W912HZ-16-R-0033-0002.pdf

W81EWF63064796

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

This amendment is being issued to include changes to this solicitation and to include Questions/Answ ers.

See attached.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 15

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

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 W912HZ-16-R-0033

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

18-Apr-2017

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, 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 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.

U0002

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

20-Apr-2017

CODE

ERDC CONTRACTING OFFICE

3909 HALLS FERRY ROAD

VICKSBURG MS 39180-6199

W912HZ 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912HZ-16-R-0033

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (0002)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS AMENDMENT 0002:

QUESTION 1: How is it determined which socio-economic group is used in a procurement?

ANSWER 1: In accordance with FAR 6.203 and Subpart 19.501(c), entitled “Set-Asides for Small Business”, General states “The contracting officer shall review acquisitions to determine if they can be set aside for small business, giving consideration to the recommendations of agency personnel having cognizance of the agency's small business programs. The contracting officer shall perform market research and document why a small business set-aside is inappropriate when an acquisition is not set aside for small business, unless an award is anticipated to a small business under the 8(a), HUBZone, SDVOSB, or WOSB programs. If the acquisition is set aside for small business based on this review, it is a unilateral set-aside by the contracting officer.

Agencies may establish threshold levels for this review depending upon their needs.”

Based on market research, it was determined that this procurement would be set-aside for competition limited to Women-Owned Small Businesses (WOSB).

QUESTION 2: What information is required in order to make the pre-bid conference on 24 April 2017?

ANSWER 2: Refer to Section L.4, SITE VISIT, in the solicitation.

QUESTION 3: What percentage(s) of work is required by the prime on this project?

ANSWER 3: See FAR Clauses 52.219-14 and 52.219-30

QUESTION 4: Is this bid strictly for women-owned small business (WOSB)?

ANSWER 4: See FAR Clause 52.219-30

QUESTION 5: Section L.3.3.1, Page Limitation reads Volume I – Executed SF-33 and Representations and Certifications. Is this correct?

ANSWER 5: No. It should read Volume I – Executed SF 1449 and Representations and Certifications. L.3.4.1.1 should read Standard Form 1449 and not Standard Form 33.

QUESTION 6: Can you please advise if Solicitation Number W912HZ-16-R-0033 is related to Solicitation Number W912HZ-17-R-0004?

ANSWER 6: These are two separate requirements.

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been added by full text:

52.219-30 NOTICE OF SET-ASIDE FOR, OR SOLE SOURCE AWARD TO, WOMEN-OWNED SMALL

BUSINESS CONCERNS ELIGIBLE UNDER THE WOMEN-OWNED SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM (DEC

2015)

(a) Definitions. “Women-owned small business (WOSB) concern eligible under the WOSB Program” (in accordance with 13 CFR 127), means a small business concern that is at least 51 percent directly and unconditionally owned by, and the management and daily business operations of which are controlled by, one or more women who are citizens of the United States.

“WOSB Program Repository” means a secure, Web-based application that collects, stores, and disseminates documents to the contracting community and SBA, which verify the eligibility of a business concern for a contract to be awarded under the WOSB Program.

(b) Applicability. This clause applies only to—

(1) Contracts that have been set aside or reserved for, or awarded on a sole source basis to, WOSB concerns eligible under the WOSB Program;

(2) Part or parts of a multiple-award contract that have been set aside for WOSB concerns eligible under the WOSB Program; and

(3) Orders set aside for WOSB concerns eligible under the WOSB Program, under multiple-award contracts as described in8.405-5 and 16.505(b)(2)(i)(F).

(c) General.

(1) Offers are solicited only from WOSB concerns eligible under the WOSB Program. Offers received from concerns that are not WOSB concerns eligible under the WOSB program shall not be considered.

(2) Any award resulting from this solicitation will be made to a WOSB concern eligible under the WOSB Program.

(3) The Contracting Officer will ensure that the apparent successful offeror has provided the required documents to the WOSB Program Repository. The contract shall not be awarded until all required documents are received.

(d) Agreement. A WOSB concern eligible under the WOSB Program agrees that in the performance of the contract for—

(1) Services (except construction), the concern will perform at least 50 percent of the cost of the contract incurred for personnel with its own employees;

(2) Supplies or products (other than procurement from a non-manufacturer in such supplies or products), the concern will perform at least 50 percent of the cost of manufacturing the supplies or products (not including the costs of materials);

(3) General construction, the concern will perform at least 15 percent of the cost of the contract with its own employees (not including the costs of materials); and

(4) Construction by special trade contractors, the concern will perform at least 25 percent of the cost of the contract with its own employees (not including cost of materials).

