Ray Volumes and Evaluation Factors.docx

1. PROPOSAL CONTENT:

Volume I, Technical and Management Approach. The Offeror shall submit their Technical Approach with respect to the following and shall not exceed 15 pages. The Technical Approach shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail for a thorough review and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. Legibility, clarity and coherence are very important. 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. The Technical Approach shall, at a minimum, be prepared in a form consistent with the PWS and Evaluation Criteria.

The Technical and Management volume shall have 3 sections: Cover letter/General corporate Information, Technical Approach, and Management Approach.

1. Proposal Cover Letter and General Corporate Information:

- Company's Cover Page. The Offeror shall provide a company's cover page. Company cover page shall include Solicitation number, Company name, Company address, Point of Contact information, Cage Code and System of Awards (SAM) Unique Entity Identification (UEI) number.

- Exceptions/Assumptions (if required). The Offeror shall identify and provide an explanation of any exceptions or deviations. Additionally, any assumptions used in the proposal preparation must be identified.

- Offeror's General Information. The Offeror shall provide the name, title and telephone number of the company /division point of contact regarding decisions made with respect to Offeror's proposal and who can obligate your company contractually. Also, identify those individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government. The Offeror shall provide acknowledgement of all amendments (if applicable.)

- OCI Statement. Organization Conflicts of Interest (OCI), OCI Risks, and OCI Risk Mitigation.

- Teaming Arrangement (if needed). Teaming Arrangements (including Sub-Contractors if intended to be used for execution.

- Facility Clearance. Corporate Security Clearance status and personal security status of personnel proposed

2. Technical Approach:

· The Technical Approach 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 requirements specified in the PWS. The Offeror shall address as specifically as possible the actual methodology they would use for accomplishing the five PWS tasks. The Technical Approach should include:

Technical Approach Narrative (Element 1). The Technical Approach Narrative shall describe and demonstrate a complete understanding of the required tasks of the PWS outlined in Section 4.0 Tasks, specifically with respect to the technical functions of the PWS identified below:

Management Approach (Element 2). The Management Approach will be evaluated based on the following key areas on the Offeror's ability to demonstrate the offeror's understanding of the personnel requirements of the PWS, as well as the ability to provide the personnel in order to fulfill experience and qualification requirements necessary to perform and manage all 5 tasks as described in the PWS. The following elements will be evaluated as part of the Offeror's Management Approach:

a. The Management Approach Narrative will be evaluated based on the Offeror's approach on how well it demonstrates to plan, execute, and manage the PWS requirements.

b. The Offeror's Staffing Plan will be evaluated on how well it demonstrates:

i. A staffing plan methodology that details the ability to hire, train, and retain a highly qualified stable workforce capable of performing all tasks stated in the PWS; procedures to, reduce personnel turn-over, and retain qualified personnel; that include the proposed labor categories, certifications and hours that reflect the manageable tasks and work packages necessary to provide and accomplish the services and deliverables specified in the PWS.

ii. A staffing plan shall outline the Offeror's approach to provide coverage for all tasks and deliverables in the PWS listing all personnel and their certifications that are necessary to accomplish the requirements of the PWS.

Contractor Quality Control Plan (QCP) (Element 3): The contractor shall develop, provide and follow a QCP specifying the tasks, subtasks and approaches it will use to ensure that it meets or exceeds the government standards as outlined within the PWS. The Contractor shall submit the QCP as part of the proposal. The Contractors QCP shall include management and technical reviews, audits validate the quality of work performed by the contractor's personnel and the work performed by its subcontractors if applicable. The QCP at a minimum, shall address the following areas and shall not exceed twenty (20) pages.

1.1 Volume II, Past Performance (Factor 2). The Past Performance Volume shall include the Past Performance information as described below and shall not exceed ten (10) pages with the exception of resumes.

