692M15-21-R-00039_Amendment 001_Updated Section M.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ.NO.

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

Offers 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 is extended, is not extended.

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.

(x) A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14.

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

1 12

0001 11/05/2021

AAQ-610 Grants & R&D FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center Building 300, Fourth Floor Atlantic City International Airport

AAQ610-AFN

Atlantic City NJ 08405

AAQ-610 Facilities & Grants FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center Fourth Floor, Bldg 300 Atlantic City International Airport

AAQ610-AFN

Atlantic City NJ 08405 x

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment number. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 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.

copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted ; or (c) By ___________ 1 x x

692M15-21-R-00039

1 copies to the issuing office.

11/05/2021

(x)

The purpose of Amendment 0001 is the following:

1.) The following sentence in section L.4 is hereby changed from "The following naming convention should be used for all files submitted as part of an Offeror’s proposal:

“692M15-21-R-00019-company name." ”***to**** "The following naming convention should be used for all files submitted as part of an Offeror’s proposal: “692M15-21-R-00039-company name.”

2.) Under section L.6 the Cost/Price Proposal is hereby changed form Volume Title V to VI.

3.) Under section L.9 Factor - UAS FLight Program Information under 1. is hereby changed

Continued ...

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. CONTRACT AUTHORITY 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

John D. Desimone

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

ITEM NO. SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

NAME OF OFFEROR OR CONTRACTOR

2 12

CONTINUATION SHEET

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED PAGE OF

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)

692M15-21-R-00039/0001 from "A detailed inventory list of UAS platforms currently owned by the Offeror and available to support the requirements in the SOW. The Offeror must use the first worksheet of Attachment E to provide this list." ***to*** "A detailed inventory list of UAS platforms currently owned by the Offeror and available to support the requirements in the SOW. The Offeror must use

Attachment C to provide this list."

4.) Section M- Evaluation Factors for Award is hereby removed entirely and replaced with following attached to this Amendment one (1) labeled Updated Section M.

Period of Performance: 02/01/2022 to 01/31/2027

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

3.1-1 CLAUSES AND PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (JUL 2019)

This screening information request (SIR) or contract, as applicable, incorporates by reference the provisions or clauses listed below with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make the full text available, or offerors and contractors may obtain the full text via Internet at:

https://fast.faa.gov/contractclauses.cfm.

(End of clause)

M.1 EVALUATION PROCESS

This acquisition is issued in accordance with AMS policy 3.2.2.3 Complex and Noncommercial Source Selection.

This acquisition will utilize AMS source selection procedures to make an integrated assessment for best value award decision in accordance with the AMS. The FAA intends to award a contract resulting from this SIR to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value after evaluation, in accordance with the SIR. Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is determined to represent the best value to the FAA, all factors considered. “Best value” describes the offer that is most advantageous to the FAA based on the evaluation of the Offeror’s Technical Approach, Management Approach, Corporate Experience, UAS Flight Program, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. The Best Value determination will be based upon a trade-off analysis of the evaluation results for non-cost factors (Technical Approach, Management Approach, Corporate Experience, UAS Flight Program and Past Performance) and the evaluation results for Cost/Price in accordance with Section M. Offerors are advised that the proposal meeting the SIR requirements with the lowest price may not be selected for an award if award to a higher priced Offeror is determined to be more beneficial to the FAA.

In accordance with AMS Clause 3.2.2.3-19 Contract Award (July 2004), the FAA reserves the right to award without communications. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the FAA reserves the right on to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines them to be necessary. Be advised that discussions with Offerors, if required, may be reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to AMS policy 3.2.2.3.

The FAA intends to select one contractor and issue a single award for this acquisition. However, the FAA reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and the prices submitted and the availability of funds.

The FAA may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unreasonable or unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in cost/price when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a factor rating of “Unacceptable” in the Technical Approach, Management Approach, and/or UAS Flight Program may result in the entire proposal being eliminated from further consideration. An Offeror with a rating of “Not Relevant” in Corporate Experience or “High Risk” in Past Performance may also be excluded from further consideration. Ratings are defined in Section M.2.

Offerors must be currently registered and in good standing in the System for Award Management (SAM) Database at time of proposal submission.

Any proposal that is grossly deficient and which does not address the proposal requirements to an acceptable degree as described in the following sections will be considered non-responsive and may be a basis for eliminating the proposal from further consideration by the Contracting Officer. A proposal determined to be “grossly deficient” is so poorly constructed as to require a rewrite, or substantially fails to present any evidence of qualifying with the requirements set forth in the SIR.

M.2. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Technical proposals will be evaluated using the factors of Technical Approach, Management Approach, UAS Flight Program Information, Corporate Experience, and Past Performance, which are listed in descending order of importance. The elements listed under the factors of, Management Approach and Past Performance are not separately weighted or separately rated, and are equally important under that specific factor. All elements are to be addressed and will be evaluated as part of its factor.

The non-cost factors, Technical Approach, Management Approach, UAS Flight Program Information, Corporate Experience, UAS Flight Program and Past Performance factors, collectively, are more important than Cost/Price;

however, Cost/Price is an important factor and should not be ignored. As the ratings of proposals in relation to non-cost factors become more equal, cost/price will become more of a deciding factor in selecting the best value offer.

The evaluation factors and elements are as follows:

Factor I – Technical Approach

Factor II – Management Approach

· Management Plan

· Transition Plan

· Key Personnel

Factor III-UAS Flight Program Information

Factor IV – Corporate Experience

Factor V– Past Performance

· Quality of Service

· Timeliness of Performance

· Customer Satisfaction

· Business Relations/Integrity/ Effective Management

· Ability to Manage Cost/Control Cost

Factor VI – Cost/Price

The proposal must demonstrate to the FAA’s satisfaction that the Offeror will provide a quality service that will ensure the successful accomplishment of the SIR requirements and overall program objectives. Proposal information provided for one factor may be used to assess other factors. However, it is not the responsibility of the Government to search for proposal information which is not addressed in the appropriate section as required by Section L. In addition, the Offeror’s non-price proposal will be reviewed to determine if it is consistent with the cost/price proposal, and reflects a clear understanding of the scope of work necessary to meet the SIR requirements.

M.2.1 FACTOR I - TECHNICAL APPROACH

The FAA will evaluate the Offeror’s Technical Approach to determine the Offeror's understanding of, approach to, and ability to meet or exceed the SIR requirements, and a rating below will be assigned. The Rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the SIR requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposal. The rating will also consider the risk of unsuccessful performance associated with the proposed technical approach.

Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a technical factor with an “Unacceptable” Technical Rating may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition.

EVALUATION RATING DEFINITIONS FOR TECHNICAL APPROACH FACTOR

Rating Description Excellent The Offeror’s response is comprehensive and demonstrates an in-depth and exceptional approach to and understanding of the full range of SOW Task Requirements and work effort.

The proposal significantly exceeds requirements in a manner that benefits the Government. The combined impact of the strengths considerably outweighs the combined impact of the weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good The Offeror’s response exceeds the requirements and demonstrates a thorough approach to and understanding of the full range of the SOW Task

The proposal exceeds the requirements in a manner that benefits the Government. The combined impact of the strengths outweighs the combined impact of the weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable The Offeror’s response meets the requirements and demonstrates an adequate approach to and understanding of the SOW Task Requirements and work effort.

The proposal meets the requirements of the Government. Any identified strength(s) and/or weakness(es) are offsetting or will have little or no impact on performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Marginal The Offeror’s response does not clearly address the full range of SOW Task Requirements and work efforts. The Offeror’s response has weaknesses and risks with no corresponding offset in other area(s).

The combined impact of the identified weaknesses and risks outweighs the combined impact of the identified strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate to high.

Unacceptable The Offeror’s response does not meet the requirements nor does it demonstrate a complete understanding of SOW Task Requirements or work efforts. The proposal does not demonstrate the capability to support the Government’s requirements.

The combined impact of the identified weaknesses far outweighs the combined impact of the identified strengths (if any), or the proposal contains one or more deficiencies and therefore fails to meet the minimum requirements of the SIR. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

M.2.2 FACTOR II - MANAGEMENT APPROACH

The FAA will evaluate the Offeror’s Management Approach to determine the Offeror 's understanding of, approach to, and ability to manage the support services and the associated personnel that will meet or exceed the SIR requirements as outlined in Sections L and M and a rating below will be assigned. The Rating reflects the degree to which the proposed management approach meets, exceeds, or does not meet the SIR requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposal. The rating will also consider the risk of unsuccessful performance associated with the proposed management approach.

If the Offeror intends to subcontract or team, they will be evaluated on the management approach they will take to ensure that individual support personnel affiliation with either prime or subcontractor will be transparent to the

FAA.

Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a technical factor with an “Unacceptable” Technical Rating may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition.

EVALUATION RATING DEFINITIONS FOR MANAGEMENT APPROACH FACTOR

Excellent The Offeror’s response is comprehensive and demonstrates an in-depth and exceptional approach to and understanding of the full range of SOW Task

The proposal significantly exceeds requirements in a manner that benefits the Government. The combined impact of the strengths considerably outweighs the combined impact of the weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good The Offeror’s response exceeds the requirements and demonstrates a thorough approach to and understanding of the full range of the SOW Task

The proposal exceeds the requirements in a manner that benefits the Government. The combined impact of the strengths outweighs the combined impact of the weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable The Offeror’s response meets the requirements and demonstrates an adequate approach to and understanding of the SOW Task Requirements and work effort.

The proposal meets the requirements. Any identified strength(s) and/or weakness(es) are offsetting or will have little or no impact on performance.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Marginal The Offeror’s response does not clearly address the full range of SOW Task Requirements and work efforts. The Offeror’s response has weaknesses and risks with no corresponding offset in other area(s).

The combined impact of the identified weaknesses and risks outweighs the combined impact of the identified strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate to high.

Unacceptable The Offeror’s response does not meet the requirements nor does it demonstrate a complete understanding of SOW Task Requirements or work efforts. The proposal does not demonstrate the capability to support the Government’s requirements.

The combined impact of the identified weaknesses far outweighs the combined impact of the identified strengths (if any), or the proposal contains one or more deficiencies and therefore fails to meet the minimum requirements of the SIR. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

M.2.3 FACTOR III - UAS Flight Program Information The FAA will evaluate the Offeror’s UAS Flight Program to determine the Offeror's understanding and ability to meet or exceed the SIR requirements to include the diversity of UAS platforms and payloads currently owned and available, certificate of insurance, number and experience of UAS pilots, and knowledge and experience of UAS airspace authorizations and waivers to support the requirements. The rating below will be assigned. The Rating reflects the degree to which the Offeror's UAS Flight Program Information meets or does not meet the SIR requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposal. The rating will also consider the risk of unsuccessful performance associated with the proposed UAS Flight Program Information provided in Attachment C.

Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a technical factor with an “Unacceptable” Technical Rating may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition

EVALUATION RATING DEFINITIONS FOR UAS FLIGHT PROGRAM

INFORMATION FACTOR

Rating Description

Excellent The Offeror’s response is comprehensive and demonstrates an in-depth and exceptional approach to and understanding of the full range of SOW Task Requirements and work effort.

The proposal significantly exceeds requirements in a manner that benefits the Government. The combined impact of the strengths considerably outweighs the combined impact of the weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good The Offeror’s response exceeds the requirements and demonstrates a thorough approach to and understanding of the full range of theSOW Task Requirements and work effort.

The proposal exceeds the requirements in a manner that benefits the Government.

The combined impact of the strengths outweighs the combined impact of the weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable The Offeror’s response meets the requirements and demonstrates an adequate approach to and understanding of theSOW Task Requirements and work effort.

The proposal meets the requirements. Any identified strength(s) and/or weakness(es) are offsetting or will have little or no impact on performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Marginal The Offeror’s response does not clearly address the full range of SOW Task Requirements and work efforts. The Offeror’s response has weaknesses and risks with no corresponding offset in other area(s).

The combined impact of the identified weaknesses and risks outweighs the combined impact of the identified strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate to high.

Unacceptable The Offeror’s response does not meet the requirements nor does it demonstrate a complete understanding of SOW Task Requirements or work efforts. The proposal does not demonstrate the capability to support the Government’s requirements.

The combined impact of the identified weaknesses far outweighs the combined impact of the identified strengths (if any), or the proposal contains one or more deficiencies and therefore fails to meet the minimum requirements of the SIR. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

M.2.3 FACTOR IV- CORPORATE EXPERIENCE

For the Corporate Experience factor, a Relevancy Rating below will be assigned. The Government will evaluate Corporate Experience to determine the extent to which the Offeror and its proposed Subcontractors (as applicable), has demonstrated that it has recent and relevant corporate experience with efforts that are of similar size, scope and complexity to the SIR requirements. When proposals are received from contractor entities (e.g. joint ventures), as a separate legal entity, the corporate experience evaluation will consider each individual team member. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Corporate Experience with respect to its compliance with SIR requirements and whether the Offeror’s Corporate Experience demonstrate ability to perform the required effort.

For this procurement, greater weight will be given to the experience of the Prime contractor Offeror than to that of any proposed subcontractor.

Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a Corporate Experience factor with a “Not Relevant” Rating may result in the entire proposal being eliminated from the competition.

RELEVANCY RATING DEFINITIONS FOR CORPORATE EXPERIENCE FACTOR

Rating D Description Very Relevant Experience involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Based on the experience, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Relevant Experience involved much of the same or similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Based on the experience, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Somewhat Relevant

Experience involved some of the same or similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Based on the experience, the Government has an expectation that additional oversight will be needed to successfully perform the required effort.

Not Relevant Experience involved little or none of the same or similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Based on the experience, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

M.2.4 FACTOR V - PAST PERFORMANCE

For the Past Performance factor, a past performance risk rating will be assigned. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Past Performance through an evaluation of the quality of service, timeliness of performance, customer satisfaction, business relations/integrity/effectiveness of management, and ability to manage cost.

The elements under Past Performance are not separately weighted or separately rated, and are equally important under that specific factor. All elements must be addressed and will be evaluated as part of the factor. Past Performance of the Prime Offeror holds greater weight than past performance of proposed subcontractors. If the Offeror is comprised of a joint venture as a separate legal entity, past performance of the joint venture partners is considered past performance of the prime Offeror.

The Government will evaluate how well an Offeror has performed previous relevant work. The evaluation will be based upon the degree to which the Offeror details their recent relevant past performance and the past performance of their proposed subcontractors or teaming arrangements, if applicable. The past performance risk rating assigned will addresses the probability of the Offeror successfully accomplishing the SIR requirements based on the Offeror’s recent relevant past performance. Problems not addressed and/or resolved by the Offeror will be considered to still exist. If applicable, the degree to which the Offeror can demonstrate that it has successfully applied continuous systemic improvement to resolve past performance problems will be evaluated.

Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a past performance factor with a “High Risk” Past Performance Rating may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition.

RISK RATING DEFINITIONS FOR PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

Low Risk Based on the Offeror’s past performance, little doubt exists that the

Offeror will successfully perform the required tasks.

Moderate Risk Based on the Offeror’s past performance there are some concerns as to whether the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

High Risk Based on the Offeror’s past performance, substantial doubt exists as to whether the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required efforts.

M.2.5 FACTOR VI - COST/PRICE

The FAA will evaluate the proposals for reasonableness and review for completeness, traceability, consistency, and balance. Price Proposals will not be scored or rated.

In evaluating offers, the FAA will use the total evaluated price (TEP) populated in Attachment A – Pricing Spreadsheet submitted by each Offeror, which includes all ordering periods. The TEP will be the sum of:

1. The result from multiplying the government specified hours by the proposed fully burdened rate for each labor category; and

2. CLINs with FAA provided Not-to-Exceed (NTE) amounts (Travel and Materials).

All labor categories without hours will be evaluated for reasonableness, but not included in the TEP calculation.

The FAA will evaluate proposals for reasonableness in accordance with AMS Policy Section 3.2.3.1 and AMS Procurement Guidance Section T3.2.3. A price is reasonable 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.

The FAA reserves the right to perform price realism in accordance with AMS T.3.2.3(A)(1)(d)(3). The FAA reserves the right to conduct cost analysis if necessary to ensure a fair and reasonable price. This may require the FAA to request additional information from the Offerors.

The FAA will review each proposal to determine whether the proposal includes all required pricing information, pricing details are traceable to summary pricing tables, and prices are consistent with described pricing methodology. Completeness will be determined based on the information requested in Section L. The FAA at its sole discretion might require additional information or reject proposals lacking completeness, consistency or traceability.

The FAA will review the Offeror’s proposal for balance in accordance with AMS T.3.2.3(A)(1)(e)(4). Unbalanced pricing exists where, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more labor categories or line items is significantly understated and the price of one or more labor categories or line items is significantly overstated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques; or the offer is so grossly unbalanced that its acceptance would be equivalent to allowing an advanced payment (front loaded). Offerors are cautioned that a proposal may be rejected if unbalanced pricing exists and the FAA determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk.

Any understatement or overstatement of costs/prices or inconsistencies between the Technical and Cost/Price proposals may reflect a lack of understanding of the work and could impact the technical rating and/or risk assessment. Therefore, any inconsistency between the proposed performance and cost/price should be explained in the proposal.

Failure to propose on all items listed in the Attachment A Pricing Spreadsheet may result in an Offeror’s proposal not being further considered for award.

Notwithstanding the evaluation methodology outlined in this SIR, an Offeror may also be found responsible by the CO prior to the award of any resultant contract. The FAA reserves the right to perform an analysis to determine Offeror’s responsibility, the Offeror may be asked to submit sufficient information to demonstrate the financial capability to fund and perform a contract of this size and duration.

Cost and Price will be evaluated for fairness and/or reasonableness, not scored/rated. The price proposal will be evaluated in accordance with AMS 3.2.3 Pricing Methodology, Principles and Standards and T3.2.2 Cost and Price Methodology and will be determined by adding the total proposed price for the base period and all subsequent contract IDIQ ordering years. In performing the price analysis there are several techniques that may be used in accordance with AMS T3.2.3 Cost and Price Methodology.

M.3 OTHER DEFINITIONS

Strength: An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that would enhance the likelihood of successful performance for the resulting contract or approach, which exceeds the minimum SIR requirements and which benefits the Government.

Weakness: An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has a negative impact on the probability of successful performance for the resulting contract.

Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unsatisfactory level.

Risk: An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has a degree of uncertainty, but if realized, would have negative impact on the probability of successful performance for the resulting contract or approach.

Recency: As it pertains to past performance and experience information, it is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred.

Relevant: As it pertains to past performance information, is the present/past performance effort involved much of the same or similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities the SIR requires.

The remainder of this page has been intentionally left blank.