ATTACHMENT 8_Solicitation Amendment 2_SF 30.pdf

R

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 is extended. is not extended.

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 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT 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 letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

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

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

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

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

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

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

Previous edition unusable STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016) Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Solicitation/Contract Form

The following modifications were made:

Information From To Response Due Date 05 Jan 2026 07 Jan 2026

List of Attachments

The following Attachment(s) were added:

FA469026R000300002_Q&As

The following Attachment modifications were made:

ATTACHMENT 5_Bid Schedule_REV1

Information From To AttachmentName ATTACHMENT 5_Bid Schedule_REV1 ATTACHMENT 5_Bid Schedule_Amendment 2 AttachmentURL 71602020 71757800

Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors or Quoters

Header Miscellaneous Text (Modified):

Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors or Quoters

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1 -- INSTRUCTION TO OFFERORS, COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND

COMMERCIAL SERVICES (SEP 2023)

Proposals received are subject to the requirements specified in FAR 52.212-1 unless otherwise tailored in the Addendum to the solicitation.

1. Proposal Preparation Instructions.

1.1. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of offers, offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, and representations and certifications, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. By submission of its proposal the offeror agrees to hold the prices firm for 60 calendar days from the closing date. Offerors shall submit only one proposal as the Government will review only one proposal per offeror.

1.2. All submissions shall reference the solicitation number: FA4690-26-R-0003. Proposals must be received no later than 4:00 pm Mountain Daylight Time, 5 January 2026. Failure to furnish complete proposal may result in the proposal being determined non-responsive by the government. Submission of the initial proposal packages will only be accepted via electronic mail. Proposal shall be submitted prior to the time set for proposal closing to:

CS: timeaki.mcphee@us.af.mil

CO: joshua.johnson.233@us.af.mil

Vo lu m e No

Volume Title Maximum Number of Pages

I SF 1449, Six Month Extension Bid Schedule, Representations and Certifications, and any other fill-in clauses and provisions that are included in the different sections of this solicitation. Included all amendments in this volume.

As Required

II Technical Capability 25

III Past Performance, comprehensive list of recent and relevant contracts 6 (PPQ shall be sent directly to 28 CONS by the rater, PPQs will not count against the six-page limit.)

FA469026R00030002

1.3. Direct any questions or concerns you have to Timeaki McPhee and Joshua Johnson. All questions must be in writing and will be accepted via email to timeaki.mphee@us.af.mil and joshua.johnson.233@us.af.mil. Requests For Information (RFI) will not be answered via phone. For verification that your written request was received, offerors may contact Timeaki McPhee at 605-385-1743. All questions must be submitted no later than 4:00 pm Mountain Daylight Time 26 December 2025.

1.4. The offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table below. The title and contents of the volumes will be as defined in this table, all which shall be within the required page limitation and with the number of copies as specified. Pages exceeding the page limitations indicated in this Section will be removed from the proposal and will not be read or evaluated and may render the proposal unacceptable.

The proposal organization shall be as follows:

1.5. A page is defined as each face of a sheet of paper containing information. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages. Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, not including foldouts. Pages shall be single spaced with 1.5 spacing. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be no less than 10 point. Tracking, kerning, and leading values shall not be changed from the default values of the word processing or page layout software. Use at least 1-inch margins on the top and bottom and 3/4-inch side margins. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. These page size and format restrictions shall apply to responses to evaluation notices.

2. General Format and Content.

The offeror shall submit the following volumes of material. A complete proposal consists of three (3) separate volumes:

Volume I - Completed Request for Proposal (RFP)

Completed RFP shall consist of the completed and signed RFP (SF1449, Bid Schedule, Reps and Certs, and other fill-ins), to include any amendments issued, with a cover letter delineating any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions with accompanying rationale. However, offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP may cause their proposal to be determined unacceptable and therefore not considered eligible for award.

Offerors shall ensure that all clauses and provisions that require "fill in" information are appropriately completed, including the proposed prices associated with the contract line items in the Schedule of the RFP.

