Amendment 0003.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to provide the follow ing:

1) Revised section M. Changes are highlighted in yellow .

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 12

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 22-Jan-2021

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 W912P820R0045

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

23-Dec-2020

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

22-Jan-2021

CODE

USACE, CONTRACTING DIVISION

ATTN: HPO CT - ROOM 184

7400 LEAKE AVE.

NEW ORLEANS LA 70118-3651

W912P8 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912P820R0045

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:

REVISED SECTION M FOR AMD 0003

REVISED SECTION M

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value trade-off) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three evaluation factors:

Past Performance, Key Personnel, and Price. Factor 1 Past Performance is approximately equal to Factor 2- Key Personnel. When all Factors (1 and 2) Past Performance and Key Personnel are combined they are approximately equal to Price. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Satisfactory Confidence” must be achieved for the Past Performance factor and a rating no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Key Personnel 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 APPROXIMATELY EQUALTO

COST/PRICE.

FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below. The Government reserves the right to make award based upon the Price factor in the event that the Past Performance and Key Personnel evaluation results of all the offerors’ proposals are substantially the same.

Factor 1: Past Performance: Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment.

Factor 2: The Key Personnel factor is further divided into the following elements which are not separately rated:

a. Element 1 – Resumes of Key Personnel

b. Element 2 – Letters of Commitment from the prime’s key personnel and sub-contractors.

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each Technical element as it applies to the Performance Work

Statement (PWS). A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign the factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 3: Price: The resulting award will be a firm fixed price (FFP) single award task order contract

(SATOC)

which is a type of an indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed Price effort.

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

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the 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 Proposed Resources. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror’s proposed resources have the experience and proven performance to provide required support services and to achieve the required end results. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven key personnel.

2. Past Performance Factor. 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.

a. The Contractor’s specialized experience & technical competence will be evaluated based on completed tasks and recent projects to determine the Contractor’s probability of successfully performing the Contract requirements. Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Attachments 1 and 2.

b. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. 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 a “neutral 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.

c. Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror in performance or awarded during the past five years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP. 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.

d. 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 three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality.

(i) RECENCY: The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance.

Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. Past Performance submitted will be considered recent if performance occurred within 5 years of the date of the RFP.

(ii) RELEVANCY: The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection.

Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria (see Table 2) 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. While projects outside the New Orleans District’s Area of Responsibility (AOR) will be accepted, higher relevancy preference will be given to projects submitted within the New Orleans Districts AOR.

Table 2 - 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.

(iii) QUALITY ASSESSMENT: The third aspect assesses the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

e. Performance Confidence Assessment: Utilize the Performance Confidence Assessment (see Table 3 below) to select the most appropriate confidence level for each Offeror. Ensure the rationale for the conclusions reached are included.

TABLE 3 - 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.

Neutral Confidence 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. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the facto of past performance.

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.

2. The Key Personnel factor is divided into two elements. These elements are separately evaluated but not separately rated.

Element 1: This element evaluates the offeror’s proposed Key Personnel’s qualifications and experience for the basic contract period and all option years. Marginal levels of overall proposed Key Personnel’s qualifications and experience could indicate a lack of understanding concerning mission requirements and may result in the entire

W912P820R004

Page 80 of proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range. The evaluation will focus on the following criteria:

KEY PERSONEL MINIMUM REQUIRMENTS

Senior Project Manager

5 years’ experience coordinating with USACE, non-Federal partners, and other stakeholders to evaluate existing flood damage problems, historical flood maps, potential ecosystem restoration, and recreation problems and opportunities for specific USACE programs including GI, PAS, CAP, FPMS/SJ, EI, HSDRRS and CWPPRA. Experience does not need to be shown in all programs, but a higher rating will be assigned to those resumes showing experience in multiple programs.

5 years’ experience in the development of fact sheets and briefings, and preparation of planning, feasibility, post authorization, and other reports in compliance with Corps regulations and guidance for specific USACE programs including GI, PAS, CAP, FPMS/SJ, EI, HSDRRS and CWPPRA. Experience does not need to be shown in all programs, but a higher rating will be assigned to those resumes showing experience in multiple programs.

