W912HQ-15-R-0003_Amendment_0002.pdf

W26HM450907353

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this Amendment is to edit Section M, Part C: Evaluation approach, Paragraph 5: Past Performance, to match the submittal requirements found in Section L, Tab D (i) - Factor IV - Past Performance. Additionally, some FAR and DFARS Clauses have been updated to new versions. See the Summary of Changes page for details.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 12

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 14-Oct-2015

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W912HQ-15-R-0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10-Sep-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 4 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

14-Oct-2015

CODE

USACE HUMPHREYS ENGR CTR SPT ACTIVITY

ATTN: CECT-HC,

7701 TELEGRAPH ROAD

ALEXANDRIA VA 22315-3860

W912HQ 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912HQ-15-R-0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The clauses listed below by reference in Sections I and L have been revised to later versions. Changes may be viewed at the websites listed in FAR Clause 52.252-2.

The following have been added by full text:

52.252-2 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (FEB 1998)

This contract incorporates one or more clauses by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make their full text available. Also, the full text of a clause may be accessed electronically at this/these address(es):

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/ www.arnet.gov www.acquisition.gov

(End of clause)

The following included by reference have been revised:

Clause Number Clause Description Clause Date 52.203-13 Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct APR 2010 52.204-10 Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier

Subcontract Awards

JUL 2013

52.209-5 Certification Regarding Responsibility Matters APR 2010 52.209-6 Protecting the Government's Interest When Subcontracting

With Contractors Debarred, Suspended, or Proposed for Debarment

AUG 2013

52.219-9 Alt II Small Business Subcontracting Plan (OCT 2014) Alternate

II

OCT 2001

52.219-9 ALT II

(Dev)

Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Deviation 2013- O0014) - Alternate II

OCT 2014

52.222-35 Equal Opportunity for Veterans JUL 2014 52.222-37 Employment Reports on Veterans JUL 2014 52.222-54 Employment Eligibility Verification AUG 2013 52.244-6 Subcontracts for Commercial Items APR 2015 252.203-7004 Display of Fraud Hotline Poster(s) JAN 2015 252.204-7012 Safeguarding of Unclassified Controlled Technical

Information

NOV 2013

252.209-7004 Subcontracting With Firms That Are Owned or Controlled By The Government of a Country that is a State Sponsor of Terrorism

DEC 2014

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/ http://www.arnet.gov/ http://www.acquisition.gov/

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following included by reference have been revised:

Clause Number Clause Description Clause Date

252.225-7003 Report of Intended Performance Outside the United States and Canada--Submission with Offer OCT 2010

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Clause Number Clause Description Clause Date 52.217-5 Evaluation Of Options JUL 1990

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The award(s) will be made based on the best overall proposals that are determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the six (6) evaluation factors: 1- Technical Understanding and Approach, 2-Personnel Experience, 3- Organizational Management, Structure and Capabilities of the Firm, 4- Past Performance, 5- Small Business Participation, and 6-Price.

The Technical Understanding and Approach factor (1) and the Personnel Experience factor (2) are of equal importance and are more important than factors 3, 4, and 5.

The relative order of importance for factors 3, 4, and 5, in descending order, is the Organizational Management factor, Past Performance, then Small Business Participation. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical factors (to include all subfactors) and the Small Business Participation factor. Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost offered. NOTE: ALL NON-PRICED FACTORS COMBINED

ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN PRICE.

The Government intends to make awards without discussions. However, the Government may determine that discussions are necessary. For this reason, the Offeror’s proposal must be complete and contain their most favorable terms. The proposal shall address and contain the information listed in Section L of the Solicitation. The information will be used by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) to evaluate and rate each proposal.

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

B. FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the Offeror(s) whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section.

Factor 1: Technical Understanding and Approach is further divided into the following subfactors:

a. Subfactor 1 - Technical Approach to responding to Task Orders

b. Subfactor 2 - Understanding of Support Needs

c. Subfactor 3 - Multi-Disciplinary Capability (Staffing)

Subfactor 1 is more important than subfactors 2 and 3, which are equal in importance to each other.

Factor 2: Personnel Experience is further divided into the following subfactors:

a. Subfactor 1 - Relevance of Work Experience of Key Individuals

b. Subfactor 2 - Appropriateness of Education/Expertise

c. Subfactor 3 - Demonstration of Availability for Multiple Tasks

Subfactor 1 is more important than Subfactor 2. Subfactor 2 is more important than Subfactor 3.

Factor 3: Organizational Management, Structure and Capabilities of the Firm is further divided into the following subfactors:

a. Subfactor 1 - Adequacy of the Management Plan and Organizational Structure

b. Subfactor 2 - Application of Key Individuals

c. Subfactor 3 - Adequacy of the Technical and Administrative Facilities and Staff

Subfactors 1, 2, are of equal importance and are more important than subfactor 3.