Offerors shall fill out the Bid Schedule (Attachment 5) and transfer unit and yearly pricing to associated contract line items in the Schedule of the RFP. Offerors shall validate pricing on the Bid Schedule and RFP.

Volume II - Written Technical Proposal

(a) General: The written technical proposal shall be clear, concise, and include all the information required by this provision in sufficient detail for effective evaluation. 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. Offerors shall assume the Government has no prior knowledge of their capabilities, work processes, facilities, and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror's technical proposal.

(b) Format and Specific Content: The following information shall be provided in the written technical proposal and will be evaluated to assess technical acceptability in accordance with Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation - Commercial Items, Basis for Award. Note: The object of the technical factor is to focus in on a significant discriminator (or discriminators) that will allow the Government to assess technical acceptability. Here you will need to identify your technical discriminators. If technical subfactors are used, they should be kept to a minimum. The written technical proposal shall address each of the following subfactors to describe the offeror's proposed approach to performing the requirements set forth in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

Subfactor One: Quality Control Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable).

The Offeror shall provide a Quality Control Plan outlining their approach, including the following:

(1) The offeror shall propose a quality control plan that adequately evaluates how the contractor will provide quality control and the submittal of a feasible quality control plan suitable as a compliance document upon award. The quality control plan, as mentioned in the Paragraph 2.2 of the PWS, will be evaluated based upon the proposed approach of accountability for all work and shall include all applicable areas of the PWS.

Subfactor Two: Staffing Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable).

The Offeror shall provide a Staffing Plan outlining their approach, including the following:

(1) The offeror shall propose a staffing plan that identifies the method for hiring and retaining skilled manpower needed for this requirement IAW PWS Paragraphs

2.1 and 3.0 thru 3.1.2. Provide resume clearly demonstrating the firm's capability to provide one Project Manager with a minimum of one year experience managing a staff of 18+ personnel in a production-based environment. The 1-year experience shall be within the past 5 years. The resume shall not exceed four pages in length.

Volume III - Past and Present Performance

PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION - Only references for same or similar type contract desired.

(a) Quality and Satisfaction Rating for Contracts Completed in the Past Five (5) Years: Provide any information currently available (letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc.) which demonstrates customer satisfaction with overall job performance and quality of completed product for same or similar type contract. In addition, explain corrective actions taken in the past, if any, for substandard performance and any current performance problems such as cost overruns, extended performance periods, numerous warranty calls, etc.

(b) Comprehensive List of Recent and Relevant Contracts in the Past Five (5) Years: Provide a comprehensive list of recent and relevant contracts

(1) Contract Number

(2) Total dollar value (original and final)

(3) Contracting Agency

(4) Title of Contract

(5) Government program manager (name, address, phone number)

(6) Description of program/project

(7) Contracting Officer (name, address, and phone number)

(8) Period of performance

(9) Type of Contract (Firm Fixed Price, Fixed Price Incentive, Cost Plus Fixed Fee, Cost Plus Award Fee, etc.)

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE - Only references for same or similar type contract desired.

Questionnaires shall be sent directly to the 28th Contracting Squadron, Ellsworth Air Force Base.

(a) Performance Questionnaires: The government will evaluate the quality and extent of offeror's performance deemed relevant to the requirements of this RFP.

The government will use information submitted by the offeror and other sources such as other Federal Government offices and commercial sources, to assess performance. Using the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 3) provide no more than six (6) of the most relevant contracts performed for Federal agencies and commercial customers within the last five (5) years. Relevant contracts include comprehensive data processing in a production environment that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude and complexity than the effort described in the Performance Work Statement. The evaluation of past performance information will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition.

(b) If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent past/present performance information on previous teaming arrangements with same partner. If this is a first-time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of past and present relevant contracts.

(c) Subcontractor Consent: Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor's consent.

Provide with the proposal a letter from all subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor.

