SF30 - HQ003421R0130 - Amend 0003.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 this solicitation amendment is to:

1. Provide Attachment 17 2nd QA Document Amend 0003

2. Extend the proposal due date to September 24, 2021 at 10:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time (EDT)

3. Revise FAR 52.212-2 Addendum. Revisions are highlighted in yellow .

4. Revise the follow ing attachments: 01a, 01b1, 01b2, 01c1, 01c2, 05, 08a. All revisions to the attachments are highlighted in yellow .

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 9

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 16-Sep-2021

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 HQ003421R0130

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

13-Aug-2021

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 X is extended, 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

16-Sep-2021

CODE

WHS - ACQUISITION DIRECTORATE

4800 MARK CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 09F09

ALEXANDRIA VA 22350

HQ0034 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

HQ003421R0130

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENTS

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES

Attachment 1a IDIQ PWS Amend 0003 18

Attachment 1b1 Task Order 1 PWS Amend 0003 52

Attachment 1b2 Task Order 1 Appendix A (Tables) Amend 0003 46

Attachment 1b3 Task Order 1 Appendix B (Directives-Regulation) 6

Attachment 1b4 Task Order 1 Appendix C Access Control Center SOP 14

Attachment 1b5 Task Order 1 Appendix D ISSC4 Assets July 2021 Excel Spreadsheet

Attachment 1c1 Task Order 2 PWS Amend 0003 43

Attachment 1c2 Task Order 2 IT Environment Document FPTS Amend

Attachment 1d Sample Task Order 1 PWS 4

Attachment 1e Sample Task Order 2 PWS 7

Attachment 2 Non-disclosure Agreement 1

Attachment 3 Past Performance Questionnaire 5

Attachment 4a Small Business Subcontracting Plan 9

Attachment 4b Small Business Participation Commitment Document 2

Attachment 5 Labor Categories Amend 0003 Excel Spreadsheet

Attachment 6 Wage Determination 15

Attachment 7a Personnel Matrix Task Order 1 Excel Spreadsheet

Attachment 7b Personnel Matrix Task Order 2 Excel Spreadsheet

Attachment 7c Personnel Matrix Sample Task Order 1 Excel Spreadsheet

Attachment 7d Personnel Matrix Sample Task Order 2 Excel Spreadsheet

Attachment 8a Task Order 1 Pricing Template Amend 0003 Excel Spreadsheet

Attachment 8b Task Order 2 Pricing Template Excel Spreadsheet

Attachment 8c Sample Task Order 1 Pricing Template Excel Spreadsheet

Attachment 8d Sample Task Order 2 Pricing Template Excel Spreadsheet

Attachment 9 Schedule of Pricing Template Excel Spreadsheet

Attachment 10 Organizational Conflict of Interest 4

Attachment 11 SF294 Subcontracting Report 4

Attachment 12 Ordering Procedures 3

Attachment 13 Brand Name Justification and Approval REDACTED 3

Attachment 14 DD254 9

Attachment 15a Key Personnel Task Order 1 2

Attachment 15b Key Personnel Task Order 2 7

Attachment 15c Key Personnel Sample Task Order 1 2

Attachment 15d Key Personnel Sample Task Order 2 2

Attachment 16 QA Document Amend 0001 1

Attachment 17 Second QA Document Amend 0003 17

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

Factor 1 – Technical Approach

Factor 2 – Past Performance

Factor 3 – Price

Factor 1 (Technical Approach) and Factor 2 (Past Performance) are equal, and when combined are significantly more important than Factor 3 (Price). However, price is still a substantial factor. As the evaluation becomes more equal under Factors 1 and 2, price will become more significant in the award decision.

(See 52.212-2 EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014) ADDENDUM Below)

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

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful Offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of provision)

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014) (ADDENDUM)

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

Unless all offers are rejected, the Government intends to award a single award IDIQ, Firm Fixed Price contract and concurrently award Task Orders 1 and 2 to the responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

For award of the overall IDIQ and Task Orders 1 and 2, the Government may select for award the Offeror whose price is not necessarily the lowest, but whose technical proposal is more advantageous to the Government and warrants the additional cost. Offerors must satisfy the requirements described in the Performance Work Statement

(PWS) as well as other Request for Proposal (RFP) requirements.

