B.08_W912HP19R1000_AMD_0001_81st_FIS,_Region_H_2018.02.04.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

W912HP19R1000 81st RD FIS, Region H: Amendment 01

The purpose of this amendment is to provide clarif ication on CPARS and PPQ submission instructions in response to a bidder inquiry.

Clarifying language has been provided to Factor 3 under Evaluation Factors for Aw ard.

All other Solicitation Terms and Conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 9

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 04-Feb-2019

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 W912HP19R1000

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

20-Dec-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

04-Feb-2019

CODE

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, CHARLESTON

DISTRICT, CONTRACTING DIVISION

69-A HAGOOD AVENUE

CHARLESTON SC 29403

W912HP 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912HP19R1000

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 Offeror 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 the Technical Factor.

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.

NOTE: NON-PRICE FACTORS, WHEN COMBINED, ARE APPROXIMATELY EQUAL IN

IMPORTANCE TO PRICE.

B. FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

All proposals will be evaluated on the factors listed below. Offerors are required to provide data addressing all stated factors in a clear and understandable format. If an Offeror does not have data relating to a specific factor, it shall be clearly stated in the proposal. Proposals that do not clearly address all factors may be considered unacceptable and may not receive further consideration. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach,” paragraph C of this section. Evaluators will ensure Offerors have complied with all submission requirements set forth in the “Proposal Submission,” paragraph D of this section.

The non-price and price factors are as follows:

NON-PRICE FACTORS: The purpose of the non-price factors is to assess whether the Offeror’s proposal will satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. An unacceptable evaluation for any one of these factors will result in an overall unacceptable proposal.

Factor 1: Corporate Relevant Specialized Experience Factor 2: Understanding of the Work Factor 3: Past Performance

PRICE FACTOR: The purpose of the price factor is to ensure a fair and reasonable price. The price factor will be evaluated separately from the non-price factors, and is subject to Contract Pricing policies as set forth in FAR Subpart 15.4.

Factor 4: Price

Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), the non-price factors (Factors 1 - 3), when combined, are approximately equal in importance to price (Factor 4).

Concurrent with or upon completing the evaluation of all non-price proposals, the Contracting Officer will, in accordance with the provisions of this RFP and applicable acquisition regulations, evaluate price. In the event that discussions are determined necessary, the Contracting Officer will conduct discussions with Offerors determined to be within the competitive range. In determining the competitive range, the Government will include analysis of the non-price and price proposals of Offerors. Upon conclusion of discussions, the Contracting Officer will request final proposal revisions and may, upon receipt of final proposal revisions, proceed to award a contract without further discussions or notice.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST).

1. DEFINITIONS. The following definitions are provided to assist evaluators in the evaluation process:

Strength. An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Significant Strength. An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Deficiency. A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non- price factor proposal for which the intent of the Offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission or mistake).

Clarification. Limited exchanges between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. See FAR 15.306.

Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as “Past Performance Information Retrieval System” (PPIRS) or “Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System.” (FAPIIS).

2. TEAM ARRANGEMENTS. As described in FAR Subpart 9.6, it is the Government’s policy to recognize the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements. For a teaming arrangement to be recognized for purposes of source selection evaluation and the application of non-price factors, there must be full disclosure of the teaming arrangement and company relationships in the team's proposal. The proposal must include a narrative that explains the major or critical aspects of the work to be performed by each team member (to include identification of team members, a full delineation of roles and responsibilities of team members, the duration of the agreement, and the percentage of the participants, specifically, the percentage of the controlling party). The proposal must also include an agreement that has been or will be executed prior to award between/among all team members. The proposal and agreement must be consistent; substantive inconsistencies between the proposal and agreement may be construed against the Offeror. The timely submission of the executed teaming agreement prior to award shall be a precondition to a finding of responsibility.

a. Joint Ventures (JV). If the Offeror is a joint venture, the Offeror must provide evidence of a binding teaming agreement or other contractual agreement, which creates legal responsibility on the part of all contractors in the joint venture and submit evidence or confirm that the JV submitted its paperwork to its local Small Business Administration Office for this specific requirement. The agreement must indicate the percentages of the participants, in particular the percent of the controlling party.

b. Other Teaming Arrangements. In the case of prime-sub teams (e.g. if an Offeror proposes to utilize a

“key subcontractor”), the agreement must reflect that the prime contractor is vested with control and responsibility for the daily management of the work, and that it remains responsible for contract performance, including those items allocated to a subcontractor on the team. Offerors are reminded that the prime contractor remains fully responsible for contract performance, regardless of any team arrangement between the prime contractor and its subcontractors. However, consistent with FAR 9.104-4, the Government may consider the responsibility of subcontractor team members when it may adversely affect the prospective prime contractor’s responsibility or when it is in the Government’s interest to do so. Finally, any resulting subcontract(s) may not deviate from the substantive provisions of the teaming agreement. The failure of the Offeror to perform with one or more subcontractors on a recognized team may be grounds for termination for default. Regardless of any provision to the contrary in a team or subcontract agreement, all members of a recognized team arrangement are bound to perform any resulting contract and options by means of the same team. There can be no substitution of subcontractor team members except that, in the case of a prime-sub team arrangement, the Government may (in its sole discretion and without any obligation whatsoever), at the request of the prime, permit the substitution of a subcontractor with equivalent or greater capability for a subcontractor on the identified team. Note: Only a Contracting Officer can approve such a change after contract award.

