SF 30 Amendment 0001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of Amendment 0001 is as follow s:

1. Revise solicitation and solicitation documents to remove reference to DD 254 and all unnecessary security requirements. This specifically includes revisions to the Performance Work Statement, Instructions to Offerors, and Evaluation Criteria Addendums.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 10

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X H9224024R0002

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

26-Oct-2023

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer 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 telegram 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 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.

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.

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, 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.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

U0001

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

02-Nov-2023

CODE

NAVAL SPECIAL WARFARE COMMAND N01C

2000 TRIDENT WAY

SAN DIEGO CA 92155

H92240 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

H9224024R0002

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

52.212-1 ADDENDA -- INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

General Instructions to Offerors

1.1 This is an all-electronic solicitation release. No hard copies will be mailed. Amendments to the solicitation will be posted to www.fedbizopps.gov. It is the responsibility of each offeror to review the webpage for notice of amendments, updates, or changes to current information. The exclusive responsibility for the source selection will reside with the Government. Proprietary information submitted in response to this solicitation will be protected from unauthorized disclosure as required by Subsection 27 of the Office of Procurement Policy Act as amended (41 U.S.C. 423) as implemented in the FAR. The proposal and corresponding program will be unclassified and treated as Source Selection Sensitive Information.

1.2 All proposals must be complete, self-sufficient, and respond directly to the requirements of the solicitation.

Any commitments made in the proposal shall become part of the resultant contract. Any significant inconsistency, if unexplained, raises a fundamental issue of the offeror’s understanding and/or ability to perform under a contract.

This may be a basis for rejection of the proposal. In no case shall words like “we will comply with the requirements of the contract,” or equivalent statements, be acceptable to meet the requirements of this RFP. The proposal shall not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet the requirements. Use of documentation by reference, and not incorporated into the proposal, will not be allowed. Where cross-referencing is used, the volume, attachment, exhibit, and paragraph numbers, as appropriate, shall be referenced. Offerors shall provide separate responses to each technical evaluation factor within the identified page limitations. Offerors shall not exceed the page limitation by cross referencing other sections of their proposals. Failure to comply with these instructions may result in an offeror’s proposal being excluded from further consideration for award. Offerors shall submit with their proposals a list of names and telephone numbers of persons authorized to conduct negotiations.

1.3 The evaluation will consist of an evaluation of Factors 1-3; Technical Capability, Past and Present Performance, and Price, which are outlined below. After completion of the evaluation, the Government may establish a competitive range and conduct discussions. The Government reserves the right for efficiency purposes to only include the most highly rated proposals in the competitive range. The Government intends to issue a single award as a result of this solicitation; however, the Government reserves the right to award more or less awards based upon the results of the proposal evaluations.

1.4 Proposals shall not contain classified information

1.5 Proposal Format. Format of the proposal volumes shall be as follows:

a. Text size shall be no smaller than Microsoft Word, Times New Roman, 10 point, uncompressed font, including in any tables, charts, graphs or figures.

b. Pages shall be single sided, one and one half spaced, with a minimum of one inch margins on all sides.

Pages shall be dated and numbered sequentially by volume. A cover sheet should be included in each volume, clearly marked as to volume number, title, “original” or copy number, solicitation identification, and the offeror's name.

c. Elaborate format and color representations are not desirable.

d. Electronic copies must be provided via E-mail. Microsoft Office Word processing software and Excel spreadsheet software formats are required.

1.6 Proposal Submission Requirements.

Proposal Submissions Factor Electronic Copies

Maximum Number of Pages

Contract Forms and Certification Volume 1 N/A 1 N/A

Technical Capability Factor Volume 2 1 1 Twenty-five (25) pages*

Past Performance Factor Volume 3 2 1

Summary Page limited to one (1) page, Past Performance Information Sheet limited to three (3) pages each contract/order;

No page limit to CPARS or Past Performance Questionnaires

Price Volume 4 3 1 N/A *Inclusive of any title page, table of contents, photographs, maps, and/or diagrams, and/or acronym lists; See Section 4