5 years’ experience preparing draft and final reports, appendices, information papers, and other documents in support of planning studies and compliance documentation for specific USACE programs including GI, PAS, CAP, FPMS/SJ, EI, HSDRRS and CWPPRA. Experience does not need to be shown in all programs, but a higher rating will be assigned to those resumes showing experience in multiple programs.

5 years’ experience preparing a NEPA and/or other environmental documents, including, but not limited to, Environmental Assessments (EA), and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS’s) for specific USACE programs including GI, PAS, CAP, FPMS/SJ, EI, HSDRRS and CWPPRA. Experience does not need to be shown in all programs, but a higher rating will be assigned to those resumes showing experience in multiple programs.

5 years’ experience organizing and tracking estimates of project activity cost, schedules/calendar dates, and all activities necessary to complete a study for specific USACE programs including GI, PAS, CAP, FPMS/SJ, EI, HSDRRS and CWPPRA. Experience does not need to be shown in all programs, but a higher rating will be assigned to those resumes showing experience in multiple programs

Page 81 of

Project Manager 3 years’ experience coordinating with USACE, non-Federal partners, and other stakeholders to evaluate existing flood damage problems, historical flood maps, potential ecosystem restoration, and recreation problems and opportunities for specific USACE programs including GI, PAS, CAP, FPMS/SJ, EI, HSDRRS and CWPPRA. Experience does not need to be shown in all programs, but a higher rating will be assigned to those resumes showing experience in multiple programs.

3 years’ experience in the development of fact sheets and briefings, and preparation of planning, feasibility, post authorization, and other reports in compliance with Corps regulations and guidance for specific USACE programs including GI, PAS, CAP, FPMS/SJ, EI, HSDRRS and CWPPRA. Experience does not need to be shown in all programs, but a higher rating will be assigned to those resumes showing experience in multiple programs.

3 years’ experience preparing draft and final reports, appendices, information papers, and other documents in support of planning studies and compliance documentation for specific USACE programs including GI, PAS, CAP, FPMS/SJ, EI, HSDRRS and CWPPRA. Experience does not need to be shown in all programs, but a higher rating will be assigned to those resumes showing experience in multiple programs.

3 years’ experience preparing a NEPA and/or other environmental documents, including, but not limited to, Environmental Assessments (EA), and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS’s) for specific USACE programs including GI, PAS, CAP, FPMS/SJ, EI, HSDRRS and CWPPRA. Experience does not need to be shown in all programs, but a higher rating will be assigned to those resumes showing experience in multiple programs.

3 years’ experience developing mitigation and monitoring plans including adaptive management strategies

3 years’ experience organizing and tracking estimates of project activity cost, schedules/calendar dates, and all activities necessary to complete a study for specific USACE programs including GI, PAS, CAP, FPMS/SJ, EI, HSDRRS and CWPPRA. Experience does not need to be shown in all programs, but a higher rating will be assigned to those resumes showing experience in multiple programs.

3 years’ experience monitoring and tracking a study's development, including scheduled and actual dates, for completion of study tasks for specific USACE programs including GI, PAS, CAP, FPMS/SJ, EI, HSDRRS and CWPPRA.

Experience does not need to be shown in all programs, but a higher rating will be assigned to those resumes showing experience in multiple programs.

Page 82 of

Senior Program Manager

5 years’ experience in the review of detailed program related cost estimates and detailed program cost projections for budgeting purposes. Specific USACE programs must be cited, including GI, PAS, CAP, FPMS/SJ, EI, HSDRRS and CWPPRA. Experience does not need to be shown in all programs, but a higher rating will be assigned to those resumes showing experience in multiple programs.

5 years’ experience organizing and tracking estimates of project activity cost, schedules/calendar dates, and all activities necessary to complete a study for specific USACE programs including GI, PAS, CAP, FPMS/SJ, EI, HSDRRS and CWPPRA. Experience does not need to be shown in all programs, but a higher rating will be assigned to those resumes showing experience in multiple programs.