Factor 4: Past Performance. Each Offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and a confidence assessment will be made.

Factor 5: Small Business Participation. The extent of Small Business Participation will be evaluated against the goals established in the Solicitation.

Factor 6: Price. The resulting award(s) will be a suite of multiple- award FFP IDIQ contracts. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed -Price effort.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB)

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

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the

Offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

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 methodologies and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete future Task Orders as required by the mission.

c. Applicable Domains for Small Business. Small Business Offerors shall be evaluated against the requirements in the PWS that pertain to the Domain they indicate they are proposing for. The Government will select the Offeror/s that represents the best value in that Domain for award.

2. The Technical Understanding and Approach factor is divided into the following subfactors:

Subfactor 1: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s method of responding to a Sample Task Order.

Major emphasis will be placed on the following:

• Understanding of the requirement in terms of proposing an appropriate level of effort.

• Understanding of and compliance with the technical and administrative terms of the Task

Order Request for Proposal (TORFP).

Subfactor 2: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s understanding of the support needs of USACE as detailed in section 3 “Performance Requirements” of the PWS, and how they impact USACE Civil Works mission areas for the basic contract period and all option years. Marginal levels of overall understanding of the support needs could indicate a lack of understanding concerning mission requirements and may result in the entire proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range. The evaluation will focus on the Offerors’:

• Decision Support Systems and Tools.

• Water Resources Data, Methodologies, Tools and Models.

• Facilitation, Outreach and Training Services.

• Analyses and Assessments.

• Studies

Subfactor 3: This subfactor evaluates the Offerors current and future capabilities in terms of Multi- Disciplinary Staffing. The evaluation will focus on the Offeror’s:

• Current “Teaming”, “Partnering” or “Subcontracting” arrangements that support its ability to provide personnel with a wide variety of technical qualifications and experiences.

• The Offerors methods for obtaining a qualified labor force with relevant experience for future task orders as they arise, including methods and plans for obtaining and retaining staff identified as “Key Individuals”.

Subfactor 1 is more important than subfactors 2 and 3, which are equal in importance to each other.

3. The Personnel Experience factor is further divided into the following subfactors:

Subfactor 1: This subfactor will evaluate the experience of staff identified by the Offeror as “Key Individuals” to determine the relevancy of their experience, and how it supports the ability of the individual to accomplish the mission areas described in the PWS.

Subfactor 2: This subfactor will evaluate the Offerors proposed Key Individuals to determine if their education and expertise is appropriate and relevant to the skill sets needed to accomplish tasks within the mission areas described in the PWS.

Subfactor 3: This subfactor will evaluate the Offerors evidence that its staff is available for, and capable of fulfilling multiple task orders simultaneously, without degradation in the performance level of any of the tasks being performed.

Subfactor 1 is more important than subfactor 2, and subfactor 2 is more important than subfactor 3.

4. The Organizational Management, Structure and Capabilities factor is divided into the following subfactors:

Subfactor 1: This subfactor will be used to determine the adequacy of the Offerors’ Management Plan and Organizational Structure. This subfactor will focus on the following areas:

• Submittal of a Management Plan that reduces performance risk, ensures responsiveness to changes, and provides for timely performance.

• An Organizational Structure Chart that clearly establishes a hierarchy, delineates responsibilities, and establishes a point of contact for overall coordination between the Contractor and the Government.

Subfactor 2: This subfactor will be used to evaluate the application of Key Individuals within the organizational framework as described by the Offeror to determine if there has a sufficient number of Key Individuals assigned so as to facilitate rapid responses to task orders, provide for an appropriate level of effort for specific technical tasks as outlined in the PWS, and has a structure that takes into account unexpected Key Individual turnover.

Subfactor 3: This subfactor shall used to evaluate the Offeror’s technical and administrative facilities and staff to determine if the Offeror currently has sufficient resources to support the technical and administrative facilities and staff associated with performing future task orders, or the Offeror has in place, an adequate plan to obtain the technical and administrative facilities and staff to perform future task orders to include but not limited to; subcontracting opportunities, teaming arrangements, partnerships, or other business arrangement that will ensure the Offeror has adequate technical and administrative resources for future task order work.

Subfactors 1 and 2 are of equal importance and are more important than subfactor 3.

The Technical Factor Ratings, excerpted below, focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the Offeror’s proposal. The color rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the Technical factors’ requirements. Factors 1, 2, 3 and 5 will be rated using the following combined technical/risk adjectival ratings:

Color Rating Description

Blue 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.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low

Green Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is un-awardable.