(e) Joint Venture. A joint venture may be considered a WOSB concern eligible under the WOSB Program if—

(1) It meets the applicable size standard corresponding to the NAICS code assigned to the contract, unless an exception to affiliation applies pursuant to 13 CFR 121.103(h)(3);

(2) The WOSB participant of the joint venture is designated in the System for Award Management database and the System for Award Management as a WOSB concern;

(3) The parties to the joint venture have entered into a written joint venture agreement that contains provisions-

(i) Setting forth the purpose of the joint venture;

(ii) Designating a WOSB concern eligible under the WOSB Program as the managing venturer of the joint venture, and an employee of the managing venturer as the project manager responsible for the performance of the contract;

(iii) Stating that not less than 51 percent of the net profits earned by the joint venture will be distributed to the

WOSB;

(iv) Specifying the responsibilities of the parties with regard to contract performance, sources of labor, and negotiation of the WOSB contract; and

(v) Requiring the final original records be retained by the managing venturer upon completion of the WOSB contract performed by the joint venture.

(4) The joint venture must perform the applicable percentage of work required in accordance with paragraph (d) above; and

(5) The procuring activity executes the contract in the name of the WOSB concern eligible under the WOSB Program or joint venture.

(f) Nonmanufacturer. A WOSB concern eligible under the WOSB Program that is a non-manufacturer, as defined in 13 CFR 121.406(b) or 19.102(f), may submit an offer on a WOSB requirement with a NAICS code for supplies, if it meets the requirements under the non-manufacturer rule set forth in those regulations.

(End of clause)

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders

INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

L.1 PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS – GENERAL

L.1.1 Proposals are expected to conform to solicitation provisions and be prepared in accordance with this section. To aid in evaluation, the proposal shall be clearly and concisely written as well as being neat, indexed (cross-indexed as appropriate) and logically assembled. All pages of each part shall be appropriately numbered and identified with the name of the offeror, the date, and the solicitation number to the extent practicable. Proposals shall be submitted to:

U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center Contracting Office Attention: Traci K. Hoofman 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Bldg. 1003, Rm. 160 Vicksburg, MS 39180

Reference Solicitation # W912HZ-16-R-0033

L.1.2 Proposals are due on 12 May 2017 at 1400 hours (2:00PM CDT)

L.2 COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING THE SOLICITATION

L.2.1 Solicitation number W912HZ-16-R-0033 is posted to Federal Business Opportunities (FBO), www.fbo.gov. All questions concerning this solicitation shall be submitted to the Government via email to traci.k.hoofman@usace.army.mil. The Government will accept questions up to fourteen (14) calendar days of the proposal due date. Answers to questions will be provided via amendment to the solicitation document. All communications concerning this requirement, to include responses to submitted questions, will be trough FBO and to all vendors simultaneously. It is the vendor’s responsibility to monitor FBO for updates and changes.

L.3 PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS –

L.3.1 Overall Arrangement of Proposal –The overall proposal shall consist of four (4) physically separated volumes (Vols. I, II, III and IV) individually titled as stated below.

L.3.1.1. Proposal Volume and Titles

Volume I – Offer and Other Documents Volume II – Technical Proposal Volume III – Past Performance Proposal Volume IV – Price Proposal

L.3.2 Original and Copy requirements.

Volume I – Original and four (4) copies Volume II – Original and four (4) copies Volume III – Original and four (4) copies Volume IV – Original and two (2) copies CD-ROM containing read-only versions of all volumes. In case of conflict between the CD version and the paper copy of the proposals submitted, the paper copy shall take precendence.

L.3.3 Page Limitation and Volumes:

L.3.3.1 Page Limitation:

L.3.4 Contents and Formatting.

Volume Number Page Limitation

Volume I – Executed SF-33 SF 1449 and Representations and Certifications

As Required

Volume II – Technical Proposal

a. Management 25

b. Technical Approach 25

Volume III – Past Performance As Required

Volume IV VI – Price As Required

L.3.4.1 - VOLUME I - OFFER AND OTHER DOCUMENTS

Although Volume I may reference other volumes, it does not physically include the other volumes. Volume I has no specific page limitations or formatting requirements. Volume I must include:

L.3.4.1.1 Standard Form 331449 L.3.4.1.2 Offeror’s Representations and Certifications L.3.4.1.3 Copies of legal documents outlining joint ventures or partnering arrangements.

L.3.4.2 - VOLUME II - TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

NO PRICE INFORMATION SHALL BE PROVIDED IN VOLUME II.