5 years’ experience monitoring and tracking a study's development, including scheduled and actual dates, for completion of study tasks for specific USACE programs including GI, PAS, CAP, FPMS/SJ, EI, HSDRRS and CWPPRA.

Experience does not need to be shown in all programs, but a higher rating will be assigned to those resumes showing experience in multiple programs.

Program Manager 3 years’ experience in the review of detailed program related cost estimates and detailed program cost projections for budgeting purposes. Specific USACE programs must be cited, including GI, PAS, CAP, FPMS/SJ, EI, HSDRRS and CWPPRA. Experience does not need to be shown in all programs, but a higher rating will be assigned to those resumes showing experience in multiple programs.

3 years’ experience organizing and tracking estimates of project activity cost, schedules/calendar dates, and all activities necessary to complete a study for specific USACE programs including GI, PAS, CAP, FPMS/SJ, EI, HSDRRS and CWPPRA. Experience does not need to be shown in all programs, but a higher rating will be assigned to those resumes showing experience in multiple programs.

3 years’ experience monitoring and tracking a study's development, including scheduled and actual dates, for completion of study tasks for specific USACE programs including GI, PAS, CAP, FPMS/SJ, EI, HSDRRS and CWPPRA.

Experience does not need to be shown in all programs, but a higher rating will be assigned to those resumes showing experience in multiple programs.

Scheduler 3 years’ experience utilizing Primavera P3e and P2 compatible software for the development of a flow chart of events necessary to complete a feasibility level study in its entirety, or any indicated components or features of the study, for specific USACE programs including GI, PAS, CAP, FPMS/SJ, EI, HSDRRS and CWPPRA. Experience does not need to be shown in all programs, but a higher

Page 83 of rating will be assigned to those resumes showing experience in multiple programs.

3 years’ experience organizing and tracking estimates of project activity cost, schedules/calendar dates, and all activities necessary to complete a study for specific USACE programs including GI, PAS, CAP, FPMS/SJ, EI, HSDRRS and CWPPRA. Experience does not need to be shown in all programs, but a higher rating will be assigned to those resumes showing experience in multiple programs.

3 years’ experience monitoring and tracking a study's development, including scheduled and actual dates, for completion of study tasks for specific USACE programs including GI, PAS, CAP, FPMS/SJ, EI, HSDRRS and CWPPRA.

Experience does not need to be shown in all programs, but a higher rating will be assigned to those resumes showing experience in multiple programs.

Economist 3 years’ experience performing economic analyses according to USACE regulations and guidance to determine Federal interest for specific USACE programs including GI, PAS, CAP, FPMS/SJ, EI, HSDRRS and CWPPRA.

Experience does not need to be shown in all programs, but a higher rating will be assigned to those resumes showing experience in multiple programs.

Environmental Specialist

3 years’ experience conducting site investigations to identify and map endangered species and critical habitat within the project area, both terrestrial and underwater.

Preparing Biological Assessments suitable for coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service as required.

3 years’ experience conduct HTRW site surveys in accordance with ER 1165-2- 132 and ASTM E-1527; database searches; and identifying all known sites;

3 years’ experience determining potential effects to natural and cultural resources posed by the potential Federal action, including effects on vegetation, fauna, endangered species, air and water quality, 3 years’ experience preparing a NEPA and/or other environmental documents, including, but not limited to, Environmental Assessments (EA), and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS’s) for specific USACE programs including GI, PAS, CAP, FPMS/SJ, EI, HSDRRS and CWPPRA. Experience does not need to be shown in all programs, but a higher rating will be assigned to those resumes showing experience in multiple programs.

3 years’ experience developing mitigation and monitoring plans includingadaptive management strategies

Page 84 of

Planner 3 years’ experience in the development of fact sheets and briefings, and preparation of planning, feasibility, post authorization, and other reports in compliance with Corps regulations and guidance for specific USACE programs including GI, PAS, CAP, FPMS/SJ, EI, HSDRRS and CWPPRA. Experience does not need to be shown in all programs, but a higher rating will be assigned to those resumes showing experience in multiple programs.