Proposals shall be reviewed, evaluated, and awarded in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in this document. Proposals that take exception to any requirement, state assumptions or impose requirements not in or contrary to the solicitation or otherwise qualify the proposal shall not be considered and shall be deemed unacceptable for award.

2. PASS/FAIL CRITERIA

The Government will evaluate a proposal ONLY IF the proposal satisfies all of the following elements, which will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis:

(1) (Volume II) The Offeror shall submit a letter from Defense Security Services (DSS) that demonstrates the

Offeror holds an active Top Secret Facility Clearance as identified on the DD 254 as part of their proposal.

(2) (Volume III) The Offeror shall submit a Small Business Participation Commitment Document that meets the criteria listed below. (see Section 2.1 below)

(3) (Volume III) The Offeror shall submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan that meets the criteria listed below. (see Section 2.2 below)

(4) (Volume III) The Offeror shall submit commitment letters for all key personnel shall be submitted with the proposal submission by the proposal due date. All commitment letter shall be signed and dated by the proposed key personnel within 10 days of the proposal due date. The date of signature must accompany the signature in the signed commitment letter. The commitment letter shall affirmatively state: (1) that the key personnel granted permission to the prime contractor to use his/her resume, and (2) is willing to work for the proposing Offeror on the instant solicitation. If revised proposals are required, commitment letters must be updated, signed, and dated within 10 days of the revised due date for submission.

2.1 SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION COMMITMENT DOCUMENT (SBPCD)

The Government shall evaluate the proposal to determine the extent:

2.1.1 Each firm as defined in FAR Part 19, Small Business (SB), Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), Women-

Owned Small Business (WOSB), Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) small business, Veteran-

Owned Small Business (VOSB), and Service-Disabled, Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB), are specifically identified in the proposal.

2.1.2 The Offeror demonstrates a substantive commitment with each firm (as defined in FAR Part 19) that the

Offeror has specifically identified in the proposal, such as, letters of commitment, joint ventures, mentor/protégé agreements, or other demonstrations of commitment (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements)

2.1.3 Identify the type and variety of the work each firm(s) as defined in FAR Part 19 are to perform (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements)’

2.1.4 Identification of a minimum of 32.25% small business prime Offerors and/or small business subcontractors in terms of the value of the total acquisition (total contract value) (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements).

2.2 SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

The Government shall evaluate the Offeror’s proposal on the Small Business Subcontracting format provided at

Attachment 4a and must address all fifteen elements in the attachment.

3. EVALUATION FACTORS

The award of the base IDIQ contract will be determined by evaluations and ratings for Task Orders 1 and 2 and

Sample Task Orders 1 and 2.

The Government will not evaluate Factor 2 and Factor 3 if an Offeror receives an Unacceptable rating for Factor 1.

The evaluation will be based on a complete assessment of the Offeror’s proposal. Proposals shall be evaluated on the following three (3) factors:

Factor 1 – Technical Approach

Factor 2 – Past Performance

Factor 3 – Price

For the overall base IDIQ contract award will be based on:

a. Factor 1 – Technical Approach. The Government will assign one overall adjectival rating after evaluation of Task Order 1, Task Order 2, Sample Task Order 1, and Sample Task Order 2. There will be no individual ratings for each Task Order separately. Accordingly:

Task Order 1: Evaluation of Technical Approach

Task Order 2: Evaluation of Technical Approach

Sample Task Order 1: Evaluation of Technical Approach

Sample Task Order 2: Evaluation of Technical Approach

b. Factor 2 – Past Performance. The Government will assign one overall confidence assessment for a total of three contract references submitted for the IDIQ, Task Order 1, or Task Order 2.

c. Factor 3 – Price. The Government will conduct an evaluation of the prices received for Labor Categories

(attachment 5), Task Order 1, Task Order 2, Sample Task Order 1, and Sample Task Order 2. The

Government will calculate the vendor’s Total Evaluated Price for use in the best value tradeoff, as detailed in Factor 3 below.

a. FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

1. For Task Orders 1 and 2, the Government will evaluate the adequacy of the Offeror’s approach as demonstrated by the proposed technical approach. The proposal shall be sufficiently complete to demonstrate how the Offeror will comply with PWS requirements throughout the performance period. The Government will evaluate the

Offeror’s technical approach in its proposed Phase-In Plan, Program Management Plan, Staffing Plan, Personnel Matrix, and Key Personnel resumes to perform the requirements listed in the solicitation. Data previously submitted, or presumed to be known, i.e., descriptions of previous projects performed for the

Government, cannot be considered as a part of the proposal unless physically incorporated in the proposal.

Clarity, completeness and conciseness are essential.

a. Phase-In Plan: The Government will evaluate the Offerors phase-in plan that adequately describes an approach to provide a smooth, uninterrupted Phase-In, which shall take place during the initial 30 calendar days upon contract award.

b. Program Management Plan: The Government will evaluate the Management Plan for soundness of approach, understanding of the requirement, completeness, effectiveness, and efficiency.

c. Staffing Plan: The Government will evaluate and assess the Offeror’s staffing approach to meet the

Government’s requirements and how the Offeror plans to manage unexpected turnover due to promotions, employees leaving the company, extended illnesses, military duty, etc., and how that plan minimizes the impact on contract performance.

d. Personnel Matrix: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s labor mix, consisting of proposed IDIQ

LCATs and hours, to determine the extent to which the proposed labor mix can satisfy the PWS requirements.

e. Key Personnel Resumes: The Government will evaluate the Key Personnel Resumes and commitment letters to meet or exceed the personnel requirements listed in Task Order 1 PWS Section 1.9 and Task

Order 2 PWS Section 1.6.4.

2. For Sample Task Orders 1 and 2, the Government will evaluate the adequacy of the Offeror’s approach as demonstrated by the proposed technical approach. The proposal shall be sufficiently complete to demonstrate how the Offeror will comply with the PWS requirements throughout the performance period. Data previously submitted, or presumed to be known, i.e., descriptions of previous projects performed for the Government, cannot be considered as a part of the proposal unless physically incorporated in the proposal. Clarity, completeness and conciseness are essential. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach by reviewing the labor categories in the Sample Task Orders 1 and 2 Personnel Matrix Templates.

Personnel Matrix: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s labor mix, consisting of proposed IDIQ

LCATs and hours, to determine the extent to which the proposed labor mix can satisfy the PWS requirements.

b. FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will evaluate the Past Performance of the Offerors in complying with requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan; and the extent of participation of such firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition.

The Government will evaluate how well the Offeror has performed on contracts that have been determined to be both recent and relevant for the overall IDIQ and Task Orders 1 and 2. The Government will evaluate how well the

Offeror has performed on contracts that have been determined to be both recent and relevant to the PWS.

Past performance is a measure of the degree to which the Offeror satisfied its customers in the past as the Prime

Contractor. The Government may contact some, all or none of each Offeror’s customers to ask, among other things, whether: (1) the Offeror is capable, efficient, and effective; (2) the Offeror’s performance conformed to the terms and conditions of its contract; (3) the Offeror was reasonable and cooperative during performance; (4) the Offeror was committed to customer satisfaction; (5) the Offeror was able to hire and retain qualified personnel to the satisfaction of the customer; and (6) if they would select the same Contractor or a different Contractor, given the opportunity.

The Government may also use other information available from other sources to evaluate the Offeror’s past performance, which may include, but not limited to: Past Performance Questionnaire, Federal, State and local

Government agencies, Better Business Bureaus, published media, electronic databases such as the Contractor

Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). The Government reserves the right to limit or expand the number of references it decides to contact and to contact references other than those provided by the Offeror.

In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom no information on Past

Performance is available, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

c. FACTOR 3 – PRICE

As a pre-condition to receiving award, the awardee’s pricing must be fair and reasonable. The Government will determine whether a price is fair and reasonable based one or more of the techniques listed at FAR 15.404-1. The

Government will conduct an evaluation to determine whether each of the following are fair and reasonable:

Offeror’s proposed Task Order 1 price (Attachment 8a), Task Order 2 price (Attachment 8b), Sample Task Order 1 price (Attachment 8c), Sample Task Order 2 price (Attachment 8d), IDIQ labor rates (Attachment 5), and the

Materials prices (Attachment 9). Where an Offeror’s pricing is found other than fair and reasonable, the offer will not be eligible for award.

The Government will calculate a Total Evaluated Price for each Offeror. This figure will represent the Offeror’s proposal under Factor 3 (Price) in the best value tradeoff. The Offeror’s Total Evaluated Price will be the sum of the following:

• The total proposed price of Task Order 1, which is the sum of:

◦ The Offeror’s total proposed Task Order 1 labor pricing (CLIN x001) across the base period and the four

12-month option periods.

◦ The Offeror’s total proposed Task Order 1 materials pricing (CLIN x002) across the base period and the four 12-month option periods.

◦ The expected price of the 52.217-8 extension period, to be calculated as one-half of the Offeror’s proposed labor and materials prices for the fourth 12-month option period (i.e., one-half the price of

CLINs 4001 and 4002).

• The total proposed price of Task Order 2, which is the sum of:

◦ The Offeror’s total proposed Task Order 2 labor pricing across the base period and the four 12-month option periods.

◦ The expected price of the 52.217-8 extension period, to be calculated as one-half of the Offeror’s proposed labor price for the fourth 12-month option period (i.e., one-half the price of CLINs 4001).

• For each labor category listed in the Attachment 05 Labor Categories Template, the Government will multiply the Offeror's proposed maximum labor rate for each contract period by the Government’s estimated number of hours to produce the extended price of the labor category. The Government will then add together the extended pricing of all of the labor categories in order to calculate the Offeror’s total extended pricing of its IDIQ labor categories.

• The total extended pricing of the Offeror’s proposed material unit prices:

For each item listed in the Attachment 05 Labor Categories Template, the Government will multiply the

Offeror's proposed maximum unit price for each contract period by the Government’s estimated quantity to produce the extended price of the item. The Government will then add together the extended pricing of all of the items in order to calculate the Offeror’s total extended pricing for Materials.

NOTE: The Government’s evaluation of pricing for option periods does not obligate the Government to exercise any options.

4. RATING METHODS

a. FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method: The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Each proposal shall be given a rating identified in Table 1 that reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the threshold performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the relative strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses and significant weaknesses, and risks to successful performance.

TABLE 1. COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATING METHOD

COLOR RATING DESCRIPTION

BLUE

Outstanding

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

PURPLE

Good

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

GREEN

Acceptable

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

YELLOW

Marginal

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

RED

*Unacceptable

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

*NOTE: If an Offeror is determined to be “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” under Factor 1 – Technical

Approach, the Offeror’s proposal will be considered unawardable, shall not be further evaluated, and will not be considered for award.

Definitions:

A strength is a significant, outstanding, or exceptional aspect of the proposal that increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

A weakness is a flaw in the proposal that decreases the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the requirements of the contract.

A significant weakness is a flaw in the proposal that appreciably decreases the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the requirements of the contract.

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

b. FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

For the overall IDIQ, Task Orders 1 and 2, there are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

Step 1 – Recency. The first step is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror's past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information.

Step 2 – Relevance. The second step is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. The relevancy rating evaluates the aspects of an Offeror's recent history of contract performance that would provide the most context and give the greatest ability to measure whether the Offeror will successfully satisfy the current requirement. There are four levels of relevancy as shown in

Table 2.

TABLE 2. PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATING METHOD

RATING DEFINITION

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.

Step 3 – Quality of Products or Services. The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the Offeror's past performance (see FAR 15.304(c)(2)). The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Offeror's overall record of regency, relevancy, and quality of performance. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in Table 3.

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."

TABLE 3. PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATING METHOD

RATING DEFINITION

Substantial Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror shall 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 shall successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

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 Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror shall successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror shall be able to successfully perform the required effort.

*NOTE: Offerors that receive a rating of “No Confidence” under Factor 2 shall be considered unawardable, shall not be evaluated further, and will not be considered for award

c. FACTOR 3 – PRICE

The price factor will not receive a rating, but the evaluated price must be found to be fair and reasonable in order to be eligible for award as indicated in Factor 3 – Price Proposal. The pricing evaluation will be based on one of the price analysis techniques found in FAR 15.404-1-Proposal Analysis Techniques to determine if the proposed price is fair and reasonable. If an Offeror’s price is not found to be fair and reasonable, the Offeror will not be eligible for award.

(End of provision)

(End of Summary of Changes)