Volume II Technical Proposal shall be in three sections:

L.3.4.2.1 Management Include narrative information related to evaluation criteria outlined in Section M.

L.3.4.2.1.1 Provide a description of the organizational structure proposed from top management down. Discuss the responsibilities of each management entity and how they contribute to the success of both task and overall contract performance. Include rational for the proposed structure to include prime and subcontractor participation, if any. (Please note inclusion of and restrictions contained in clause 52.219-14 “Limitations on Subcontracting” in this set-aside)

L.3.4.2.1.2 Provide complete resumes of the proposed management team to include: Name; Position; Education; Professional Licenses, Certifications, etc.; Relevant experience including dates and positions held along with responsibilities.

L3.4.2.1.3 Provide a Quality Control Plan

L.3.4.2.2 Technical Approach

Provide a proposed staffing plan that includes the number and types of equipment operators, laborers, supervisors, etc. Provide a list of the proposed equipment that includes equipment type, make, model and age.

Provide a proposed Mowing Plan that includes a detailed schedule of when each area (relate each area to the sheet/drawing number described in Section C.1.2.) will be maintained. Include Maintenance Levels I-IV in the schedule.

L.3.4.2.3 – Formatting Limitations for Volume II:

The technical proposal shall be typed in Times New Roman font type and font size 12 for text pages. Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches for text pages, and a maximum of 11 x 17 inches for spreadsheets, charts, tables, diagrams, or design drawings; font type and font size shall be appropriate for spreadsheets, charts, tables, diagrams, or design drawings. Pages larger than 8.5 x 11 inches shall count as two pages for determining page limits. Page margins shall be a minimum of one inch at the top, bottom and each side. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume.

L.3.4.3 - VOLUME III - PAST PERFORMANCE

Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal as required by RFP Section L. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. This does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. 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.

The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for the Past Performance Factor.

Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should 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, Traci K. Hoofman via email at Traci.K.Hoofman@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

Also include performance recognition documents received within the last 3 years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. 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.

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.

The Offerors shall also include a reference list of all the POC's who were sent a questionnaire. The POC list shall be submitted in Word for Windows Table Format to include the following fields: Solicitation Number, Offeror Company Name, Contract Number, Customer’s Name (that received your services), POC last name, first name, and POC Title. The responsibility to send and track the completion of the Questionnaire rests solely with the Offeror and shall not be delegated to any subcontractors, team contractors, or joint venture partners. 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.

The Government wants to ensure timely contract award. To that end, Offerors are encouraged to submit Past Performance information before the solicitation close date to enable the Government to begin contacting references.

New Corporate Entities -- New corporate entities may submit data on prior relevant and recent contracts (within the last 3 calendar years) involving its officers and employees. However, in addition to the other requirements in this section, the Offeror shall discuss in detail the role performed by such persons in the prior contracts cited. Past performance information on work for state and local governments, private sector clients, and subcontractors that are similar to the Government requirement will be evaluated equally with similar federal contracts.

Offeror may submit information on key personnel, major subcontractors, work performed as part of a team or joint venture and other previous reincarnation of its current organization.

L.3.4.4 - VOLUME IV – PRICE

L.3.4.4.1 Price -

L.3.4.4.1.1 Complete price must be provided for the base year and four option periods and 6 months option. In addition, an electronic version should be provided in a recent version of the Microsoft Excel format on the same CD-ROM as required in paragraph L3.2.

L.4 SITE VISIT

The government will host a single organized site visit at the ERDC Vicksburg, MS campus on 26 April 2017 at 9:00 am Central Time. The site visit will include the ERDC campus and the Big Black Test Area. The site visit will last approximately three (3) hours and offerors shall provide their own transportation. Offerors shall not solicit advice or guidance from government personnel regarding proposal preparation. All interested parties who want to attend the site visit are REQUIRED to submit the following information to Traci K. Hoofman via email at Traci.K.Hoofman@usace.army.mil NO LATER THAN 2:00 pm Central Time, 24 April 2017 in order to be allowed on base and accompanied through the site:

1. Company Name and Address

2. First and last name, email, and phone number of all employees attending site visit

3. Total number of employees attending site visit

L.5 RESPONSIBLE PROSPECTIVE OFFERORS

L.5.1 The general and additional minimum standards for responsible prospective Offeror set forth in FAR 9.1 shall apply.

L.5.2 The Government may conduct pre-award surveys in accordance with FAR 9.106 and may solicit from available sources such as Dun and Bradstreet, relevant information concerning the offeror’s record of financial capability or past performance and use such information in making determinations of prospective offeror responsibility.