3 years’ experience performing technical writing and document editing. Follow Federal GPO Style Manual guidelines and USACE guidance for electronic preparation and storage of files and data.

3 years’ experience identifying problems and opportunities for flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, navigation, recreation, water supply, and other watershed projects for specific USACE programs including GI, PAS, CAP, FPMS/SJ, EI, HSDRRS and CWPPRA. Experience does not need to be shown in all programs, but a higher rating will be assigned to those resumes showing experience in multiple programs.

3 years’ experience formulating appropriate flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, navigation, and recreation measures and alternative plans according to Corps regulations and guidance for specific USACE programs including GI, PAS, CAP, FPMS/SJ, EI, HSDRRS and CWPPRA. Experience does not need to be shown in all programs, but a higher rating will be assigned to those resumes showing experience in multiple programs.

3 years’ experience preparing draft and final reports, appendices, information papers, and other documents in support of planning studies and compliance documentation for specific USACE programs including GI, PAS, CAP, FPMS/SJ, EI, HSDRRS and CWPPRA. Experience does not need to be shown in all programs, but a higher rating will be assigned to those resumes showing experience in multiple programs.

3 years’ experience preparing a NEPA and/or other environmental documents, including, but not limited to, Environmental Assessments (EA), and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS’s) for specific USACE programs including GI, PAS, CAP, FPMS/SJ, EI, HSDRRS and CWPPRA. Experience does not need to be shown in all programs, but a higher rating will be assigned to those resumes showing experience in multiple programs.

Element 2: This element evaluates the offeror’s key personnel and sub-contractors letters of commitment. The evaluation will consider the following:

Whether of the offeror secured commitments from all its key personnel and sub-contractors.

The length of the commitments.

In accordance with the Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3), Section 3.1, the Army methodology for evaluating Technical Approach and Related Risk is the Combined Technical/Risk Rating, (see Table 1 below). This methodology considers risk, in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Page 85 of

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Green

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

Proposal is unawardable.

3. Cost/Price Factor. Adjectival ratings shall not be used for offerors’ Price proposals. The Government will fully evaluate and negotiate all priced Exhibit Line Item Numbers (ELINs) except for the ELINs A00F, A00G, A00H, B00F, B00G, B00H, C00F, C00G, C00H, D00F, D00G, D00H, and E00F, E00G, E00H. The evaluation will include option year prices and the option to extend services per FAR clause 52.217-8. For purposes of contract award, the overall price for the sample task order will be considered in the best value trade off analysis. The evaluation of all option period ELINs will not obligate the Government to place more than the minimum order. The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated as follows.

a. FFP Evaluation. For a price to be fair and reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The Offeror’s proposed fixed-price ELINs may be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1 in order to determine if they are fair and reasonable.

c. Overall Price Proposal Evaluation: The overall Price proposal will evaluated for the following:

1) Compliance: The Price proposal submitted by the Offeror will be evaluated for compliance based upon the submission requirements contained in the Section L-III -Price.

2) Unbalanced Pricing: The Offeror’s overall Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing as defined in FAR 15.404-1(g). An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government (see FAR 15.404-1(g)(1) through FAR 15.404-1(g)(3)).

3) Errors: The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be reviewed for errors. The Offeror may begiven an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposal at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer.

4) Total Evaluated Price: The offeror’s total evaluated price for the purpose of evaluation shall include: the base period, four one-year options and additional option items, plus six additional months of service at the same prices as specified for option period four (NOTE: the additional six months of service is to allow for the execution of extensions under FAR clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, if required and approved by the Contracting Officer.)

E. DISCUSSIONS

1. GENERAL INFORMATION. In accordance with FAR 15.306(d), discussion sessions with each offeror may be held. Should discussions take place, all offerors in the competitive range will be allowed a minimum of 2 business days to submit Final Proposal Revisions.

2. DISCUSSION SCHEDULING. If discussions are conducted, the

Contracting Officer will schedule the discussion sessions, and each offeror will be notified of the time and place at least 1 business days prior to their discussion session. The Contracting Officer will provide additional instructions with the notification. The discussion sessions will take place virtually due to the current pandemic.

(End of Summary of Changes)