W9133L-17-R-0034_(A2A3)_-_07_June.docx

W9133L-17-R-0034

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS, NOTIFICATIONS

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION (Section L)

1. Proposal Submittal and Inquiries.

Proposals shall be submitted prior to the closing date and time identified on SF 33, to the following address:

Contract Specialist Arlene Davis; arlene.y.davis.civ@mail.mil Electronic submission via email or fax will not be accepted. Proposals deliver to Arlene Davis, 3500 Fetchet Ave. Joint Base Andrews, MD 20762. Proposals are due 27 June 17 by 12:00pm EST..

All questions regarding this solicitation shall be submitted in writing via email to: Tasheka.l.parker.mil@mail.mil. All questions are due by 19 May 2017 by 12:00pm EST.

Site Visit. The Government will not be holding a site visit for this solicitation.

2. General Instructions

A. The selection of a source for award purposes will be conducted utilizing source selection (negotiated) procedures as delineated in FAR Part 15.3. Offers will be evaluated using the criteria in Section M “Evaluation Factors for Award.” Noncompliance with the Request for Proposal (RFP) requirements may hamper the Government's ability to properly evaluate the proposal and may result in elimination of the proposal from further consideration for contract award.

B. The Offer. The submission of the documentation specified below will constitute the offeror's acceptance of the terms and conditions of the RFP, concurrence with the Performance Work Statement, and contract type.

C. It is the Government’s intention to award without discussions. Offerors are encouraged to present their best technical proposal and prices in their initial proposal submission. However, in accordance with (IAW) FAR Part 15.306, should discussions become necessary, the Government reserves the right to hold them. If this occurs, a competitive range will be determined and offerors notified. The competitive range may be limited for purposes of efficiency IAW FAR Part 15.306 (c)(2).

D. These instructions prescribe the format for the proposal and describe the approach for the development and presentation of proposal data. These instructions are designed to ensure the submission of necessary information to provide for the understanding and comprehensive evaluation of proposals.

E. If an offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, an ambiguity, omission, or are otherwise deemed unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the KO in writing with supporting rationale. The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

F. In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.8 (Government Contract Files), the Government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals. Unless the offeror requests otherwise, the Government will destroy extra copies of such unsuccessful proposals.

G. All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website at https://www.fbo.gov. Potential offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real-time e-mail notifications when information has been posted to the website for this solicitation.

H. Debriefings. The KO will promptly notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range (if one is established), whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505. The KO will notify offerors who were in the competitive range of the source selection, but were not selected for award in accordance with FAR 15.503(b). Upon such notification, unsuccessful offerors may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with the requirements of FAR 15.505 or 15.506, as applicable.

3. Proposal Preparation Instructions

Offeror’s proposal shall consist of the following volumes:

4. Proposal Format

A. Offerors shall submit an original copy listed in paragraph (c) below of their proposal.

B. Exceptions. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors (Sections A through M). Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. If the offeror finds it necessary to take exception to any of the requirements specified in this solicitation, the offeror shall clearly identify the applicable Volume and exceptions with a complete explanation of why the exception was taken, what benefit accrues to the Government (if any), and its impact, if any, on the performance, schedule, cost, and specific requirements of the solicitation. Each exception shall be specifically related to each paragraph and/or specific part of the solicitation to which the exception is taken. Offerors are cautioned that taking an exception may render the offer ineligible for award. It is recommended that the Offeror contact the Contracting Officer immediately/prior to solicitation closing upon identifying an area that may result in an exception. This information shall be provided in the format below.