5. The Past Performance factor will be used to make a determination of the level of performance risk associated with each Offeror. Offerors shall submit a maximum of 5 contracts or subcontracts completed or on-going within the last 5 years from the release date of this solicitation which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP. PPI may be submitted for the Prime Contractor, a proposed Major Subcontractor, Teaming Partner, or on behalf of a Joint Venture. Regardless of which PPI is chosen; the number of PPI forms submitted should not exceed 5. Offerors should provide the following:

Project Title Project Description Project Start & Ending Dates Offeror’s role in the Project Contract Value/Actual Awarded Amount POCs, Phone, Fax, Address, Email Statement of the relevancy of the project to this PWS Performance recognition documents received within the last five years on projects relevant to this PWS such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition

a. Each Offeror will be evaluated on its performance under existing and prior efforts for similar services. The Offerors may include an overall narrative explaining what aspects of the contract effort are deemed relevant to the proposal effort, as well as significant accomplishments and difficulties. Offerors are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of all information and the government does not assume the responsibility for conducting research as a result of incorrect reference information of any kind. The references should be provided in descending order, with the most relevant contracts appearing first.

b. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS.

c. The Government will focus its inquiries on the Offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost/price, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. Major subcontractors are defined as members of an Offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform ten (10) percent or more of the proposed effort. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, Offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past five years) in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror will be assigned an “unknown confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the Offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 541618. Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past three years prior to the issue date of the RFP, but may include performance data generated during the past five years without regard to the contract award date.

d. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources, but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

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

(i) RELEVANCY: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the Offeror’s past performance 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, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant, which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity; dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

In performing the past performance factor evaluation, evaluators will apply the following relevance levels to assess the relevance of the prior contract effort(s) of Offerors.

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) QUALITY ASSESSMENT: Assess the quality of the Offeror’s past performance on those recent efforts that were determined relevant by determining how well the contractor performed on the contracts.

Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

(iii) PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The final step is for the team to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the Offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered. Ensure the rationale for the conclusions reached are included. In performing the past performance factor evaluation, evaluators will apply the following Confidence Assessments to assess the relevance of the prior contract effort(s) of Offerors.

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Description

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 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.

6. The Small Business Participation: All Offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of small businesses in the performance of acquisition (as small business prime Offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and goals established herein.

Offeror’s proposal must meet the minimum mandatory Total Small Business Participation goal of 15% (through collective small business participation from any type of small business or sub-category small business). The subcategory small business goals are NOT mandatory. However, the Government will evaluate the proposals to determine which Offeror(s) propose the best value in terms of meeting all the Small Business Participation goals herein. The work to be performed directly by a small business prime Offeror will be evaluated as Small Business Participation.

Small Business Participation Plans (from large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the basis of:

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

b. The extent of commitment to use such firms (and enforceable commitments will be considered more favorably than non-enforceable ones);

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

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

e. The extent of participation of small business prime Offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisitions. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror meets or exceeds the goals. Goals for this procurement are:

Total Small Business (any type of small business) 15 % (MANDATORY) of the total contract value.

Sub-Category Small Business (not mandatory) Goal Small Disadvantaged Business 5 % of the total contract value Women Owned Small Business 2% of the total contract value Hub-Zone Small 1 % of the total contract value Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business 1 % of the total contract value Veteran Owned Small Business 1 % of the total contract value HBCU/Minority Institutions >0 % of the total contract value

(Note, for example, that a participation plan that reflects {2%} of the contract value for WOSB would also count towards the overall Small Business Goal; and percentages for SDVOSB also count towards

VOSB).

Small Business Participation Factor Rating Definitions

Color Rating Description

Blue 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.

Purple Good

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

Green Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is un-awardable.

7. The Price factor will be evaluated using the price analysis techniques described at FAR 15.404-1(b), the Government will determine if the total evaluated price (Base plus Option Periods) is fair and reasonable for the performance requirements of the PWS. These contracts will be awarded on a Firm- Fixed-Price basis. Offerors will be advised to clearly show justification for unique practices that significantly lower costs or prices. Additionally:

a) The RFP requires firm-fixed-prices contract line items. A price reasonableness approach will be utilized by the Government to determine that the proposed prices offered are fair and reasonable and that a “buy-in” or unbalanced pricing between CLINs or Option Periods is not occurring. In evaluating price reasonableness, other than cost and pricing data shall be utilized. Indications of potential underbidding or unbalanced pricing will be reflected in the cost/pricing report.

b) The Government will examine price proposals for artificially low unit prices. Offers found to be unreasonably high, unrealistically low (an indication of “buy – in”), or unbalanced, may be considered unacceptable and may be rejected on that basis.

c) For evaluation purposes only, the estimated quantity of labor hours will be used to determine the evaluated price for the Labor CLINs.

(End of Summary of Changes)