3. RELEVANT CONTRACTS. For evaluation purposes, the definition of a relevant contract must meet the following conditions:

a. The contract was awarded to the Offeror as the prime contractor. In the case of an Offeror which is a

JV, or a Prime-Subcontractor team, the contract must have been awarded to either member of the JV or either member of the Prime-Subcontractor team as the prime contractor.

b. The contract was completed no earlier than five calendar years before the closing date of this RFP or has been ongoing for at least one year before the closing date of this RFP.

c. The contract is fundamentally for facilities preventative maintenance, repair work and service calls.

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 task or delivery order considered similar to the requirements of this RFP rather than the umbrella contract.

d. A contract or task order value of no less than $400,000 per year. The Government will not permit multiple projects, such as individual task orders, to be combined to meet the minimum value of $400,000 per year.

4. NON PRICE FACTORS: Data provided in response to the non-price factors described below shall be included in Volume I, “Non-Price Proposal.”

a. Factor 1, Corporate Relevant Specialized Experience. Offerors must submit a minimum of three

(3) projects but no more than five (5) projects meeting the criteria in Paragraph C.3. RELEVANT CONTRACTS. Offerors shall complete and provide a Corporate Relevant Specialized Experience Data Sheet for each relevant contract; refer to Appendix D2. The Corporate Relevant Specialized Experience Data Sheet shall not exceed 2 pages per contract.

For Offerors submitting as a Teaming Arrangement, each firm/contractor in the Teaming Arrangement, whether JV or Prime-Subcontractor must submit at least one (1) project. In all cases, if more than five (5) projects total are submitted, the Government will only review the first 5 projects. The projects will be reviewed in the order in which they are received in Offeror’s submitted proposal.

The Government’s experience evaluation will be a subjective assessment of whether the Offeror demonstrates the ability to accomplish the work specified under the RFP (i.e., the Offeror’s experience with performing Service Calls (routine, urgent and emergency); developing and implementing a Preventative Maintenance Program; providing Inspection, Testing and Certification services and performing IDIQ work that includes facility repair, restoration and modernization work – all on the type of equipment/systems identified in the PWS). This assessment will be based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances. Evaluators will assess experience on each relevant contract as defined above. Each contract submitted by the Offeror will be evaluated to confirm its relevancy.

For the purposes of evaluation under this factor, more consideration will be given to an Offeror that demonstrates greater depth and breadth of experience in work involving:

(i) performance of preventative maintenance and repair work via service calls.

(ii) performance among dispersed multiple sites, buildings, and/or facilities

(iii) performance spanning a large geographical area.

(iv) the same type equipment identified in Section C 1502000, Paragraph 1.0 General Information.

For the experience evaluation, Offerors will be rated utilizing the following chart:

NON-PRICE FACTOR COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Out-standing

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 Accept-able

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 Margina l

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-accepta ble

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is unawardable.

b. Factor 2, Understanding of the Work.

For this factor, evaluators will determine whether the Offeror’s submission demonstrates a thorough understanding of the complexity and magnitude of service requirements set forth in the performance objectives and standards of the Performance Work Statement.

The proposal submission for this factor shall include a brief narrative (conceptual work plan) that clearly demonstrates an understanding of the requirements of the solicitation. The narrative shall not exceed 25 pages. The narrative may utilize charts, tables, sketches and maps, as needed, to make the work approach understandable. The narrative shall address and contain a description of:

(i) The interrelationships and interdependencies between performing Service Calls (routine, urgent and emergency), Preventative Maintenance, Inspections/Testing/Certifications and IDIQ work, i.e., how are all of these items related and affect each other;

(ii) The appropriate types of resources, personnel, subcontractors, etc. required to perform the work, and of their appropriate allocation to the work activities in the multiple locations/FACIDs during weekdays, weekends, and holidays. This shall address how the Offeror will perform Service Calls (routine, urgent and emergency) as well as meet the different time requirements of each; develop and implement a Preventative Maintenance Program; provide Inspection, Testing and Certification services; and perform IDIQ work (facility repair, restoration, modernization) at multiple locations/FACIDs concurrently - all on the type of equipment/systems identified in the PWS. This shall also address what work will be performed by the Offeror’s in-house personnel, what work will be performed by subcontractors and the geographic location of in-house personnel and subcontractors. Identify how your scheduling process will demonstrate the best utilization of manpower leveling of resources, especially for possible surges in workload between PM, IDIQ and Service Calls;

(iii) The difficulties, uncertainties and risks associated with the work and how the Offeror will minimize these risks, this shall also address how the Offeror will meet the Transition Phase/startup plan requirements;

(iv) Organizational Chart: The Offeror shall provide an organizational chart that identifies key personnel and individuals on the project team that show clear lines of authority, responsibility, and communication between corporate staff, key on-site staff, and the prime/subcontractor interface, to include the staffing for both urgent and emergency service calls as well as typical day to day operations. The flow of authority should be logical and demonstrate how the responsibilities associated with the work will be assigned, and how the geographic location of proposed personnel for the multiple geographic sites will impact operation of the project;

(v) The Offeror’s ability to inspect, repair, maintain, test, certify, and operate the equipment and systems required by the PWS; and

(vi) The Offeror’s ability to create and maintain the Maximo performance requirement as specified in the

PWS.

For the Understanding of the Work evaluation, Offeror’s will be rated utilizing the chart provided below:

NON-PRICE FACTOR COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Out-standing

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 Accept-able

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.

c. Factor 3: Past Performance.

The Government’s past performance evaluation will include an assessment of past performance on relevant contracts (as defined below in (c)(i)). The evaluators will assess whether the Offeror has obtained an overall satisfactory past performance rating on relevant contracts in order to demonstrate the ability of the Offeror to accomplish the work specified under the RFP. Key focus areas will include the following (see Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)):

Quality Schedule/Timeliness of Performance Customer Satisfaction Management/Personnel/Labor Cost/Financial Management Safety/Security

This subjective assessment will be based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, including any trends in past performance.

Offerors shall complete and provide a Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire Forms from Appendix D3 on the same contracts submitted for consideration under Factor 1, Corporate Relevant Specialized Experience. This information sheet shall not exceed 2 pages per contract. If available, a Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS) performance evaluation shall be provided in lieu of the Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire form.

If providing past performance using a PPQ, the Offeror shall complete Blocks 1-4 of the provided Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ, Appendix D3) and have the Contracting Activity and the Technical Representative responsible for the past/current contract complete the remainder of the contract. Offeror shall ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires shall be submitted with the proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact via email no later than the closing date of this RFP. Include Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS) performance evaluation ratings, if available. For projects which were performed for other government entities, submit the performance appraisal sheets used by that government entity if available. Also include performance recognition documents received for the Factor 1 projects such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition. The Government may call and confirm information provided by the offeror on the Past Performance Information Sheet with the points of contact. The Government reserves the right to interview other individuals if the point of contact is not available. If an Offeror has no relevant past performance history, the Offeror must affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant directly related or similar past performance.

*NOTE: In evaluating Past Performance, the Government may use data provided by the Offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including Past Performance Information related to contracts not submitted for consideration under Factor 1. 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 Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror. In rating past performance, the Government may consider available past performance information on predecessor companies, or employment histories of key personnel, or major subcontractors performing key elements of the project. 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.

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)).

(i) Past Performance Relevancy Rating. 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; however, relevancy is not separately rated. Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel, and extent of subcontracting/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.

(ii) Past Performance Confidence Assessment. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on previous contracts. The past performance evaluation gathers information on how well the Offeror performed on past contracts. In conducting the performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings identified below:

Performance Confidence Assessments:

Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence

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

Limited Confidence

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

No Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to ‘successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

5. PRICE FACTOR. Offerors must submit pricing for all CLINs and subCLINs for each of the base and option years via the MS Excel ELINs spreadsheets. Price will not be scored, but will be a factor in establishing the competitive range prior to discussions (if held) and in making the final determination for award. The Government will perform a price analysis on all proposals received. A price analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 in order to determine completeness, balanced pricing, reasonableness, and understanding of the work. The evaluation will determine the adequacy of the offer in fulfilling the requirements of the proposal. Completeness addresses the extent to which the elements of the price proposal are consistent with the requirements of the RFP.

Offerors are required to price all items for each contract period -- all Exhibit Line Items (ELINs) and all Contract Line Items (CLINs) for each of the base and option years. ELINs and CLINs will be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced. If the price analysis indicates that an offer is unbalanced the Contracting Officer shall consider the risks to the Government associated with the unbalanced pricing. An offer will be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

From a price perspective, an offer’s overall value will be assigned as being the sum of all the CLINs added together. Offerors are advised, however, that each contract period’s CLIN values will be assigned as follows:

Facility Investment Services:

X001 Preventative Maintenance * + X002 Service Calls **

+ X003 IDIQ ***

Total Offered Price

* Preventative Maintenance CLINs: The amount for each period’s offered preventative maintenance CLIN will be exactly as proposed by the Offeror (the sum of all preventative maintenance ELINs).

** Service Call CLINs: For price analysis purposes, the amount for each period’s offered service call CLIN will be determined by running the offered service call unit price through a hypothetical scenario similar to the scenario demonstrated in the RFP section C 1502000 spec item 3.1.2, and the ELINs sheets at the RFP section J 0200000-07.

For award purposes, the contract capacity for each period’s service call CLIN will be $200,000, regardless of the offered unit price.

*** IDIQ CLINs: For both price analysis and contract award purposes, the amount for each period’s IDIQ CLIN capacity will be determined by: summarizing the product of each period’s offered ELIN’s coefficients multiplied by the estimated quantities provided.

(End of Summary of Changes)