1.1.1 The Offeror shall identify no more than three (3) of its most recent/relevant experienced Contracts/Task Orders (TOs)/ Delivery Orders (DOs) that either (i) it has successfully completed or (ii) it has performed in part, within the past three (3) years, including proposed Subcontractors. Both recent and relevant are defined as follows:

a. Recentness. First, the Government will evaluate each past performance reference to determine how recent it was. To be determined recent, the effort must have been performed during the three (3) years from the date of issuance of this RFQ. Evaluation will focus only on work experience already performed. Yet- to-be performed work, experience prior to the last three (3) years, and work performed for less than six (6) months will not be considered. Past performance that is not recent will not be further evaluated.

b. Relevancy. Second, the Government will evaluate whether the Offeror's recent past performance is relevant or not relevant to the required effort. The Government will assess each recent past performance reference submission to determine its similarity in scope, magnitude, and complexity relative to this requirement.

(1) Scope is the measure of the similarity of the PWS scope to the Offeror's past performance. Scope will be assessed by comparing the PWS requirements to the Offeror's past performance reference.

(2) Magnitude is the measure of the similarity of the dollar value of the current requirement to the Offeror's past performance reference. Magnitude should be a minimum of $2M and maximum of $21M (the NAICS code standard). Magnitude will be evaluated by comparing the current requirement's dollar value to the Offeror's past performance reference under the relevant time period established by the RFQ.

(3) Complexity is the measure of the similarity of the current requirement's total required effort in terms of needed personnel, experience, and professional credentials to the Offeror's past performance reference. Complexity will be evaluated by comparing the current requirement's total effort in terms of personnel, experience and professional credentials to the Offeror's total effort in terms of personnel, experience and professional credentials outlined in the past performance reference.

1.1.2 Relevancy Narrative: The Offeror shall address the relevancy of referenced contracts, as well as similarity to the effort contemplated by the RFQ. The discussion of similarity shall include a description of services or related tasks similar to those that it will perform in support of the NGB CWMD Division.

a. Identify information on significant achievements. Describe any challenges or obstacles that were encountered during contract performance and the measures taken to overcome them.

b. Include a discussion of the events or circumstances affecting any termination decision and/or performance litigation for any contracts/subcontracts identified as fully or partially "Terminated for Convenience or Default", or was subject to litigation regarding performance.

c. Include, for each contract, DO or TO any cure notices or show cause notices received on that contract, DO or TO. Explain the circumstances and the corrective action taken by the Offeror.

1.1.3 The Offeror shall provide the following contract description information for each contract and/or subcontract either ongoing or completed contracts in the order listed below. (Table Format is acceptable.)

a. Contract number.

b. Title of Program/Project

c. Identify whether you were the Prime or Subcontractor. If you were the Subcontractor, provide the name of the Prime Contractor to whom the effort was awarded.

d. Contract type.

e. Period of performance.

f. Awarded price for Prime/Sub Contractor.

g. Final or projected final price Prime/Sub Contractor.

h. Annual dollar value for Prime Contractor/ Sub Contractor.

i. Original delivery schedule.

j. Final or projected final delivery schedule.

k. Government or commercial contracting activity, address, telephone and e-mail address.

l. Government or commercial contracting activity technical representative or Contracting Officer's Representative (COR), name, telephone number and e-mail address.

m. Status on referenced contract (Prime or Major Subcontractor).

1.2 Volume III, Price (Factor 3). The Offeror's Price Volume shall consist of the following tabs:

Clin Structure Attachment 1. Fill in pricing information for CLINs 0001 through 4007.

Pricing and Notes. This volume shall also be used to explain the Offeror's Price Proposal, e.g., discounts offered, remittance address, explanation of Contractor-site and Government-site rates, not separately priced pricing data, etc.

Labor Categories, Hours and Rates. The Offeror shall propose labor categories, rates, and hours to successfully perform the contract requirements. It is the responsibility of each Offeror to propose information which it deems necessary to size the work-force and to determine the skill set which it deems necessary to perform the contract. Certified cost or pricing data is not anticipated for the award of the contract as a result of this solicitation; however, the Government reserves the right to request such information should it become necessary IAW FAR Subpart 15.4, Contract Pricing, or to request Information other than cost or pricing data if required to determine the proposed price fair and reasonable.

Proposed contract pricing shall be submitted IAW with Attachment 1, CLIN Structure.

1.2.1 If Not-To-Exceed (NTE) amounts are provided by the Government, they are to be included as a part of the Price Proposal and identified as such. The NTE amounts are Government estimates and are not to be changed by the contractor. Should the contractor consider the amounts to be understated, it should be noted in the Price Proposal and supporting rationale provided.

1.2.2 Offerors are required only to price the base and option periods. Offerors shall not propose price for the potential six-month extension of services period (see FAR Clause 52.217-8). Procedures for price evaluation of the FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, are stated in paragraph 4.1.3

1.2.3 The Offeror shall submit its Price proposal in Microsoft Excel format, utilizing Microsoft Office. Spreadsheets shall be sent in a file format that includes all formulas, macro, and format information. Print images are not acceptable.

1.2.4 If proposing Subcontractors, the Offeror shall explicitly detail on its Price proposal the amount of work subcontracted, in terms of both dollars and percentage.

2. SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS:

2.1 General.

2.1.1 Your attention is called to the RFQ closing date and time of 09/10/2026 at 12:00 PM ET. It is the Offeror's responsibility to ensure its proposal is received by the date and time specified above. If your proposal is not received at the initial point of entry to the Government (received through e-mail by the exact date and time specified above), it will be determined late and will not be evaluated. Proposal, as the term is used here, means ALL volumes and /or parts of the proposal.

2.1.2 Pages are limited to a printable 8 1/2" x 11". Number all pages. Graphs and tables included in the technical proposal need not be double-spaced, but to ensure legibility, the text in tables and graphics may be 9-point; however, all text not in tables or graphics shall be no smaller than 12- point type and single-spaced. Font type will be in Times New Roman. Inclusion of any graphs or tables is counted within the page limitation. Any pages submitted in excess of the page limit stated in Table 1 (except as specifically excluded for each volume) will not be evaluated and will be returned to the Contractor. Contractors are cautioned that failure to follow these instructions may result in an incomplete evaluation of the proposal.

Offerors shall submit three (3) separate electronic volumes, with its proposal.

2.1.3 Ensure that all volumes are submitted in response to this RFQ. Failure to do so may result in your proposal not being considered. Your proposal shall be structured in a manner that clearly addresses the requirements for this RFQ. Responses that are overly verbose or include marketing material are not desired.

2.2 Email Submission. Offerors shall submit their proposal electronically, via e-mail, to the following e-mail addresses: Timothy.Baugh@gsa.gov and Collette.Scott.@gsa.gov Any proposal received after the exact time specified for receipt of proposals is "late" and will not be considered for evaluation.

2.2.1 Offerors are cautioned that e-mail is not instantaneous. We recommend you submit your proposal prior to the closing date, allowing enough time to ensure the entire proposal is received on time to be considered for award. If all portions of any e-mail proposal are not received by the RFQ closing deadline, the proposal shall be rejected as late (see FAR 15.208). Re-send your e-mail submission if you do not receive receipt confirmation. If you do not receive a receipt confirmation after the second transmission, contact the Contract Specialist. Due to Government exchange size limitations, we cannot receive individual e-mails that exceed 5 MB per file, including the e-mail itself plus all attachments. If your electronic proposal, including all attachments, is larger than 5 MB per file, you shall segment your proposal into a series of two (2) or more separate e- mails that individually are no larger than 5 MB per file. We cannot receive e- mails if they contain compressed attachments. Our security software blocks these types of e-mails.

2.2.2 Offerors shall identify in the e-mail subject line the following: RFQ NUMBER, closing date/time, VOL XX, and the Offeror's name. For example: "fill in RFQ number, 01SEPT 26/1200, VOL I, Message 1 of 3, XYZ Company."

2.2.3 In the body of each e-mail message of the proposal, the Offeror shall provide a brief statement accounting for each e-mail in relation to the entire proposal. For example, "Message 3 of 5, as well as inventory of attachments" or "Attachment 1 of 4" or "This message 3 of a total of 5 messages constituting XXXXX RFQ” or "This message provides attachments 2 and 3 of a total of 4 attachments to our complete Proposal."

2.3 Resolution of Issues. The ordering Contracting Officer reserves the right to withdraw and cancel the proposed RFQ. In such event, the Offeror will be notified in writing of the ordering Contracting Officer's decision. This decision is final and conclusive and shall not be subject to the "Disputes" clause or the "Contract Disputes Act."

3. EVALUATION CRITERIA. Offerors will be evaluated strictly at the factor level Approach, 1) Technical and Management Approach, 2) Past Performance, 3) Price

3.1 Volume I, Technical and Management (Factor 1)

3.1.1 Technical Approach. The Technical Approach will be evaluated based on the following key areas:

3.1.1.1 Technical Approach Narrative (Element 1). The Government will evaluate the Offeror's capability to describe and demonstrate a complete understanding of the required tasks of the PWS Specific Tasks, specifically with respect to the technical functions of the PWS identified below:

3.1.1.2 Quality Control Plan (QCP) (Element 3): The proposed QCP will be evaluated to determine the offeror's ability to develop, implement, and maintain an effective quality control system. The quality control system will be evaluated with respect to the following:

i. Standardized procedures/methods for monitoring and documenting contract performance to ensure all contract requirements are performed.

ii. Provide performance and quality indicators that provide visibility into developing trends and to forecast potential/future problems/risks related to cost, resources, quality, schedule and a project plan within an ad-hoc project report.

3.1.2 Management Approach (Element 2). The Management Approach will be evaluated based on the following key areas on the Offeror's ability to demonstrate the offeror's understanding of the personnel requirements of the PWS, as well as the ability to provide the personnel in order to fulfill experience and qualification requirements necessary to perform and manage all tasks as described in the PWS. The following elements will be evaluated as part of the Offeror's Management Approach:

3.1.3 Management Approach Narrative: The Management Approach Narrative will be evaluated based on the Offeror's approach on how well it demonstrates to plan, execute, and manage the PWS requirements.

3.1.3.1 Staffing Plan. The Offeror's Staffing Plan will be evaluated on how well it demonstrates:

a. A staffing plan methodology that details the ability to hire, train, and retain a highly qualified stable workforce capable of performing all tasks stated in the PWS; procedures to, reduce personnel turn-over, and retain qualified personnel; that include the proposed labor categories, certifications and hours that reflect the manageable tasks and work packages necessary to provide and accomplish the services and deliverables specified in the PWS.

b. A staffing plan shall outline the Offeror's approach to provide coverage for all tasks and deliverables in the PWS listing all personnel and their certifications that are necessary to accomplish the requirements of the PWS.

3.1.3.2 Key Personnel Qualification. Offeror's key personnel will be evaluated to determine if their experience, qualifications, certifications and abilities, are adequate to perform the required work and meet the minimum qualifications identified in the PWS. Evaluation of Key Personnel will be used to determine if key personnel have proven knowledge, skills, background, certifications and work experience to perform the work requirements in the PWS.

3.2 Volume II, Past Performance (Factor 2). The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror's probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The Offerors will be evaluated to determine the extent to which their past performance demonstrates the likelihood of successful performance in providing requirements similar in size and scope of this RFQ. The Government may choose to evaluate publicly available reports, and/or data from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or similar systems and State Department Watch Lists. The Government may use present and/or past performance data obtained from a variety of sources, not just those contracts identified by the Offeror. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's recent and relevant past performance to determine the Offeror's probability of performing the RFQ's requirements. The Government will consider three aspects during the past performance evaluation: recentness of performance, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in Contractor performance and source of information).

a. Recentness. First, the Government will evaluate each past performance reference to determine how recent it was. To be determined recent, the effort must have been performed during the three (3) years from the date of issuance of this RFQ. Evaluation will focus only on work experience already performed. Yet- to-be performed work, experience prior to the last three (3) years, and work performed for less than six (6) months will not be considered. Past performance that is not recent will not be further evaluated.

b. Relevancy. Second, the Government will evaluate whether the Offeror's recent past performance is relevant or not relevant to the required effort. The Government will assess each recent past performance reference submission to determine its similarity in scope, magnitude, and complexity relative to this requirement.

(1) Scope is the measure of the similarity of the PWS scope to the Offeror's past performance. Scope will be assessed by comparing the PWS requirements to the Offeror's past performance reference.

(2) Magnitude is the measure of the similarity of the dollar value of the current requirement to the Offeror's past performance reference. Magnitude will be evaluated by comparing the current requirement's dollar value to the Offeror's past performance reference under the relevant time period established by the RFQ.

(3) Complexity is the measure of the similarity of the current requirement's total required effort in terms of needed personnel, experience, and professional credentials to the Offeror's past performance reference. Complexity will be evaluated by comparing the current requirement's total effort in terms of personnel, experience and professional credentials to the Offeror's total effort in terms of personnel, experience and professional credentials outlined in the past performance reference.

c. Quality. The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the Offeror's past performance (see FAR 15.304(c)(2)). The past performance evaluation conducted 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. A separate quality assessment rating will not be assigned. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror's recent and relevant past performance, considering general trends, source of information, and usefulness of the information, and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment rating. In determining the overall quality of the Offeror's past performance, the Government will consider the Offeror's business relations, schedule, and customer satisfaction.

3.2.1 In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the case the offeror's past performance is unknown, the Government will assign a performance confidence rating of "neutral".

3.3 Volume III, Price (Factor 3). The Price Factor evaluation will be conducted on the Firm Fixed-Price basis. The techniques and procedures described under FAR 15.404-1(b) will be the primary means of assessing proposal reasonableness.

3.3.1 The proposed price will be evaluated for reasonableness of proposed prices to accomplish the technical approach. Reasonableness is defined as a price if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

3.3.2 Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic contract requirement. The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the option prices are unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

3.3.2.1 Options. As part of price evaluation, the Government will evaluate its option to extend services under FAR 52.217-8 by adding six (6) months (one-half) of the offeror's Year 5 price to the offeror's Total Price. The Government may choose to exercise the option to extend services at the end of Year 5 of performance utilizing the rates of that performance period. (See FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services.)

3.3.3 This evaluation will not obligate the Government to exercise any option under FAR 52.217-8.

4. BASIS FOR AWARD – BEST VALUE:

Evaluation Findings are the written observations/judgments regarding the individual merits of the proposal against the RFQ requirements.

Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Rating is the adjective descriptor assigned by the evaluators to the non-price factors and corresponding subfactors. It shall be either acceptable or not acceptable. Terms and Conditions Concerns are issues related to any of the contractual provisions in the RFQ.

Uncertainty is any aspect of a non-price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g. more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

4.1 EVALUATION RATING:

Technical Ratings. Factor 1 will be rated according to the color/adjectival rating table below. Factors 2 and 3 will be evaluated as Acceptable or Unacceptable as described below in Table 2. Offerors must receive a rating of Acceptable (or higher) in all three factors to be considered for award.

Technical / Management Approach Rating Method Table 1 – Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

sk

The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation is rated acceptable in all merit evaluation factors. The following factors should be used to evaluate offers:

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR 3: COST/PRICE

Evaluation factors 1 is of higher importance than factors 2 and 3. Factors 1 and 2 are together more important than Factor 3. Each offer will be assessed in accordance with the evaluation factor criteria herein, resulting in an integrated assessment to arrive at an award using Best Value. All factors must be considered acceptable.

5. REJECTION OF OFFERS: Offerors shall carefully read, understand, and provide all the information requested in the RFQ. If there are parts of the RFQ that are vague and/or ambiguous, request clarification from the Contract Specialist and/or the Contracting Officer before the established cut-off date for questions. The circumstances that may lead to the rejection of a proposal are:

5.1 When the proposal fails to meaningfully respond to the specified instructions. Examples of failure to meaningfully respond include:

5.1.1 When the Government is evaluating an Offeror's technical approach and a proposal merely repeats the contract PWS without elaboration or fails to present more than a statement indicating its capability to comply with the RFQ terms and does not provide support or detail how they will perform.

5.1.2 When the quote fails to provide all of the data and information required in the RFQ.

5.2 When the proposal reflects an inherent lack of technical competence or a failure to comprehend the complexity and risks required to perform the RFQ requirements or identify required certifications, which is substantially high or low in price and /or unachievable in terms of technical, labor mix, or schedule commitments.

5.3 When the proposal contains any unexplained significant inconsistency between the proposed effort and price, which implies the Offeror has (a) an inherent misunderstanding of the PWS and/or (b) an apparent inability to perform the resultant contract.

5.4 When the proposal is unbalanced as to the proposed price. An unbalanced offer is one which is based on prices significantly high or low for one given period versus another period. Unbalanced pricing will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g).

5.5 When there is no direct relationship between the effort expended and its price for each base and option year.

5.6 When the proposal contains major error(s), omission(s) and or deficiencies that indicate a lack of understanding or an approach that cannot be expected to meet requirements or involves a very high risk and none of these conditions can be corrected without major rewrites or revisions of the proposal.

5.7 When the quote offers a product or service that does not meet all stated material requirements of the RFQ

5.8 When the quote is late IAW FAR 15.208 and the Submission Instructions herein.

5.9 When the quote is significantly high or low as to the proposed price or is unaffordable to the Government.

5.10 When the quote is not in full compliance with the terms and conditions of the RFQ

5.11 .

6. POST AWARD-NOTICES AND DEBRIEFINGS: Post-award notices and debriefings will be conducted IAW FAR 15.506 (a)(1). The Contracting Officer will notify unsuccessful awardees IAW FAR 15.503(b)(1), as directed by FAR 16.505(b)(6)(i). Upon such notification, unsuccessful awardees may request and receive a debriefing IAW FAR 15.506(a)(1), as directed by FAR 16.505(b)(6)(ii). Unsuccessful awardees desiring debriefing shall make their request IAW the requirements of FAR 15.506, as applicable.

7. ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The term "Organizational Conflicts of Interest" (OCI) is defined in FAR Subpart 2.1. Also see FAR 9.502(c). For this RFQ, "OCI" exists when a Contractor would face an actual or potential conflict of interest if it worked on the planned contract, due either to its other business interests or to the nature of the effort to be performed. Organizational conflicts of interest are more likely to occur in contracts involving:

a. Management support services;

b. Consultant or other professional services;

c. Contractor performance of or assistance in technical evaluations; or

d. Systems engineering and technical direction work performed by a Contractor that does not have overall contractual responsibility for development or production.

The Contracting Officer has reviewed and analyzed the PWS under this RFQ and has not identified any OCI issue, potential or otherwise. However, Offerors are encouraged to make a preliminary disclosure to the Contracting Officer, prior to the due date for receipt of proposals, of any OCI issues the Offeror has identified. Such preliminary disclosure will allow the Contracting Officer more time to assess both the potential OCI and the Offeror's proposed strategy to negate or mitigate the OCI. This assessment may be crucial since, per FAR 9.504(e), the Contracting Officer may not award the contract to a Contractor with an OCI that cannot be negated or mitigated.

If the Contractor demonstrates to the Contracting Officer that there may be a possible conflict of interest arising out of an existing contract, the Contracting Officer shall take the necessary action to delete that requirement from this RFQ and/or mitigate any conflict of interest that may be present. The Contractor agrees that the Government or an authorized representative may, up to three years after acceptance of all programmatic documentation to be delivered under this contract, restrict the Contractor's future participation in any resulting program managed system acquisition action(s).