(d) The Present/Past Performance Questionnaire (see RFP Attachment 3) will be one means used by the Government to obtain present/past performance information. The Government reserves the right to change, alter, and/or supplement the questionnaire without further notice to the offeror(s). The offeror shall send out and track the completion of the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires (See RFP Attachment 3) to each of the offeror's, joint venture members and/or critical subcontractors. The responsibility to send out and track the completion of the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires rests solely with the offeror - i.e., it shall not be delegated to any other entity. Exert your best effort to ensure that at least two POCs per relevant contract submit a completed Present/Past Performance Questionnaire directly to the Government not later than the date established in the RFP for receipt of proposals. POCs may submit their completed Present/Past Performance Questionnaire electronically. If sending electronically, email to: timeaki.mcphee@us.af.mil and joshua.johnson.233@us.af.mil.

(End of Provision Addendum)

Evaluation Factors for Award

Header Miscellaneous Text (Modified):

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION -PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES (NOV 2021)

1. Basis for Contract Award.

a. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 and 15.3, as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300, to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract for travel-pay processing services as a result of this solicitation. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror's proposal will be made. For those who are determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs may be made between past performance and price, with past performance considered significantly more important than price.

While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph 2 below. Contract terms and conditions consistent with customary commercial practices are specified in the solicitation/contract, with otherwise tailored terms and conditions specified in the Addendum to the solicitation/contract.

2. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows:

a. General

(1) Proposals will be evaluated through the following steps:

Step 1 - A compliance review of all submitted proposals will be conducted to ensure compliance with the solicitation, to include all appropriate representations and certifications and submission requirements.

Step 2 - Evaluate technical proposals for technical acceptability.

Step 3 - Evaluate total evaluated price for reasonableness and unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1. Proposals considered reasonable and balanced will ranked by price from lowest to highest.

Step 4 - Evaluate past performance confidence beginning with the lowest priced, reasonable, balanced, and technically acceptable offeror. Evaluations will continue until the Government identifies an offeror with Substantial Confidence or until the Government has evaluated all reasonable, balanced, and technically acceptable offers.

Step 5 - Make a best value determination in which, when combined, technical and past performance are significantly more important than price.

(2) The Government will evaluate proposals using the Tradeoff process, where both non-price factors (technical approach & past performance) and price will be evaluated to determine the best value to the Government. The Government reserves the right to consider higher-priced proposals if the technical benefits outweigh the price difference, as long as the proposal offers the best value.

(3) The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

b. Volume I:

(1) Completed RFP

Proposals will be reviewed for responsiveness. A responsive proposal shall consist of the completed Bid Schedule and signed RFP, to include any amendments issued, with a cover letter delineating any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions with accompanying rationale. However, offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP may cause their proposal to be determined unacceptable and therefore not considered eligible for award.

Offerors shall ensure that all clauses and provisions that require "fill-in" information are appropriately completed, including the proposed prices associated with the contract line items in the Schedule of the RFP.

(2) Price

The Government will evaluate prices using the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) method. The TEP will include the base period, all option periods, and the option extension period per FAR 52.217-8 when combined will equal the TEP.

Offerors shall fill out the Bid Schedule (Attachment 5) and transfer unit and yearly pricing to associated contract line items in the Schedule of the RFP. Offerors shall validate pricing on the Bid Schedule and RFP.

Reasonableness. Price analysis will be used to determine if prices are too high.

The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the CLIN prices are significantly unbalanced, and the offer may be excluded. An offer is mathematically unbalanced if prices in the offer are significantly less than prices for some contract line items and significantly overstated in relationship to price for others.

c. Volume II, Technical Factor

(1) General: Each offeror's written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS), and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements. The technical proposal should address each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail.

Subfactor One: Quality Control Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable). This subfactor is met when the offeror provides a clear approach to quality control, along with the submission of a feasible quality control plan that is suitable for ensuring compliance with the requirements. The quality control plan, as mentioned in the Paragraph

2.2 of the PWS, will be evaluated based upon the proposed approach of accountability for all work and shall include all applicable areas of the PWS.