Contracts Forms and Certifications Volume 1

Factor 1 – Technical Capability Volume 2

Factor 2 – Past Performance Volume 3

Factor 3 – Price Volume 4

2 VOLUME 1-CONTRACT FORMS AND CERTIFICATIONS

2.1 Contract Forms and Certifications. Include the following data in Volume 1 in the format indicated.

a. Section 1 – Proposal cover letter or proposal cover page. Include names, office phone and facsimile numbers, if applicable, cell phone numbers, and e-mail addresses for proposal POCs. The Offeror shall either: (1) include statement on the offeror’s assent, without exception or imposition of condition, to the terms and conditions of the solicitation including addenda and any documents, provisions and clauses incorporated by reference; or (2) explicitly state any exceptions or assumptions to the terms or conditions of this solicitations from a technical or price perspective. Be advised that exceptions to any of the terms or conditions of this solicitation, additional conditions, or omission of material information required by this solicitation, may at the Government’s discretion render the submission ineligible for award. Finally, include statement on the offer validity period, no less than one hundred and twenty (120) days after solicitation closing date.

b. Section 2 – The original signature of an official authorized to contractually bind the offeror in the RFP;

Page 1, Block 30 of the SF 1449. The original signature of an official authorized to contractually bind the offeror in any RFP amendments; Page 1, Block 15 of the SF30.

c. Section 3 – Copy of completed provisions within the RFP for:

i. 52.209-7 INFORMATION REGARDING RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS

ii. 52.212-3 OFFEROR REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS--COMMERCIAL ITEMS

ALTERNATE I

iii. 5652.204-9004 FOREIGN PERSONS

d. Section 4 - If subcontractor experience is submitted for consideration as part of the proposal, the offeror should include a commitment signed by offeror and subcontractor certifying that if a contract is awarded resulting from the proposal, the parties commit to joint performance as proposed. If the signed commitment is not fully executed by both parties and provided with the Past Performance Proposal, subcontractor references will not be evaluated or considered.

2.2 The Government will review Volume 1 for completeness and that the offeror indicated that it is eligible for a Government contract based on the offeror’s responses to the representations, certifications, all contract forms, and other statements required by the solicitation. The offeror shall ensure all Contract Forms, Representations, and Certifications have been completed as required. Incomplete proposals regarding such items may render the proposal ineligible.

3 VOLUME 2 – FACTOR 1 – Technical Capability. This section is limited to fifteen (15) pages, inclusive of any title page, table of contents, acronym lists, and photographs, maps and/or diagrams as supporting documentation for offeror’s facilities described below.

3.1 The purpose of the Technical Capability Volume is to provide a concise summary of the offeror’s overall approach to support the 11MRIB Repair, Maintenance and Upgrades effort. It should address, at a minimum, the following areas regarding its Facilities, Equipment, Personnel and Capacity, for the prime and proposed subcontractors as applicable, to demonstrate ability to perform requirements of the Performance Work Statement

(PWS):

a. Location of the facilities and capability to accept 11M RIBs delivered by either land or water. Evidence of access to the identified facilities and equipment; if facilities and equipment are subcontracted, provide evidence of consent for use or access. Ref. PWS Sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.2.

b. Facilities size/square footage and the specific area(s) within the facilities that will be dedicated towards performance of work under this contract. The Government desires photographic images, maps, and/or diagrams illustrating facility floorplan/layout/usage scheme. Ref. PWS Sections 4.4.3, 4.4.4 and 4.4.5.

c. Evidence the offeror is authorized by United States Marine Inc. (USMI) to perform required services. Ref.

PWS Section 4.4.6.

d. Evidence the offeror is an authorized WING Inflatable Boats service center for collar/sponson repairs. Ref.

PWS Section 4.4.7.

e. Evidence of the offeror’s certifications/compliance with applicable NAVSEA TS500-AU-SPN-010 standards. Ref. PWS Section 4.4.8.

f. Capability to perform work on fiberglass, composite, Kevlar and gel coat materials. Ref. PWS Section 4.4.9.

g. The offeror’s project manager (or other equivalent by different title) for this contract, his/her pertinent qualifications, skills and experience to serve in this role, and his/her physical geographic work location.

