Fleet Industrial and Supply Center, DET Washington 901 M Street S. E. Washington Navy Yard, Bldg 200-4, Washington D. C. 20374

V -- LODGING FOR NAVAL SCHOOL OF HEALTH SCIENCES SOL N00600-98-R-2601 DUE 081498 POC For additional Information Contact Ayo H. Johnson Code 02W2.2F at 202.433.2970 fax 202.433.5414 email ayo_johnson@fmso.navy.mil This is the second modification to solicitation number N00600-98-R-2601. The Submission Numbers are as follows: Initial Solicitation # 218813 &218814 Modification #1 #229555 The solicitation is hereby changed as follows; Paragraphs VII FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors -- Commercial Items, and VIII Contract Award/Evaluation (Best Value) -- Commercial Items (FISCNORVADETWASH), are hereby replaced in their entirety by the following: VII. FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items, is incorporated by reference and applies to this acquisition. The following ADDENDUM applies to FAR 52.212-1: 1. The offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for 50 days from the date specified for receipt of offers. In addition to the information required in FAR 52.212-1, which should sufficiently show that the offeror can meet all of the Government's minimum requirements, offerors shall provide: a. A clear identification of the number of facilities the offeror is proposing for this effort; b. A written description of how close the offeror's facility(ies) is/are, in terms of distance and travel time during rush hour, to the National Naval Medical Center and how close the facility(ies) is/are to the nearest Metro Station in accordance with paragraph 10 of the Statement of Work listed above; c. A written description of the measures, if any, that will be taken to provide transportation service to and/or from the nearest Metro Station. (If the contractor is located within 1/4 of a mile of the nearest Metro and chooses not to provide any transportation, they should affirmatively state this in their proposal); d. In addition to the Past Performance information required by FAR 52.212-1(b)(10), the offeror shall provide the fax numbers for the points of contact for all references on previous or current contracts of similar magnitude. VIII. The following evaluation factors apply: CONTRACT AWARD/EVALUATION (BEST VALUE) -- COMMERCIAL ITEMS (FISCNORVADETWASH) (FEB 1996) (a) The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. Therefore each initial offer should contain the offeror's best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. (b) Proposals received in response to this solicitation will be evaluated by the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center Norfolk Detachment Washington pursuant to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the Department of Defense Supplement. One contractor will be selected for award on the basis of their proposal being the most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. (c) Each technical proposal will be evaluated qualitatively and categorized as outstanding, better, acceptable, marginal or unacceptable in relation to the technical evaluation factors set forth in this solicitation. A finding of unacceptable in one technical factor may result in the entire technical proposal being found to be unacceptable. The past performance factor will be evaluated qualitatively and categorized as neutral, outstanding, better, satisfactory or marginal as set for in the clause "Evaluation of Past Performance". (d) All technical evaluation factors when combined are more important than price. Price is more important than past performance. (e) Prospective offerors are forewarned that an acceptable technical proposal and marginal past performance with the lowest price may not be selected if award to a higher priced proposal affords the Government a greater overall benefit. The Government may elect to pay a price premium to select an offeror whose technical proposal or technical proposal and past performance combined, are superior. (f) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options (if included in the RFP) 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). (g) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations, after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award. 1. Offerors will be evaluated based on how well they meet the technical requirements of the statement of work (including how they address paragraphs (a) and (b) in the Instructions to Offerors) listed above) in accordance with paragraph (c) above. The Government will be evaluating the following items as follows (which are listed from highest level of importance to lowest importance): a) Offerors will be evaluated on their ability to propose one Hotel facility (as opposed to two or more hotels combining for one effort) for the entire requirement. Offerors proposing one Hotel facility will receive a higher technical rating than offerors proposing multiple hotels. This is the Government's most critical technical evaluation factor. b) Offerors will be evaluated on how close in terms of distance their facility is to the nearest metrorail station. The Government will give all offerors that are within a 1/4 of a mile distance from the nearest metrorail station the same technical rating for this factor. If an offeror is outside of this distance, then their proposal for on-demand transportation service or shuttle service will be evaluated on how well it meets the needs of the Government as defined in the statement of work. Offerors proposing a hotel within 1/4 of a mile to the nearest subway station will receive a higher technical rating than offerors outside of this distance proposing transportation service. An offeror inside of the 1/4 mile distance that also proposes on-demand or shuttle service, will receive the same technical rating as an offeror inside of the 1/4 mile distance. This is the Government's second most important technical evaluation factor. c) Offerors will be evaluated on how close, in terms of time by surface commute during rush hour, their facility is to the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda. Offerors with shorter surface commutes during rush hour will receive a higher technical rating for this factor. The rating intervals will be from: 1 -- 10 minute surface commute during rush hour and 11 -- 20 minute surface commute during rush hour. The Government reserves the right to adjust this time factor (in accordance with such information as Metro time schedule for commutes, etc..) if it determines the contractor's estimate is unrealistic. This is the Government's third most important technical factor. 2. Offerors will be evaluated on their price, 3. Offerors will be evaluated on their past performance in accordance with"EVALUATION OF PAST PERFORMANCE" clause that follows. The Government reserves the right to visit the contractor's facility to inspect it for compliance with the technical requirements of this procurement and to help determine the technical rating for an offeror. EVALUATION OF PAST PERFORMANCE, FISCNORVADETWASH M22 ALTERNATE I (OCT 1995) (a) In relation to the evaluation of other non-cost factors, the evaluation of past performance will consider past performance as less important than any of the technical factors. (b) The Government will evaluate the quality of the offeror's past performance. This evaluation is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer's responsibility determination. The assessment of the offeror's past performance will be used to evaluate the relative capability of the offeror and other competitors to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP. Past performance of significant and/or critical subcontractors will be considered to the extent warranted by the subcontractor's involvement in the proposed effort. Past performance of "key personnel", if any, shall not be considered. (c) The Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any and all sources including sources outside of the Government. Offerors lacking relevant past performance history will receive a neutral rating for past performance. However, the proposal of an offeror with no relevant past performance history, while rated neutral in past performance, may not represent the most advantageous proposal to the Government and thus, may be an unsuccessful proposal when compared to the proposals of other offerors. The offeror must provide the information requested above for past performance evaluation or affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant directly related or similar past performance experience. The Government reserves the right not to evaluate or consider for award the entire proposal from an offeror which fails to provide the past performance information orwhich fails to assert that it has no relevant directly related or similar past performance experience. (d) Contracting Officers will use the following adjectival definitions as guidelines in evaluating past performance: NEUTRAL: No relevant past performance available for evaluation. Offeror has asserted that it has no relevant directly related or similar past performance experience. Proposal receives no merit or demerit for this factor. OUTSTANDING: No risk anticipated with delivery of quality product, on time, or of any degradation of performance or lack of customer satisfaction (or cost growth if applicable) based upon offeror's past performance. BETTER: Very little risk anticipated with delivery of quality product, on time, or of degradation of performance of lack of customer satisfaction (or cost growth if applicable) based upon the offeror's past performance. SATISFACTORY: Some potential risk anticipated with delivery of quality product, on time, and of degradation or lack of customer satisfaction (or cost growth if applicable) based upon the offeror's past performance. MARGINAL: Significant potential risk anticipated with delivery of quality product, on time, and of degradation of performance based upon the offeror's past performance. (A rating of marginal does not by itself make the proposal ineligible for award. The closing date for this solicitation remains 14 August 1998 as specified in Modification 1 to this solicitation. Posted 07/31/98 (W-SN231005). (0212)

Loren Data Corp. http://www.ld.com (SYN# 0138 19980804\V-0002.SOL)