H92254-08-R-0001-0002.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

A. The purpose of this Amendment is to make changes to Section M and incorporate revised Sample Tasks 2 and 3.

B. See Summary of Changes.

C. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 12

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 26-Aug-2008

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 H92254-08-R-0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

01-Aug-2008

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.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

26-Aug-2008

CODE

SOFSA

ATTN: KARENE SPURLIN

P.O. BOX 14063

LEXINGTON KY 40612-4063

H92254 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

H92254-08-R-0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

M-1 BASIS FOR AWARD

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon a management technical (which includes proposal risk), present/past performance assessment, cost, sample task oral proposal and sample tasks cost. For a proposal to be eligible for award the Offeror must: be deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, meet all management, technical requirements of the solicitation, and conform to all required terms and conditions. An evaluation will be made of each Offeror's proposal resulting in an integrated assessment of the factors set forth below. Throughout the evaluation, the Government will consider "corrective" potential when a deficiency, weakness or proposal inadequacy is identified. Proposals that are unrealistic in terms of management, technical and cost/price may be rejected. To arrive at a best value decision, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will integrate the source selection team's input, and then assess each offer in accordance with the evaluation areas and factors (described below).

While the Government source selection evaluation team 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 process. The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest price Offeror after consideration of all factors. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. Therefore, it is imperative that Offerors submit their best possible proposal the first time. If, however, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, the Offeror responses to items for negotiations and the final revised proposal will be considered in making the source selection decision. The Government contemplates the award of a single contract however; the Government reserves the right to make no award if no proposals meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M-2 Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors.

The Government’s intent is to streamline all aspects of the source selection process by focusing the evaluation on real discriminators supporting the most important user objectives. The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s proposal in the following areas listed in descending order of importance, Management/Technical (Area I), Sample Tasks (Area II), Price/Costs (Area III), and Present/Past Performance (Area IV). When combined the Management/Technical (Area I), Sample Tasks (Area II), and Present/Past Performance Area (Area IV) are significantly more important than the Price/Cost Area (Area III). Area I and Area II will be combined for an overall Management/Technical score and are significantly more important than Areas III and IV. Any deficiency in any area or factor may be grounds for exclusion of the Offeror from further consideration for award.

M-3 Evaluation – Descending order of importance

Area I: Management/Technical Areas (Factors are in descending order of importance)

Factor 1: Performance Work Statement Factor 2: Enterprise Management Plan Factor 3: Business Operations Plan Factor 4: Program Management Plan Factor 5: Subcontracting

Area II: Sample Task Area (Factors are in descending order of importance)

Factor 6: Sample Task 1 – Aviation Factor 7: Sample Task 2 - Enterprise Management Factor 8: Sample Task 3 - Logistics Support Services Factor 9: Sample Task 4 – Transition (Oral Proposal)

Area III: Cost/Price (Factors are equal in importance)

Factor 10: Reasonableness (Attachment 27) Factor 11: Total Evaluated Cost/Price (Sample Tasks) Factor 12: Fee Structure

Area IV: Present/Past Performance Area (Factors are in descending order of importance)

Factor 13: Relevancy Factor 14: Contract Performance

M-4 Evaluation Criteria

When evaluating management and technical areas, the Government will use the following standards. For a company to be successful they must clearly and concisely demonstrate an understanding and capability in meeting the standards. Information not contained in the proposal will not be considered in the evaluation. Offerors are reminded that the burden of providing sufficient data rests with the Offerors and that award can be made without discussions.

Factor 1 - Performance Work Statement (Section L.3.1.1)

1.1.1 The Offeror will demonstrate their knowledge of DoD Policy and regulations of performance-based work statements. The Offeror must demonstrate their ability to translate the policies and regulations into the PWS using the Government objectives.

1.1.2 The Offeror will propose Enterpise metrics that support the Performance Work Statement and are meaningful and can measure effectiveness and efficiencies of the work to be performed.

1.1.3 The Offeror has demonstrated their ability to execute the nine core capability areas as defined in the SOO.

Factor 2 - Enterprise Management Plan (Section L.3.1.2)

2.1.1 The plan demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to provide an innovative, sound and rational management approach to effectively and efficiently manage the facilities to meet all contract requirements.

2.1.2 The plan demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to provide a sound and rational IT management approach, which provides for continuous process improvement efforts.

2.1.3 The plan demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to provide a sound and rational approach to IT configuration management that provides for configuration control to meet all contract requirements.

2.1.4 The plan demonstrates the Offeror’s abilities to perform warehouse management, inventory, movement, storage and management of materials by use of an automated data collection system (i.e. GOLD) to meet contract requirements.

2.1.5 The plan demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to manage property systems and provide accurate reporting for all

GFP/GFM.

2.1.6 The plan demonstrates the Offeror’s abilities to have all necessary security processes and requirements in place that addresses the protection of information, assets, and infrastructure to SOCOM standards.

2.1.7 The plan demonstrates the Offeror’s transportation and shipment processes for the movement of property in order to meet contractual requirements.

2.1.8 The plan demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to provide a sound and rational approach to disaster and emergency preparedness and ensure continuity of work.

2.1.9 The plan demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to provide for good housekeeping practices for a healthy work environment.

2.1.10 The plan demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to be compliant with applicable safety and environmental (e.g., OSHA and EPA) state and federal regulations.

2.1.11 The Offeror has identified the organizational structure, operating procedures and techniques, and management controls.

Factor 3 - Business Operations Plan (Section L-3.1.3)

3.1.1 The Offeror demonstrates an executable approach for the timely hiring of a multi-skilled workforce (where applicable) and retaining the workforce for fluctuating task order requirements.

3.1.2 The plan demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to provide a sound and rational higher-level quality management system/plan that complies with FAR Part 46.

3.1.3 The plan demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to effectively manage and execute contracting and financial practices in accordance with regulations, policies and laws.

3.1.4 The plan demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to identify and implement a “just in time” data reporting process.

3.1.5 The plan demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to provide effective task order management.

3.1.6 The Offeror has identified the management organization to include mission and functions, operating procedures and techniques, financial accounting system, and management controls.

Factor 4 - Program Management Plan (L-3.1.4)

4.1.1 The plan demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to implement industry best practices for all aspects of program management.

4.1.2 The plan demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to conduct risk analysis, risk mitigation, and risk management.

4.1.3 The plan demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to identify and implement a “just in time” data reporting process to assess earned value management data and trends.

4.1.4 The plan demonstrates an effective and efficient configuration management program.

4.1.5 The Offeror demonstrates the ability to execute time sensitive CLS requirements.

4.1.6 The Offeror has a demonstrated process for effective cost containment.

4.1.7 The Offeror has identified the operating procedures and techniques, and management controls.

Factor 5 – Subcontracting (Section L-3.1.5) *

5.1.1 The subcontracting plan addresses the socio-economic areas as required by statute, regulation and this solicitation.

5.1.2 The proposed plan addresses the work that will be offered to subcontractors and the proper NAICS assigned.

5.1.3 The proposed plan addresses the AbilityOne program to a level of detail that will be visible during the monitoring of the resulting contract.

5.1.4 The proposed plan allows visibility by the Government in the execution of the socio-economic targets.

5.1.5 The plan demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to provide a sound and rational approach to subcontractor management to include oversight throughout the contract or task order performance period.

5.1.6 The Offeror has identified the organizational structure, policies and procedures, and management controls.

AREA II – Sample Tasks (L-3.2)

Factor 6 – Sample Task – Aviation

6.1.1 The Offeror has demonstrated the engineering capabilities necessary to satisfy the objectives in the SOO.

6.1.2 The Offeror has demonstrated core technical ability in conducting modifications to military rotary wing aircraft.

6.1.3 The Offeror has demonstrated a clear understanding of the certification process required to meet the SOO.

6.1.4 The Offeror has demonstrated an acceptable engineering approach.

6.1.5 The management approach presented in the project milestone schedule and management plan provides a viable methodology to meeting the SOO objectives.

6.1.6 The Offeror demonstrated their corporate experience in the PWS.

6.1.7 The Offeror has a demonstrated process for effective cost containment.

6.1.8 The Offeror has demonstrated their knowledge of the critical areas for success of this task order by the metrics proposed.

Factor 7 – Sample Task – Enterprise Management

7.1.1 The management approach presented in the management plan provides a viable methodology to meeting the SOO objectives in all Enterprise areas.

7.1.2 The technical approach presented in the PWS provides a viable solution in meeting the SOO objectives.

7.1.3 The Offeror has demonstrated the capabilities necessary to address the objectives in the SOO.

7.1.4 The Offeror has a proven cost-effective approach for facility management for long-term operations that includes infrastructure, unplanned repairs and upgrades, space and energy management.

7.1.5 The Offeror demonstrates a proven ability to have expertise in network management, customer support, information assurance, configuration management and hardware/software management.

7.1.6 The Offeror demonstrates management processes for monitoring, assessing, analyzing trends, and forecasting planned and unplanned enterprise requirements.

7.1.7 The Offeror addresses a corporate investment strategy for providing the necessary tools to execute the Enterprise tasks without Government funding.

7.1.8 The Offeror has a demonstrated process for effective cost containment.

7.1.9 The Enterprise Management metrics submitted for Factor 1 measure the appropriate level of the Enterprise activities.

Factor 8 - Sample Task – Logistics Support Services

8.1.1 The management plan provides a viable methodology to meeting the SOO objectives.

8.1.2 The Offeror has demonstrated capabilities, expertise and innovation to execute the objectives in the SOO.

8.1.3 The Offeror demonstrated the ability to maintain an activity in which property is shipped, received, moved, stored, issued, or returned with emphasis on (a) optimizing utilization of storage facilities; (b) usage of automated tools to simplify supply business practices, and (c) identification of management controls to prevent material loss.

8.1.4 The Offeror demonstrates industry best practices in performing inventory management processes.

8.1.5 The Offeror demonstrated the capability of applying commercial best practices associated with material control, manufacturing acquisition, transportation, and total asset visibility.

8.1.6 The Offeror demonstrated a capability in managing and executing a contractor inventory control point.

8.1.7 The Offeror’s proposed metrics are in line with industry standards and measure the appropriate level of performance to indicate success in the logistics support service areas.

8.1.8 The Offeror demonstrates a process for effective cost containment.

8.1.9 The Offeror demonstrates the knowledge of MHE and vehicles (cargo vans, mules, etc.) necessary to conduct the logistics operations for the SOFSA contract.

* Special Emphasis - DoD has placed a higher emphasis on the JAVITS-WAGNER-O'DAY ACT (JWOD) or AbilityOne Program for this requirement. An Offeror that proposes or demonstrates a higher percentage, complexity level, and variety of participation by JWOD qualified nonprofit agencies for the blind or other severely disabled as subcontractors beyond those items for which JWOD entities are the mandatory source generally will receive a higher rating on this factor during the source selection process. Performance on prior contracts in subcontracting with and assisting JWOD entities will be used as an element of past performance evaluation in subsequent source selection decisions as stated in Area IV of this evaluation.

Rating Methodology – The following color/adjectival ratings will be used for the rating assigned in the management/technical area and factors as appropriate.

Color

Rating

Definition

Blue Exceptional Exceeds a specified minimum performance or capability requirement in a way beneficial to the mission of the United States Special Operations Command.

Green Acceptable Meets specified minimum performance or capability requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance.

Yellow Marginal Does not clearly meet some specified minimum performance or capability requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance, but any proposal inadequacies are correctable.

Red Unacceptable Fails to meet specified minimum performance or capability requirements.

Proposals with an unacceptable rating are not awardable

Proposal Risk. Proposal risk will be assigned only to the overall management/technical factor. Proposal risk assessment focuses on the risks and weaknesses associated with an Offeror's proposed approach and includes an assessment of the potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, and the need for increased Government oversight, as well as the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. For each identified risk, the assessment will consider any self-identification of the risk by the Offeror and evaluate the Offeror's proposal, if any, for mitigating the risk and why that approach is or is not manageable. The Government will consider the extent to which the Offeror uses personnel preparing the proposal to perform the contract in assessing the risk of performance. The technical proposal will receive one of the risk ratings defined below

High Likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Risk may be unacceptable even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Moderate Can potentially cause some disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will probably be able to overcome difficulties.

Low Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will probably be able to overcome difficulties.

Area III - Cost/Price Evaluation

Factor 10: Reasonableness (Attachment 27) Factor 11: Total Evaluated Cost/Price (Sample Tasks) Factor 12: Fee Structure

The cost/price area will contribute substantially to the source selection decision, and the source selection is conducted with the expectation of adequate price competition per FAR 15.403-1(c)(1). Therefore, cost or pricing data are not required, and the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposals using cost realism and price analyses to assess the realism and reasonableness of the proposals to determine the best value Offeror. Evaluation of all option years will not obligate the Government to exercise the options. Cost/price will not receive a color rating.

Review of Offeror’s costs/prices will consist of the following:

(a) Realism: Per FAR 15.404-1(d), cost realism analysis is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each Offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal. A separate probable cost estimate will be accomplished by the Government to determine what the Government should realistically expect to pay for the proposed effort based on the Offeror’s understanding of the work and the Offeror’s ability to perform the contract. Per FAR 15.404-1(d)(2), the Governments probable cost will be determined by adjusting each Offeror’s proposed cost and profit, when and where appropriate, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the Governments cost realism analysis. The Government probable cost may differ from the Offeror’s proposed cost. If different, both will be presented to the SSA.

(b) Most Probable Cost: The proposed cost will be evaluated to determine realism and reasonableness based on the Offeror’s innovative management/technical and business practices discussed under the management/technical proposal. All advantages and performance enhancements arising from proposed innovations and business practices will be evaluated to determine that the proposal demonstrates full substantiation, rationale, and basis of estimates for the proposed cost savings and would not negatively impact SOFSA operations. Due to the nature of the workload information provided, the cost impact of potential efficiencies will not necessarily be discretely evaluated at the individual skill level. Attachment 27 will be used to assist in the cost realism and most probable cost assessment.

(c) Reasonableness: Reasonableness will be determined based on one or more of the price analysis techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1(b) which include, but are not limited to, prices submitted by the competition, current market conditions, and comparison to the Government estimate, as appropriate. Normally, adequate competition establishes price reasonableness. For purposes of this acquisition, the Government considers any type of price reduction that is unexplained, including any identified as a management challenge, to be unreasonable. An unexplained price reduction and/or unreasonable low target profit rate may adversely affect an Offeror’s proposal risk rating under the Management/Technical area.

Price reasonableness is a matter of the competitiveness of the Offeror's proposal. Competitiveness is not determined by a simple comparison with the prices proposed by the other Offerors, but rather, involves making trade-offs among offers. For that reason, award will be made to the Offeror determined to be most advantageous to the Government, cost and other factors considered. Consequently, integration of evaluation criteria with the total evaluated price (TEP) of the sample tasks could result in award to other than the Offeror with the lowest evaluated price.

(d) Unbalanced pricing - Per FAR 15.404-1(g), the Government may reject an Offer as unacceptable if it is materially unbalanced as to CLIN prices for the basic contract period and the option years and if it proposes an unacceptable risk to the Government. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or under stated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques.

(e) Unrealistically low (or high) proposed prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the requirement or has submitted an unrealistic proposal.

The following are the evaluation criteria that will be used in the evaluation to make a reasonableness determination:

Evaluations will include assessments of cost accounting methodology, costs associated with obtaining inter-divisional support, the Offeror’s understanding of the work scope and a cost realism analysis to determine what the Government should realistically expect to pay for the sample tasks. The Offeror’s proposed indirect rates and factors for all years (e.g., labor overhead including fringes, material overhead, G&A, cost of money, etc.) and methodology used for computing those rates will be evaluated for reasonableness and cost realism. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Professional Employee Compensation Plan to assure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. The evaluation will include an assessment of the Offeror’s ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality work. Unrealistically low professional employees’ compensation may be assessed adversely.

Factor 10: Reasonableness (Attachment 27). The Offeror’s direct and indirect rates and factors will be evaluated across all years to determine if they are fair and reasonable.

Factor 11: Total Evaluated Cost/Price (Sample Tasks). The Government will evaluate each of the Offeror’s sample task cost proposals. A TEP for each of the sample task proposals will be obtained by calculating the total for the sample tasks across all ten years. This will be done by taking the total of sample task one (year one) + sample task one (year two) + sample task one (year three) + sample task one (year four) + sample task one (year five) + sample task one (year six) + sample task one (year seven) + sample task one (year eight) + sample task one (year nine) + sample task one (year ten). This will be done for sample task one, two and three. Sample task four will not go across the 10-year period. The Government will evaluate Offerors for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price of the basic requirement. Price reasonableness as stated above includes, but are not limited to, prices submitted by the competition, current market conditions, and comparison to the Government estimate, as appropriate. Each of the sample tasks will stand alone to determine reasonableness for the 10-year period except sample task four will be for a maximum of four months. In other words, they will not be averaged.

Offerors should use Attachment 27 rates for pricing of the sample tasks.

Factor 12: Fee Structure. The Offeror's recommended incentive fee formula and the fixed fee proposed for all years will be evaluated to determine if they are fair and reasonable for both the offeror and the Government. The Offeror should provide adequate detail to permit the Government to readily understand and evaluate the proposed fee arrangement. In the event the Government has concerns about any portion of the Offeror’s price, the Government may require other than cost and pricing data.

Other Conditions for Award

In order for an Offeror to be eligible for the award of this contract, Offerors shall meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified in Section M as factors. This includes, but is not limited to, the following:

(1) Adequate Accounting System: An adequate accounting system is not an evaluation criterion. However, if the contractor does not have an approved accounting system prior to award (FAR 16.301-3 (a)(1)) and you are found to be the successor, award cannot be made. Proof should be submitted.

(2) Compliance with Instructions: In assessing an Offeror’s capability, the Government will consider how well the Offeror complied with the instructions in the RFP. The Government will consider any failure to comply with RFP instructions to be indicative of the kind of conduct that could be expected from the Offeror during contract performance.

(3) Financial Responsibility: Financial responsibility is not an evaluation criterion. However, a contract may only be awarded to an Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR 9.104. To assist the Government in determining financial responsibility, the Government will take into consideration the Offeror’s proposed funding and financial resources.

(4) Proof of an Acceptable Estimating System (FAR 15.407) for cost contracts.

(5) Copy of the ACO approval of Contractor Purchasing System Review (CPSR) due to a high-level subcontracting requirement associated with this contract.

Area IV: Past/Present Performance Risk Assessment Area Evaluation

Performance Risk Assessment: When evaluating past/present performance the Government will consider:

a. Program Management

b. Business Operations

c. Technical Capability

d. Conflict Management Resolution Processes

e. Change Management Process

f. Quality Program

g. Cost Management

h. Subcontracting achievement with AbilityOne and small business socio-economic programs

Performance risk considers those risks associated with an Offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the solicitation requirements as indicated by the Offeror’s record of past/present performance. Performance risk is assessed by the Performance Risk Assessment Group (PRAG) and is assigned a narrative rating. See the table below.

The PRAG will conduct a performance risk assessment based upon the currency, relevancy, source, context, and general trend of the Offeror's past/present performance as it relates to the probability of successful accomplishment of all the performance requirements of the solicitation. The PRAG evaluation will consider the performance of an Offeror and all team or joint venture members and subcontractors as it relates to all solicitation requirements. This includes the Offeror's performance in cost, schedule, and the administrative aspects of performance; the Offeror's history for reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction; the Offeror's record of compliance with safety, environmental and security laws and regulations; and generally, the Offeror's businesslike concern for the interests of its customers. The PRAG will also evaluate the Offeror's previous subcontracting plan achievements; the Offeror's ability to achieve previously proposed small business goals and the actions taken to achieve those goals. The PRAG will also key in on the areas listed above, in Area IV as high areas of interest.

Each performance risk assessment will consider the furnished or gathered data, significant achievements, the number and severity of problems, the effectiveness of corrective actions taken, and the overall work record. The PRAG may obtain data from sources other than those provided by the Offeror on the Offeror and proposed subcontractors to include data from any DoD databases such as the Past Performance Management Information System.

Rating Methodology for Past/Present Performance: A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of work can become an important consideration in the source selection process. A negative finding under any factor may result in an overall high-risk rating. Therefore, Offerors are reminded to include relevant past efforts, including demonstrated corrective actions, in their proposal. Each contract submitted by the Offeror to substantiate past /present performance will first be rated for relevancy by the Government and a rating of Highly Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant or Not Relevant will be assigned. This relevancy rating shall be used when considering how much weight to ascribe to each contract. The PWS in Section C shall be used in the assessment of the relevancy of the Offeror’s past/current performance information to the current solicitation. The following definitions shall be used in the evaluation of contracts to determine relevancy:

Highly Relevant - Past/present performance efforts involved the magnitude of effort and complexities, which are essentially, what this solicitation requires.

Relevant - Past/present performance efforts involved less magnitude of effort and complexities, including most of what this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant - Past/present performance efforts involved much less magnitude of effort and complexities, including some of what this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant - Past/current performance efforts did not involve any significant aspects of the effort required by this solicitation.

Then contract performance ratings will be ascribed to the Offeror's work on that contract by using the data submitted and the returned and completed questionnaires. Contract performance will be rated as follows: Neutral, Unsatisfactory, Marginal, Satisfactory, Very Good, or Exceptional. The following definitions apply:

RATING DEFINITION

Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s (or customer’s) benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s (or customer’s) benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the customer were effective.

Satisfactory Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.

Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Neutral

The question does not apply. No performance record identifiable within the area of evaluation. If confidence is unknown a neutral rating is required.

As a result of the contract performance and relevancy ratings, Offerors will be assigned an integrated performance risk assessment rating. That assessment will be one of the following:

PERFORMANCE RISK ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS

High Risk: Based on the Offeror's performance record, it is unlikely that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract.

Moderate Risk: Based on the Offeror's performance record some doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort in accordance with the terms of the contract.

Low Risk: Based on the Offeror's performance record, virtually no doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract.

Neutral Risk: The Offeror has no recent, relevant performance information. (To receive a Neutral Risk Rating, the Offeror must include the following statement: "The Offeror has no relevant past/present performance." Otherwise, one of the other ratings will be applied, with the Government determining relevancy. Failure to provide the required information may be treated as a deficiency in the Offeror's proposal.)

Since the PRAG does not perform the technical proposal risk assessment, it generally will not review the technical, management or cost sections of the Offerors' proposals. In conducting the performance risk assessment, the Government may not necessarily interview all of the sources provided by the Offerors. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Offerors to explain the relevance of the data provided. Offerors are reminded that while the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of demonstrating adequacy rests with the Offerors.

The PAST/CURRENT PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE in Section J – Attachment 25 will be used by Government agencies and commercial businesses to assess Offeror’s past/present contract performance. The Offeror is responsible for distributing this form.

M-5 Application of Evaluation Results from Initial and Follow-on Evaluation. As stated, the results of the initial evaluation will be used to make a determination of whether a proposal is within the competitive range. The results of the initial evaluation for those remaining in the competitive range will be combined with the results of the follow-on evaluation and used to support the best value decision.

M-5.1 Competitive Range: In accordance with FAR 15.306(c), the Contracting Officer may establish a competitive range comprised of the highest rated proposals based on the ratings of each proposal against all of the evaluation criteria or the Contracting Officer may determine that the number of most highly rated proposals that might otherwise be included in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted. The Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number (including only one) that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. If the SSA determines that an Offeror’s proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award and written notice of the decision will be provided to the unsuccessful Offeror in accordance with FAR 15.503.

M-5.1.1 Discussions: To maximize the Government’s ability to obtain the best value based on the requirement and evaluation factors set forth in this RFP, it may be necessary to conduct discussions. If there are weaknesses, deficiencies, uncertainties, or other issues that must be addressed before award, they will be discussed with only those Offerors determined to be in the competitive range. Discussions maybe conducted orally in writing or both.

The scope and extent of the discussions are a matter of Contracting Officer judgments. Offerors maybe restricted to short turn around in responding to the Contracting Officer. Offerors should present their very best proposal as their initial proposal. Offerors are strongly advised to thoroughly examine their proposals for accuracy, completeness, clear explanations and compliance with all requirements of the RFP prior to submission to the Contracting Officer.

The Government will not conduct successive rounds of discussions to give Offerors the opportunity to strengthen weak proposals.

M-5.1.2 Final Proposal Revisions: If discussions are conducted, final proposal revisions will be required. However, the Government reserves the right to award the contract without discussions or opportunity for proposals revisions, in which case, final proposal revisions will not be required. Offerors are advised that unsupported or unexplained final proposal revisions may be penalized in the overall proposal evaluation, and an otherwise acceptable proposal could be placed in jeopardy.

M-5.1.3 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers: The Government may reject any proposal that is determined to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low cost when compared to the Government estimate, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

M-6 Final Decision - When combined the Management/Technical (Area I), Sample Tasks (Area II), and Present/Past Performance Area (Area IV) are significantly more important than the Price/Cost Area (Area III). Area I and Area II will be combined for an overall Management/Technical score. The overall Management/Technical score plus Present/Past Performance (Area IV) are significantly more important than Price/Cost (Area III). At the conclusion of the final proposal evaluation, the SSA will do an independent assessment and combine all the area evaluation results for the overall best value decision.

(End of Summary of Changes)