIONS. Failure to submit all the data in the format indicated in this section may be cause for determining a proposal incomplete and, therefore, not considered for evaluation, and for subsequent award.

11. BASIS FOR AWARD

11.1 Proposals must meet the criteria stated in the RFP in order to be eligible for award, to include responsiveness, technical acceptability and responsibility. A responsibility determination made in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR) 9.1.

11.2 In order to determine which proposal(s) represent the best value, a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in this RFP will be conducted, and in turn, the Government will compare proposals to one another.

11.3 As technical ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages become less distinct, differences in price between proposals are of increased importance in determining the most advantageous proposal. Conversely, as differences in price become less distinct, differences in scoring and relative advantages and disadvantages between proposals are of increased importance to the determination

11.4 The Government reserves the right to reject any and all offers.

11.5 Offerors are reminded to include their best technical and price terms in their initial offer and not to automatically assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer. The Government may make award of a conforming proposal without discussions, if deemed to be within the best interests of the Government.

(End of Summary of Changes)