Table 1 - Solicitation Exceptions

Solicitation Document Page/ Paragraph Requirement/ Portion Rationale & Impact

Section B-M

Applicable Page and Paragraph Numbers

Identify the requirement or portion to which exception is taken

Describe The rationale and impact of the exception

C. The proposals shall be organized into four (4) volumes. Each volume of the proposal should be separately bound in a three-ring loose leaf binder which shall permit the volume to lie flat when open. A cover sheet should be bound in each book, clearly marked as to volume number, title, copy number, solicitation identification and the offeror's name. The same identifying data should be placed on the spine of each binder. All text shall be single spaced and printed black on white paper (Black and white requirement does not apply to graphics, photos, etc., Company stationary and logos are acceptable). Printing shall be easily readable (12-pitch type or 10 point proportional spacing.) Cross-references should be utilized to preclude unnecessary duplication of data between sections. In addition to submitting hard copies of the proposals, digital copies shall be provided on CD-ROM disk in Microsoft Word, PowerPoint and/or Excel. File names to be “Company Name – Initial” for the first submission. File name of later submissions (if necessary), shall be “Company Name – Revision X’ with X indicating the number of the revision. Page limitations are as follows:

D. Proposal Limitation. The proposal shall not exceed the limits stated above. If the page limits are exceeded, the pages in excess of the limit shall be removed and returned, unread, to the offeror. The Government will not accept any changes to the contractor’s proposal after the closing date of the solicitation (See FAR 15.208 for further information regarding late proposals). If discussions become necessary, page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs). The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the offerors.

E. Page Limit Includes: All appendices, charts, graphs, diagrams, tables, photographs, drawings, etc.

F. Page Limit does not include covers for volumes, tables of contents, glossary of abbreviations and acronyms, indices, title pages, and cross reference indices. Pages will be counted if they contain any other information, i.e., diagrams, extraneous data, etc. Pages marked “This page intentionally left blank” will not be counted.

G. What Counts As A Page? A page shall be an 8 ½ X 11” sheet of paper (if the pages were required to be printed). Letter size and spacing requirements for illustrations and tables can be at the discretion of the offeror but must be easily readable. Fold-outs will be counted as the appropriate number of pages based on an 8 ½” X 11” sheet of paper. Margins shall be at least 1 inch on the top and bottom and 3/4 inch on the side. The Contractor shall number each page in order to eliminate any confusion. In the event contractor creates an ambiguity in their numbering of pages, the Government may exercise its own discretion in counting pages. In the event contractor creates an ambiguity in their numbering of pages, the Government may exercise its own discretion in counting pages.

H. Indexing. Each volume shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections.

I. Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms. Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, with a definition for each.

5. Proposal Content

A. Volume I – General. Offerors are required to submit a completed SF 33 (including acknowledgment of Amendments), Section B, and Section K. All final monetary extensions shall be in whole dollars only. Failure to follow the below Contract Proposal preparation instructions may cause your proposal to be deemed unacceptable by the Government. The General Volume shall be organized as follows and contain the identified information.

TAB A, Exceptions/Assumptions (if required)- Identification and explanation of any exceptions or deviations. Additionally, any assumptions used in the proposal preparation must be identified.

TAB B, SF 33 - The SF 33 shall be fully completed upon submission. The offeror is cautioned that the SF 33 must contain an original signature in block 17 of the form. The contractor shall acknowledge any amendments to the RFP in accordance with the instructions on the SF 33 with Section L, FAR 52.215-1 (b), Instruction to Offerors—Competitive Acquisition. The offeror shall provide the name, title and telephone number of the company/division point of contact regarding decisions made with respect to your proposal and who can obligate your company contractually. Also, identify those individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government.

TAB C, Section B - Section B shall be submitted fully completed and error free. It shall contain the offeror’s prices for the established Contract Line Items (CLINS).

TAB D, Section K (Representation, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors) – The offeror shall ensure that Section K is submitted thoroughly completed with all blocks in each certification/representation completed truthfully and completely.

B. Volume II – Mission Capability Volume (Factor 1)

1) The Mission Capability Volume shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims in the Offeror’s proposal. Legibility, clarity and coherence are very important. Your responses will be evaluated against the Management/Technical criteria defined in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Statements that the offeror understands, can, or will comply with the PWS (including referenced publications, technical data, etc.); statements paraphrasing the PWS or parts thereof (including applicable publications, technical data, etc.); and phrases such as “standard procedures will be employed” or “well known techniques will be used,” etc., will be considered unacceptable. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience, and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror's proposal. Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed art work, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired. Similarly, for oral presentations, elaborate productions are unnecessary and not desired.

2) The Mission Capability Volume shall, at a minimum, be prepared in a form consistent with the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and the evaluation criteria for award set forth in Section M of this solicitation. The section shall be prepared in an orderly format and in sufficient detail to enable the Government to make a thorough evaluation of the contractor’s technical competence and ability to comply with the contract task requirements specified in the PWS. The offeror shall address as specifically as possible the actual methodology you would use for accomplishing the PWS tasks. The Management/Technical volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

-Table of Contents -List of Table and Drawings -Cross Reference Matrix -Exceptions/Assumptions (Identification and explanation of any exceptions or deviations). Additionally, identify any assumptions used in preparing the proposal.

-Evaluation Criteria

3) Factor 1 Mission Capability

a) The contractor shall describe the staffing plan, asset management, logistic support and information assurance for maintaining support continuity.

b) The contractor shall describe how they will meet the technical aspects in PWS paragraph 5.0.

4) VOLUME III – PAST PERFORMANCE. (Factor 2)

a. The Government will perform a Confidence Assessment of the Offeror’s past performance to arrive at a confidence rating. The Confidence Assessment represents the evaluation of an Offeror's past work record to assess the Government's confidence in the Offeror's probability of successfully performing as proposed. The Past Performance evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing aspects of an Offeror's recent and relevant Past Performance, focusing on and targeting performance which is relevant to the effort as it directly relates to the work being procured under this solicitation and as defined in Section M. Past Performance information described herein is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform 51% percent of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price. The offeror shall submit, along with the information required in this paragraph, a consent letter (see Attachment 1), executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the offeror so the offeror can respond to such information. For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the offeror shall also submit a client authorization letter, authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the offeror's performance.

b. The offeror shall include documentation regarding their relevant past performance as it directly relates to the work being procured under this solicitation. The offeror SHALL NOT go back any farther than 3 years for the submitted data. The past performance data shall document a successful history of past contract performance.

c. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance Volume and information obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and commercial sources

d. Offerors are reminded that both independent data and data provided by offerors in their proposals may be used by the Government to evaluate offeror past performance. However, the burden of providing thorough, complete, and current past performance information as requested in this paragraph remains with the offerors. Proposals that do not contain the information requested by this paragraph risk rejection or a less than acceptable performance rating by the Government. In the case of an offeror without any relevant past performance history, Offeror’s without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an " Unknown/Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

e. All past performance comments received will be taken into account and could affect the overall rating. The overall past performance evaluation is a subjective decision based on the whole of all data received. Offerors with no past performance may provide the equivalent information on company officials and/or personnel proposed for this action. If the offeror has no relevant past performance, they will be rated as “Unknown/Neutral Confidence” rating.

f. Submission Requirements. The offeror shall submit a Past Performance Volume containing the following:

· Table of Contents

· Summary Page describing the role of the offeror and each subcontractor, teaming partner, and /or joint venture partner that the offeror is required to provide Past Performance Specific Relevant Contract Reference Sheets for the past performance experience in accordance with Attachment 2.

· Consent Letters executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing the release of past performance information so the offeror can respond to such information. A sample consent letter is attached as Attachment 1.

· Client Authorization Letters for each identified effort for a commercial customer authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the offeror’s performance.

· Organization Structure Change History— Organizational Structure Change History. Many companies have acquired, been acquired by, or otherwise merged with other companies, and/or reorganized their divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc. In many cases, these changes have taken place during the time of performance of relevant present or past efforts or between conclusion of recent past efforts and this source selection. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to determine what past performance is relevant to this acquisition. To facilitate this relevancy determination, include in this proposal volume a "roadmap" describing all such changes in the organization of your company. As part of this explanation, show how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts you identify for past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment. Since the Government intends to consider present and past performance information provided by other sources as well as that provided by the offeror(s), your "roadmap" should be both specifically applicable to the efforts you identify and general enough to apply to efforts on which the Government receives information from other sources.

· Specific Relevant Contracts Format - Sheets in accordance with Attachment 2 and are limited to 3 pages per reference. The offeror shall provide documentation outlining the offeror’s past performance with contracts, as a prime or major subcontractor, which is the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the services being procured under this Solicitation. The submittal shall include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance and how it was determined that the work performed previously was the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the work specified by this solicitation. Offerors are required to explain what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort, and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate.

· Past Performance Questionnaire - See Attachment 2, Past Performance Questionnaire. For the contracts identified on each Specific Relevant Contract Reference, the offeror shall forward a copy of the Past Performance Questionnaire to the points of contact responsible for monitoring performance under such contracts. The points of contact shall return the questionnaires directly to MSgt Tasheka L. Parker, Tasheka.l.parker.mil@mail.mil no later than the RFP closing date. No questionnaires will be reviewed or evaluated unless it is returned directly to the specified point of contact. The information contained in the questionnaires will be used to evaluate the offeror’s past performance. New entities that have no past customers shall annotate on the Summary Page that they have had no previous clients and that the minimum number of questionnaires cannot be provided.

5) Volume V Price

a. Pricing shall be submitted fully completed and error free in the offer schedule of the RFP. The Unit Price, Amount and Net Amount shall be completed for every CLIN and Option CLIN. All final monetary extensions shall be in whole dollars only.

In terms of “price reasonableness” the Government will focus on whether the price is too high to be considered fair and reasonable. I In terms of “completeness”, the Government will focus on whether the price appears to cover all of the work identified in the PWS. In terms of “balance”, the Government will focus on whether the pricing is consistent throughout the term of contract to include any options. Other than certified cost or pricing data is not anticipated for the award of contract; however, the Government reserves the right to request such information should it become necessary consistent with FAR Subpart 15.4, Contract Pricing.

b. Certified cost or pricing data is not anticipated for the award of contracts due to expected competition; however, the Government reserves the right to request such information should it become necessary consistent with FAR Subpart 15.4, Contract Pricing.

c. Volume Organization. The Price Volume shall be comprised of two parts:

Price Schedule B.

The price narrative shall provide the basis of estimate for all major elements of price proposed. These narratives shall clearly explain the methodologies, calculations, exceptions and assumptions used in developing each price element. At a minimum, the offeror shall address the items identified in paragraph (b) below.

In the Price Narrative Section, provide an explanation of the method of cost build-up, including base rate, fringe rates, labor overhead rates, and all applicable Other Indirect rates and factors (including General and Administrative ‘G&A’ rate).

DIRECT LABOR TABLE

(f.ii) AWD Code (f.iii) Exempt Non-Exempt (f.iv)

FTE

(f.v) Labor Hrs (Reg) (f.ii) Wage Rate (f.vi) Fringe Benefits (f.vii) Indirect Burden (f.viii)

* Applicable Overhead or G&A factor(s)

If a subcontractor does not want to reveal proprietary information to the prime offeror, the Government will accept a direct submission of the pricing spreadsheets from the subcontractor in order to protect its proprietary information. Such direct submission must include the same information as specified in (b) above, in the same format and media, and must exactly mesh with the prime contractor’s proposal.

The submission shall identify the prime contractor on the cover sheet

Prime contractors are responsible for conducting price analyses to establish reasonableness of proposed subcontractors’ prices, and to include the results of these analyses in the pricing narrative.

It is also the responsibility of prime contractors to ensure their subcontractor (s) pricing proposal is submitted by the closing date/time. Proposals received that do not contain complete pricing for both the prime and all subcontractor(s) may not be considered for award.

In the event that portions of the requirement are proposed to be satisfied by subcontractors, the prime’s proposal shall provide pass-through methodology and limitations.

The prime contractor is responsible to enter its subcontractor pricing.

If a subcontractor does not want to reveal proprietary information to the prime offeror, the Government will accept a direct submission of the pricing spreadsheets from the subcontractor in order to protect its proprietary information. Such direct submission must include the same information as specified in (b) above, in the same format and media, and must exactly mesh with the prime contractor’s proposal.

The submission shall identify the prime contractor on the cover sheet

Prime contractors are responsible for conducting price analyses to establish reasonableness of proposed subcontractors’ prices, and to include the results of these analyses in the pricing narrative.

It is also the responsibility of prime contractors to ensure their subcontractor (s) pricing proposal is submitted by the closing date/time. Proposals received that do not contain complete pricing for both the prime and all subcontractor(s) may not be considered for award.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

BASIS FOR AWARD

BASIS FOR AWARD (Section M)

The award will be made based on the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of the three (3) factors: Mission Capability, Past Performance, and Price. Mission Capability Factor is more important than Past Performance Factor and Small Business Participation Plan. The Past Performance Factor is more important than Small Business Participation Plan. Small Business Participation Plan is more important than Price. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Mission Capability 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 SIGNFICANTLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN COST/PRICE.

B. FACTORS AND SUB-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.

Factor 1: Mission Capability: A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section.

Factor 2: Past Performance: Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment.

Factor 3: Price: The resulting award will be a firm fixed price contract. Price reasonableness, and completeness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed Price effort.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH (Section M)

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

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 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 devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

2. Factor 1 –Mission Capability. The Mission Capability evaluation provides an assessment of the offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s requirements. The evaluation will focus on the strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal.

a. The Government will evaluate the contractor's staffing plan, asset management, logistic support and information assurance for maintaining support continuity.

b. The Government will evaluate the contractor's proposal on how they will meet the technical aspects in PWS paragraph 5.0.

Mission Capability Risk Rating. The Mission Capability risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined management/ technical risk evaluations shall utilize the combined management/ technical risk ratings listed in Table 1. There is no separate rating assigned to the individual tabs and no order of importance is stipulated. Tabs are simply used for evaluation purposes to derive a Factor rating.

TABLE 1 –Combined Mission Capability/ Risk Rating

3. Past Performance Factor.

The Past Performance evaluation will assess the relative risks associated with an offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the solicitation’s requirements as indicated by that offeror’s record of past performance. Performance risk is assessed at the factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance and focusing on performance that is relevant to the services being procured under this solicitation. Offerors are cautioned that in conducting the performance risk assessment, the Government may use data provided in the offeror’s proposal and data obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems and State Department Watch Lists. Past performance areas of evaluation include:

- Business Relations

- Quality of Service

- Schedule

- Cost Control

- Customer Satisfaction

- Compliance with Socio-Economic Goals

a. Each offeror will receive a performance confidence assessment rating based on the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the requirements of this solicitation. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate 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.

b. Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

c. Relevancy Assessment. To be relevant, the effort must be of similar in nature of work, size, and complexity. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine if it is the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the services/products being procured under this solicitation. Recent past performance is defined as not more than three (3) years from the RFP release date; relevant in terms of similar nature of work, size, and complexity.

1) There are four levels of relevancy as shown in Table 2. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance is a stronger predictor of future success and will have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

2) A relevancy determination of the offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information provided in the proposal and obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and will receive a “Unknown/Neutral" confidence rating.

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

d. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well Offerors have performed on referenced contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. Requirements for considering history of small business utilization are outlined at FAR 15.304(c)(3)(ii) and DFARS 215.305(a)(2). The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

e. Assigning Ratings. Performance Confidence Assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in Table 3.

Table 3. Performance Confidence Assessments

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.

4. Cost/Price Factor. Price will not be scored or rated. Evaluation of price will be performed using one or more of the price analysis techniques in FAR 15.404-1(b). Through these techniques the Government will determine whether prices are fair, reasonable and complete.

a. 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. Utilization of 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. Circumstances may arise that require the Contracting Officer to utilize FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, upon the performance end date of Option Period 4, for no more than six (6) months. Pricing for an additional six (6) months will be evaluated based off of pricing proposed for Option Period 4 by adding one-half of the offeror's final option period price to the offeror's total price. Thus, the offeror's total price for the purpose of evaluation will include the base period, 1st option, 2nd option, 3rd option, 4th option, and 1/2 of the 4th option.

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf