FEMA Region 2 Naval Weapons Station Earle Building C-54 Comprehensive Facility Upgrades

Evaluation Factors Requirement: Consolidated Requirement (RRCC Refresh, Roof, Doors and Concrete) The Government will award a firm fixed-price contract resulting from this solicitation to the Offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. This procurement is being conducted in accordance with the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12.203, Evaluation of Acquisition of Commercial Products and Commercial Services The acquisition will be a best value contract. Offerors are cautioned that award(s) may not necessarily be made to the lowest priced proposal. Price should always be fair, reasonable, and realistic. Technical/price tradeoff where other evaluation factors, when combined, cost/price may become a critical factor if two or more offerors are determined to be essentially equal following the evaluation of all factors other than cost or price. The Government will evaluate proposal submissions based on the following evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance: Factor 1 – Technical Specifications Factor 2 – Past Performance Factor 3 – Price All non-price factors, when combined, are slightly more important than price. Factor 1: Technical Specifications Offerors will be evaluated on their ability to demonstrate technical sufficiency in their proposed technical and management approach to perform and support the requirements of the Statement of Work (SOW). This section of the offeror’s proposal shall address information regarding how the proposal logistical support task areas will be performed, the various resources that will be used to facilitate performance, and an identification of potential difficulties in conducting the work with practical suggestions for overcoming these difficulties. Offerors will be evaluated on their ability to develop a work plan in response to the SOW. Offerors must demonstrate an understanding of ALL OF THE FOLLOWING: • Scope of technical requirements • Complexity of technical requirements • Performance requirements & objectives • Pertinent work tasks & deliverables 70FBR226R00000016_0001 Page 70 of 83 -- 1 of 3 -- Factor 2: Past Performance Provide past performance information for services directly related and relevant to the services to be performed under the SOW. To be considered relevant, the services must have been performed within the past five years. Include three references consisting of ALL OF THE FOLLOWING: - Project title/description - Role (Prime/Subcontractor) - Contract number - Dollar value & contract type - Period of performance - Agency or company for which the work was performed - Summary of the work products/services - Name/contact information of client point of contact FEMA reserves the right to utilize past performance information other than the information submitted with the quotations received in conducting the evaluation. This may be a favorable CPARS rating. However, if these are utilized and a Vendor does not have any ratings since they have not done business with the government, they will receive a neutral rating in the evaluation later that cannot be used against them. RATING FOR PAST PERFORMANCE DESCRIPTION Superior Based on an offeror’s past performance record, no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Satisfactory Based on an offeror’s past performance record, it is likely that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Unsatisfactory Based on an offeror’s past performance record, it is not likely that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Neutral No relevant performance record is identifiable upon which to base a meaningful performance rating. This is neither a negative nor positive assessment. RATING DESCRIPTION Superior Exceeds requirements; outstanding approach and understanding. Satisfactory Meets requirements; strengths and weaknesses are balanced. Unsatisfactory Fails to meet requirements; significant weaknesses or deficiencies. 70FBR226R00000016_0001 Page 71 of 83 -- 2 of 3 -- Factor 3: Price The price proposal will be evaluated for price reasonableness through comparison with other proposed prices and may include other price analysis techniques. The price proposal will not be given a confidence rating, but unit prices and discounts will be evaluated to ensure prices are fair and reasonable. -SPACE BELOW INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK- Questions regarding this Request for Proposal (RFP) shall be directed via email to brenda.cruzrodriguez@fema.dhs.gov and a copy to brendaliz.pinero@fema.dhs.gov. Telephone inquiries will not be honored. All questions must be received no later than Tuesday, September 8, 2026, at 10:00 am ET. Responses regarding this RFP shall be directed via email to brenda.cruzrodriguez@fema.dhs.gov and a copy to brendaliz.pinero@fema.dhs.gov. All responses must be received no later than Friday, September 11, 2026, at 11:00 am ET. 70FBR226R00000016_0001 Page 72 of 83 -- 3 of 3 --