L.5.3 Results of prior reviews conducted by Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) or other cognizant Federal audit services may be considered.

L.6 AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

In accordance with 52.212-1, the Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions with offerors. Therefore, the offeror’s initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary.

The Government may reject any or all offers if such action is in the public interest; accept other than the lowest offer; and waive informalities and minor irregularities in offers received.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 GENERAL

M.1.1 In accordance with FAR Subpart 15.3, Source Selection, a Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) has been established to evaluate proposals submitted for this acquisition. Proposals received in response to the Solicitation will be evaluated using the evaluation criteria set forth in Section M below. The offeror selected for award will be the responsible offeror whose proposal is determined to be the best overall value to the Government considering technical, past performance, and price.

M.1.2 The proposal preparation instructions contained in Section L are designed to provide guidance to offerors concerning the type and depth of information the SSEB considers necessary to conduct an informed evaluation of each proposal. A proposal may be eliminated from further consideration before a detailed evaluation is performed if the proposal is considered so grossly and obviously deficient as to be totally unacceptable on its face or if prices are so inordinately high or unrealistically low. For example, a proposal will be deemed unacceptable if it does not represent a reasonable initial effort to address itself to the essential requirements of the solicitation, or if it clearly demonstrates that the offeror does not understand the requirements of the solicitation. In the event a proposal is rejected, a notice will be sent to the offeror stating the reason(s) that the proposal will not be considered for further evaluation.

M.1.3 When the term “offeror” is used, it is defined as a single offeror, joint venture, or a team of offerors and major sub-contractors. Proposals submitted under a formal partnering agreement or joint-venture must be accompanied by a copy of the legal document establishing such. Documentation shall be provided as provided in Section L (L.3.4.1).

M.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

Proposals will be evaluated using the following criteria, further described in Section M.2.2.

Factor I – Technical Factor II – Past Performance Factor III – Price

M.2.1 Evaluation Factors Relative Importance: Award will be made based on the best value proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the two non-price/cost factors.

Factor I – Technical: Most Important

Factor II – Past Performance: Less Important than Technical but More Important than Price

Factor III – Price: All of the non-Price Factors, when combined, are Significantly More Important than Price.

M.2.2 Evaluation Factor Criteria Descriptions.

M.2.2.1 – Factor I – TECHNICAL Management and Technical Approach are not sub-factors but elements that will be evaluated together for an overall assessment of the offeror’s technical capability.

M.2.2.1.1 – MANAGEMENT

i. Demonstrated experience and understanding of managing contractor personnel by providing a responsive organizational and management structure to anticipate and quickly resolve issues without impacting contract performance.

ii. Ability to provide oversight of teaming/subcontractor arrangements, if any, to insure successful performance of contract requirements so that such arrangements have no negative impact.

iii. Demonstrated staffing efficiency and flexibility including recruiting, hiring, retention and training practices.

iv. Quality Control (QC) Plan demonstrating ability to assure that requirements outlined in the statement of work of the contract are met and services performed in a quality manner.

M.2.2.1.2 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

i. Demonstrated understanding and ability to successfully execute the requirements as indicated by the proposed staffing plan, proposed equipment and proposed Mowing Plan that includes a detailed schedule.

M.2.2.2 – Factor II - PAST PERFORMANCE.

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, 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 three 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) 561730 – Landscaping Services. 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 three years without regard to the contract award date. Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past three years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP.

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

relevancy and performance confidence assessment.

M.2.2.3 - Factor III – PRICE i The offeror's proposed prices will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for realism, reasonableness, and completeness. The purpose of the price evaluation will be to determine whether each offeror's proposed price is realistic and complete in relation to the efforts required under the solicitation and the efforts described in the offeror’s technical proposal.

pPrice analysis will be accomplished in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 and will consist of evaluation all prices. This analysis is to ensure that costs are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the efforts described in the offeror’s technical proposal.

An excessively high or low price proposal will be considered an indication of a limited understanding of the task or an inefficient organization and may be render the offeror as non-responsive.

M.2.3 Technical Factors Rating. The rating for Technical will be expressed as an adjectival assessment of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable. The adjectival ratings will be evaluated utilizing the following adjectival rating methodology:

M2.4 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings. Relevancy is not a separate factor but a component of the overall Past Performance assessment.

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.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

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

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

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

Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

M.2.4.1 Performance Confidence Factor Rating Definitions. A rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence or Unknown Confidence (as defined below) will be assigned to the Past Performance Evaluation. The Past Performance Confidence ratings will be evaluated utilizing the following adjectival rating methodology:

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.

(End of Summary of Changes)