Ref. PWS Section 4.4.10.

h. The offeror’s personnel anticipated to be used in performance of this contract; to include clear identification of personnel that will be dedicated full-time to this contract, and clear identification of personnel that will be part-time to this contract and the extent to which they will perform work under this contract. Identify the role(s) of the different employees as it relates to performance of this contract, and the pertinent qualifications, skills and experience of each employee to serve in their respective role(s). Include years’ experience per employee performing repair, maintenance and upgrades on the Naval Special Warfare (NSW) 11M RIB specifically or on other similar Naval or Coast Guard RIBs. Ref. PWS Section 4.4.11.

i. The offeror's capacity, in terms of both facilities and personnel, to meet the contract's anticipated volume of work within work completion deadlines specified by the PWS. Identify the offeror's capacity and approach to meeting both normal and surge conditions in a timely manner, while considering any of the offeror's competing work obligations. Ref PWS Sections 4.4, 4.5 and 4.4.12.

4 VOLUME 3 – FACTOR 2 – Past Performance

4.1 Contents. The offeror shall submit a Past Performance Proposal (Volume 4) containing the following:

1. Summary Page (limited to one (1) page) describing the role of the offeror and each major subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner during performance of this contract.

“Major subcontractor” is defined as performing 25% or greater of the total evaluated price. .

2. Past Performance Information Sheet providing POCs and describing the relevancy of the experience to this effort (Attachment 4).

3. Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 5), where applicable.

4.1.1 Past Performance Information Sheet (Attachment 4). Submit a maximum of three (3) past performance relevant and recent experiences, including associated CPARS where applicable. The Government defines “recent” as contracts that have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation, and have at least six (6) months performance within the last three (3) years from solicitation issuance. The Government desires at least one (1) information sheet from the prime contractor on this effort acting as a prime on the experience, and at least one (1) information sheet from each major subcontractor. The Past Performance Information Sheet for each experience is limited to three (3) pages, and shall reference only one contract/order per Sheet. The offeror shall complete the Sheet in its entirety, including current and accurate points of contact (POCs) for each contract/order identified. POCs could include contracting officer representatives (CORs), program managers, end users, contracting officers, other Government agency representatives and/or commercial customers.

Offerors are cautioned that the Government may use information obtained from other sources for the evaluation of past performance, including references and information not identified by the Offeror. The Government reserves the right to limit the number of references it decides to contact.

4.1.1.1 Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 5). If there is no associated CPARS for the experience, the Offeror shall forward the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 5) to the offeror’s POCs. Offerors are to request their POCs to submit the completed questionnaire directly to the contracting officer prior to the closing of the solicitation. The Government retains discretion but is not required to consider Past Performance Questionnaires received after the proposal submission due date. Any questionnaires received after the solicitation closing may not be considered by the Government for purposes of the Factor 2 – Past Performance evaluation and rating. At its discretion, the Government may also use the Past Performance Questionnaire to contact sources for additional information, where appropriate.

4.1.1.2 Relevant Contracts. Relevancy will be determined based on the degree to which the submitted experiences are relevant to this effort concerning scope (e.g., PWS work package sections, specific work with 11M RIBs), magnitude (e.g., dollar amount), and complexity (e.g., concurrent work on multiple vessels similar to those in PWS for multiple customers). The more the overall effort is similar in all areas, the more relevant it becomes. In determining relevancy for experiences involving work performed by the prime and/or proposed subcontractors on this effort, the Government may consider the area of expertise the prime or subcontractor is projected to actually perform under this effort. The Government considers in descending order of relevancy, (1) experience performing repair, maintenance and upgrades on the Naval Special Warfare 11M RIB, (2) experience performing repair, maintenance and upgrades on Navy or Coast Guard RIBs, and (3) experience performing repair, maintenance and upgrades on other similar vessels. The Government does not assume the duty to search for data to cure any problems it finds in the past performance information provided by the Offeror; the burden of providing thorough and complete relevant past performance information remains with the Offeror.

5 VOLUME 4 – FACTOR 3 – Price

5.1 The offeror shall submit a fully completed Attachment 2 – Exhibit Line Item Number (ELIN) spreadsheet within the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet format provided by the Government. All prices will be provided as a Firm Fixed Price, therefore all proposed prices shall be inclusive of all direct (i.e., direct labor, material, travel, and other direct costs) and associated indirect costs plus fee related to each Exhibit Line Item Number (ELIN) price. ELINs are segregated by five (5) ordering periods lasting one year each, with pricing applicable based on the date of task order issuance. The total evaluated price will be automatically formulated by the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet provided by the Government, by calculating the offeror’s proposed pricing against the Government’s estimated quantities for the total life of the contract, to include the value of the option at FAR 52.217-8 calculated at 50% of the value of ordering period five. The offer shall not alter formulas in the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet provided by the Government. Failure to comply with this instruction may result in the offeror’s proposal no longer being considered for award.

(End of provision)

52.212-2 ADDENDA

1 Best Value Introduction. This section outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the offeror’s capabilities and proposals for the 11MRIB Repair, Maintenance and Upgrades contract. The Government will compare each offeror’s capabilities and proposal elements against the predetermined evaluation criteria related to the Government’s requirement defined herein. This is a competitive, best value, source selection that will be conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, FAR Part 12 and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 215.

Discussions. IAW FAR 52.212-1(g), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their Technical, Past Performance, Price proposal. Exchanges conducted with regard to adverse past performance, or to resolve minor or clerical errors in any of the proposal volumes will not constitute discussions, and the Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO) reserves the right to award a contract without granting an opportunity to revise the original proposal.

While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective, and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. This may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the SSA reasonably determines that the technical superiority, and/or superior past performance, of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation.

1.1 Best Value Evaluation Technical Capability will be evaluated using a combined Technical/Risk Rating using the DOD Source Selection Guide adjectival rating technique. Past Performance will receive an overall confidence level rating. The Price Factor will not be given an adjectival rating or scored. Technical Capability (Factor 1) is more important than Past Performance (Factor 2) but when combined are significantly more important than Price (Factor 3). The importance of price as an evaluation factor will increase with the degree of equality of the proposals in relation to the remaining evaluation factors. When the Offerors within the competitive range are considered essentially equal in terms of technical capability and/or past performance, or when price is so significantly high as to diminish the value of the technical or past performance superiority to the Government, price may become the determining factor for award. In summary, price/technical trade-offs will be made, and the extent to which one may be sacrificed for the other is governed only by the tests of rationality and consistency with the established evaluation factors.

Technical Capability Factor 1 Technical/Risk Past Performance Factor 2 Confidence Rating Price Factor 3 Total Evaluated Price

Contract Forms and Certifications Volume 1

Factor 1 –Technical Capability Volume 2

Factor 2 – Past and Present Performance Volume 3

Factor 4 – Price Volume 4

2 FACTOR 1: Technical Capability. Under the Technical Capability Factor, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s overall approach to support the 11MRIB Repair, Maintenance and Upgrades effort. Specifically, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates overall technical capability, merit or experience to successfully perform the Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements, while considering the Offeror’s proposed facilities, equipment, personnel, and capacity against the requirements contained within the PWS. In addition, small business participation shall be considered in determining the appropriate technical rating to be applied.

Evaluation of this factor shall focus on the strengths, deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and weaknesses of the offeror’s proposal. Evaluation of risk associated with the offeror’s proposal is inherent in the evaluation. Note that if an offeror’s proposal demonstrates a material failure to meet a Government requirement, it is a deficiency in the offeror’s proposal. The Government will compare each offeror’s technical proposal against the Government’s requirements identified within this solicitation and assign a single Combined Technical/Risk Rating to Factor 1 - Technical Capability, as shown in the Table 1 below.

Table 1. Combined Technical (Color) and Risk Ratings Rating Description Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

Table 2. Definitions 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.

WEAKNESS Means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

SIGNIFICANT WEAKNESS Means a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

RISK As it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieve the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

STRENGTH Is an aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Regarding evaluation ratings and findings listed above, since it is impossible to anticipate the nature of each Offeror’s proposal in advance or to describe all the qualities and considerations that could result in one of the above definitions, these definitions should be looked upon as examples of typical characteristics, and will be used as a guide or reference rather than a rigid measure to be followed word-for-word. Evaluators will be instructed to select the rating/definition that most closely fits the value or desirability of the Offeror’s proposed performance.

FACTOR 2: Past Performance. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s probability of meeting the contract requirements considering recency, relevancy, and quality of the Offeror’s record of past performance. The government will consider the holistic nature of the offeror’s record in assessing a confidence assessment rating at the Factor level. The performance evaluation will be based on the data in the Offeror’s proposal, Past Performance Information Sheets (Attachment 4), Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment 5) and CPARS reports as available through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System. The Government is not limited to these resources.

With respect to Recency, the Government will assign a rating of Recent or Not Recent to each contract/order in accordance with the Recency ratings in Table 2 below. The Government will not evaluate past performance submissions that are not recent.

Table 3. Relevancy Ratings

Recent

Contracts/orders performed within the last three (3) years from date of solicitation issuance, and have at least six (6) months of performance within the three (3) years.

Not Recent

Contracts/orders performed outside the last three (3) years since solicitation issuance, or has less than six (6) months of performance within three (3) years since solicitation issuance.

With respect to Relevancy, the Government will assign a Relevancy rating to each contract/order in accordance with the Relevancy ratings in in Table 4 below.

Table 4. Relevancy Ratings

Very Relevant (VR)

Present/Past Performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant (R)

Present/Past Performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant (SR)

Present/Past Performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant (NR)

Present/Past Performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

The Performance Confidence Assessment is based upon the evaluation of the Offeror’s relevancy and quality of recent past performance. With respect to quality, the Government will evaluate the extent of customer satisfaction with the services previously provided, as documented on CPARS, or other feedback received. Evaluation of the offeror’s quality of past performance will be considered in assigning the Performance Confidence Assessment and the Government will not assign separate quality ratings. More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance. The Government will assign to Factor 2 a single Performance Confidence Assessment Rating, as shown in the Table 5 below. The Performance Confidence Assessment Rating is the overall rating for the Past Performance factor.

Neutral Rating: Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and as a result, will receive a “neutral” rating. A strong past performance record may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a neutral/unknown confidence past performance rating. Offerors are advised that the Source Selection Authority may determine, that a "Substantial Confidence" or "Satisfactory Confidence" past performance rating is worth more than a "Neutral Confidence" past performance rating in a best value tradeoff.

FACTOR 3: Price Factor Evaluation

FACTOR 3: Price. Price will be evaluated in order to determine that the total evaluated price (TEP) is fair and reasonable IAW FAR 15.404 based on a comparison of the Offerors’ prices at the TEP level, using adequate price competition in accordance with FAR 15.404(b)(2)(i). The Attachment 2 – Exhibit Line Item Number (ELIN) spreadsheet will also be evaluated for completeness on each ELIN, and for evidence of unbalanced pricing in accordance with FAR 15.404‑1(g)(1). The Government reserves the right to use other price analysis techniques and procedures, if deemed necessary, to ensure a fair and reasonable price. Price will not receive a color rating or score.

The Government is not performing price or cost realism, and will conduct price analysis to assess whether prices are excessively high.

(End of provision)

Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence 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 Confidence 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.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

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.

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1- Performance Work Statement Attachment 1a- Addendem to PWS- Work Packages Attachment 2- ELINS Attachment 3- Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan Attachment 4- Past Performance Information Sheet Attachment 5- Past Performance Questionnaire Attachment 6- Q&A Worksheet Attachment 7- Wage Determination 2015-5365 (Rev 22)

(End of Summary of Changes)