Measure of Merit: Provide a Quality Control Plan that addresses performance trends, problem areas, and the corrective actions that would be taken before performance becomes unacceptable. Identify the position/personnel that will be assigned to monitor Quality Control.

Subfactor Two: Staffing Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable). This subfactor is met when the offeror provides a Staffing Plan outlining their approach to staffing, identifying how they will hire and retain skilled personnel required for the contract in accordance with PWS Paragraphs 2.1 and 3.0 through 3.1.2. The Staffing Plan should address the contractor's strategy for ensuring that the staff remains qualified and sufficiently trained to meet the performance requirements. Additionally, the offeror must provide a resume clearly demonstrating the firm's capability to provide one Program Manager with a minimum of one year experience managing a staff of 18+ personnel in a production-based environment. This experience must be within the past five years.

As part of the Staffing Plan, the offeror must also include a comprehensive approach to employee training. The training will be evaluated based on the offeror's ability to provide an effective plan for the orientation and proficiency training of Financial Service Technicians (FSTs) to meet the requirements of the PWS. Exhibit 1, which will be provided to offerors at award, outlines the training topics. The offeror will have 60 days from the award date to submit an approved training plan to the customer.

Measure of Merit: Provide a resume demonstrating one Program Manager with a minimum of one year experience managing a staff 18+ personnel in a production-based environment. The one-year experience shall be within the past 5 years.

(2) Technical Rating Method: The offeror's technical solution shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One technical rating will be assigned to each technical sub-factor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an "acceptable" rating in every sub-factor.

Technical Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal demonstrates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is un-awardable.

d. Volume III, Past Performance Factor

(1) General: The past performance assessment will assess the offeror's/joint venture members' ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror's demonstrated present and past work record. The Government will evaluate the offeror's/joint venture members 'demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying services that meet users' needs, including cost and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor's performance will be considered. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or

. The Government will take into account past completed efforts performed within the past five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror's past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

(2) Past Performance Assessment: The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror's ability to meet the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract's requirements. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor's performance shall be considered.

A) Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to the information provided in the offeror's Present/Past Performance volume and Past Performance Questionnaires. Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and the Contractor Responsibility and Qualification records available in SAM.gov. The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other Federal sources or reputable commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may also be used if the information is recent and relevant.

B) Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measure have been implemented. The past performance evaluating assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

C) Key Personnel: The evaluation of the offeror's/joint venture members' present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any key personnel even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

D) Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent three (3) submitted contracts. The Government is not bound by the offeror's opinion of relevancy. The relevancy criteria outlined in the table below apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror's Volume III of its proposal

Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the above definitions not only includes the technical complexities identified for each effort, but also considerations including but not limited to dollar values, type, and complexity for each effort. When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical complexities, and the scope and magnitude of effort as separate aspects. If both of these aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract effort, the overall relevancy rating assigned to that contract will be affected. For example, if the submitted contract meets essentially the same technical complexities but involves only some of the scope and magnitude of effort, a lesser relevancy rating will be assigned. The Contract Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities to be used in the relevancy evaluation are based on expected magnitude of work and complexities for the instant acquisition, Travel-pay Processing Services.

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method: As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor.

Adjectiva l Rating Description

Substanti al Confide nce

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfacto ry Confide nce

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral C onfidence

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. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited C onfidence

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confid ence

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305[a][2][iv]). In this case, the offeror's past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of "Neutral."

(End of Provision Addendum)

1000 ELLSWORTH ST STE 1200, CP 605 385 1746

ELLSWORTH AFB, SD 57706-4947

UNITED STATES

Timeaki McPhee, Email: timeaki.mcphee@us.af.mil Telephone: 6053851743 Joshua Johnson, Email: joshua.johnson.233@us.af.mil Telephone: 385-1712 AdminBy:

SCD: PAS: