HR0011-11-R-0003

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

In order to make corrections and clarif ications and to change the location stated in L-7(i) for submittal of proposals, Solicitation HR0011-11-R-0003 is amended as show n in the attached.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 12

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 13-Jun-2011

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 HR0011-11-R-0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

31-May-2011

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 1 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

07-Jun-2011

CODE

DARPA

CMO

ATTN: SUSAN SHEAN

3701 N FAIRFAX DRIVE

ARLINGTON VA 22203-1714

HR0011 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

HR0011-11-R-0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0402

The CLIN extended description has changed from

Government to provide value of this requirement to Offeror at a later date. Offeror shall not include costs for this requirement in the proposal. The Contractor shall furnish Other Direct Cost items including Consultants, Travel, Supplies, Materials, and Maintenance. This CLIN is a Cost Reimbursable, No Fee, Not-to-Exceed amount.

Consultant costs in the ODCs CLIN are intended to cover additional, "within scope" work that will be identified by the Government during the contract performance.

to

Government to provide value of this requirement to Offeror at a later date. Offeror shall not include costs for this requirement in the proposal. The Contractor shall furnish Other Direct Cost items including Consultants, Government Mandatory training, Travel, Supplies, Materials, and Maintenance. This CLIN is a Cost Reimbursable, No Fee, Not-to-Exceed amount. Consultant costs in the ODCs CLIN are intended to cover additional, "within scope" work that will be identified by the Government during the contract performance..

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

L.5. SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

In accordance with FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS 252.219-7003, Offerors who are not small business concerns shall submit a Small Business Subcontracting plan. Offerors are encouraged to comply with the small business subcontracting goals contained in Public Law 15 U.S.C.

644(g) and to address the extent of participation of historically black colleges or universities and minority institutions planned in performance of the contract. The Subcontracting Plan shall be a separate attachment to the proposal. There is no limitation on number of pages, page format, or font size for this attachment. Offerors shall specifically identify the small businesses and historically black colleges or universities and minority institutions in the proposal and identify the extent of participation of the small businesses and historically black colleges or universities and minority institutions in terms of the value of the total acquisition.

L.7. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS/REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SOLICITATION

AND SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

(f) A proposal submission shall consist of three (3) separate volumes to include TECHNICAL (Volume I), PAST PERFORMANCE (Volume II), and COST (Volume III). No cost information (including the total proposed contract value) for the effort resulting from this RFP may be provided in any part of Volumes I and II (including the Volume I and II coversheets).

The Offeror shall not use Volume II to discuss its proposed Technical Approach or Personnel in order to circumvent the page restrictions. In addition to the three volumes, the proposal submission shall include an executed copy of the solicitation cover page (Standard Form 33), completed/executed Representations and Certification (Section K), and Statements and/or Mitigation Plan regarding Organizational Conflict of Interest. In addition, all offerors who are not small business concerns are required to provide a Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The following list is a top level summary of the volumes and other items required for this RFP.

• Volume I – Technical

• Volume II – Past Performance

• Volume III – Cost

• Executed copy of the solicitation cover page (Standard Form 33) (required)

• Representations and Certification, Section K (required)

• OCI Information and/or Mitigation Plan (required)

• Small Business Subcontracting Plan (required for all but Small Businesses)

(h) Required Copies:

• One electronic copy of the complete proposal submission. Each volume of the proposal shall be submitted as a separate file. The DARPA file size limitation is 40MB. Offerors should notify the Contracting Officer of any issues related to this limitation. Offerors can compress their files using WINZIP file compression only. If encrypted, Offerors must use only AES256 and must send the password to the Contracting Officer. All electronic files shall be in a Microsoft Office compatible format and allow for a complete text search of each document (except signed cover pages). See Section L-3 for guidance on the submission of classified past performance information.

(i) Proposal Identification and Delivery

Each Offeror should assign its own identifying number to its proposal. The proposal should be sent via E-mail so as to permit safe and timely arrival at destination. No classified proposals will be accepted. Classified past performance information shall be submitted in accordance with the guidance at Section L-3. Faxed copies will not be accepted. Proposals shall be e-mailed to RFP-HR0011-11-R-0003@darpa.mil.

(k) Proposal Format and Length - Volume I format shall be on 8.5” x 11” pages using 1” inch margins, single-sided, single line spacing, and 12-point font size. The exception to these Volume mailto:RFP-HR0011-11-R-0003@darpa.mil

I formatting requirements is that 11” x 17” foldouts (or smaller) may be used for a maximum of two pages within the Volume I section subject to the page limitation as well as for the personnel resource matrix attachments. Since the intent of these two foldouts would be to show graphics, organization charts, and large reference tables, there are no margin, line spacing, or font requirements for these foldout pages. The length of Volume I shall be no more than 40 pages, exclusive only of the cover sheet, table of contents, Transition-In Plan, Master Training Plan, attached resumes, Personnel Resource Matrix, any teaming agreements, and any key personnel letters of intent. There is no limitation on number of pages, page format, or font size for the Volume II (Past Performance) or Volume III (Cost proposals). No video/audio files or hyperlinked information will be considered in the review process. The proposal should be written and organized so as to be compatible with the RFP, the Statement of Work, company's organization and accounting structure, and proposed cost estimate.

L.8. INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF TECHNICAL PROPOSALS

(VOLUME I)

(b) In addition to a signed cover page and table of contents, the technical proposal shall contain the following elements, which are discussed more fully in subsequent paragraphs.

(1) Technical Approach

(a) Understanding of the Statement of Work,

(b) Management Plan and Execution of Contract Requirements, to include a

Transition-in Plan,

(c) Staffing Plan/Teaming Arrangements*,

(d) Corporate Support/Facilities

(2) Personnel

(i) Personnel Resource Matrix** (Section L-8 Attachment 1)

(ii) Resumes ***

* In addition to the other information required for this subsection, if the Offeror is teaming to meet the requirements of this solicitation it shall provide the Teaming Agreements as an attachment to Volume I. (This attachment shall not include cost/financial information.) There is no page limitation on this attachment, but the attachment shall adhere to the Volume I format requirements in Section L.7.(k). The Transition-in Plan and the Master Training Plan do not count toward the page limit for Volume I.

** These items are considered attachments to Volume I. There is no page limitation on the total number of pages for the Personnel Resource Matrix submitted under the proposal.

*** In addition to the other information required for this subsection, if the Offeror is proposing key personnel as “contingent hires” it shall provide all Letters of Intent/Commitment for these Key Personnel as an attachment to Volume I. (This attachment shall not include salary information).

Each resume shall not exceed 2 pages. The attachment shall adhere to the Volume I format requirements in Section L.7.(k).

(a) Technical Proposal Elements

1. Technical Approach

(i) Understanding of Statement of Work

In this subsection the Offeror shall provide a narrative of its in-depth understanding of the types of the tasks/subtasks under the Statement of Work (SOW); and how these tasks/subtasks are generally conducted within the framework of DARPA’s Security and Intelligence Directorate and its mission. This narrative should not be merely a regurgitation of task information from the SOW or information on the web or other public information about DARPA, but rather should primarily include information that enables the Government to determine that the Offeror has in-depth understanding of all tasks/subtasks (e.g., how tasks/subtasks relate and derive from DoD/DCID requirements) and how that work is generally conducted within the framework of the organization and its mission. In the Offeror’s narrative of each task/subtask, it shall discuss its knowledge of any risks associated with the task/subtasks and how those risks can be mitigated.

(ii) Management Plan and Execution of Contract Requirements

This subsection shall provide information on the processes, procedures, and supervision plan the Offeror will use to assure timeliness, quality, cost control, and customer satisfaction of contract requirements in the SOW. This information should demonstrate to the Government that the Offeror provides an effective, efficient, and comprehensive approach to the management and execution of the contract requirements.

The narrative shall include a description of innovative management practices that the Offeror will provide to this effort that promote initiative and demonstrate benefit to the Government, e.g., streamlines processes and supervision; lowers cost to managing and executing effort; lowers risk of schedule slips, increased costs, or degraded performance; etc.

The Management plan shall also discuss the Offeror’s approach for effective communication with its team members and the government customer.

The Management plan shall describe any risks associated with the Offeror’s management and execution of the contract requirements as well as discuss how those risks can be mitigated.

A Transition-in Plan shall be provided that demonstrates an orderly transition process that results in a fully functioning staff in place and able to carry out the tasks in the SOW at the conclusion of the transition-in period. The Transition-in Plan shall describe each task/subtask and/or functional area assignments provided by its team (including subcontractors and consultants) during the transition-in period within the context of the SOW. The offeror should take a phased approach to staffing the positions identified in the SOW. The first week should be limited to those individuals performing management/supervisory and Key Personnel functions.

The balance of positions should be filled at the start of week two (2). The plan shall include a graphic of the team structure denoting the prime contractor and each subcontractor/consultant as well as each organization’s tasking and functional area including referencing SOW task/subtask numbers. The plan shall address the initial orientation as well as all other certification requirements identified in Section L.8 for each position on the contract.

(iii)Staffing Plan/Teaming Arrangements

The Offeror should describe in this subsection the extent its capability to provide a high quality professional staff/team in a security services environment that can respond to all functional areas, tasks, and subtasks in the SOW. If the Offeror is teaming with other contractors, the capabilities of each team member (i.e., potential subcontractor and consultant) should also be provided. A signed copy of any teaming agreements between parties, excluding the financial agreement and cost information, shall be submitted as an attachment to the Technical/Management volume, and will not be counted as part of the Volume I page limitation.

A Staffing Plan shall be provided for any surge capability and/or staff turnover. The plan shall describe in detail the Offeror’s ability to quickly respond to the following: temporary surge requirements, staff turnover, and shifting emphasis between work areas or tasks within the SOW.

The Offeror shall demonstrate any innovative management practices that demonstrate benefit to the Government, e.g., corporate benefits and strategies to hire and retain high performing employees. The plan shall also describe any training and or educational benefits provided to its employees to assure that they remain current in the functional/technical areas and are provided the information, knowledge and skills needed to accomplish their assigned functions. The Offeror shall provide a training plan that addresses the requirements in Section L- 8 Attachment 2. The Master Training Plan will not be counted as part of the Volume I page limitation.

The plan shall describe any risks associated with the staffing and teaming arrangements and discuss how those risks can be mitigated.

(iv) Corporate Support/Facilities

In this subsection, the Offeror shall discuss how its corporate philosophy, structure, physical facilities, in-house support staff, and any other features of its operation might enhance or otherwise support the project. This shall include information confirming whether the Offeror meets the requirement for having a TOP SECRET facility clearance granted by the Department of Defense, Defense Security Service. The Offeror shall discuss its ability to provide unclassified, collaterally classified, Special Access Program (SAP) and Sensitive Compartmented Inormation (CSI) security support in a multi-disciplined security environment.

L-8 ATTACHMENT 1

PERSONNEL RESOURCE MATRIX

Name RFP Labor Category Offeror Labor Category

Jane Doe Program Manager (K) Manager, Business Group

L.9. INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF PAST PERFORMANCE

PROPOSALS (VOLUME II)

The Government will evaluate an Offeror’s Past Performance based on the information it provides in Volume II. However, the Government is also authorized to evaluate past performance based on information from other sources (e.g. DCMA, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), DoD’s Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), information provided by a Government employee (including those persons referenced in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal), information regarding predecessor companies, information on key personnel who have relevant experience or information on subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition.

L.10. INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF COST PROPOSALS

(VOLUME III)

Cost proposals for each subcontract shall also be provided with the same level of detail as required above. Subcontracts are not required to be Cost-Plus-Award-Fee. Offerors shall provide Consultant Agreements for any consultants being proposed as well as the Consultant’s fully loaded labor rate and the hours that the prime contractor is including in its cost proposal for each period. The copies (electronic) of the subcontractor’s detailed cost information should be included with the Offeror’s submission, but may be in a separate file. If Subcontractors do not want to provide Proprietary/Competition Sensitive Information to their Prime, Offerors are permitted to include sanitized subcontractor information in their proposals and to instruct their Subcontractors to submit their RFP compliant proposals via email directly to the Solicitation Mailbox (RFP-HR0011-11-R-0003@darpa.mil); subcontractors are to identify the prime Offeror’s proposal to which their proposal corresponds.

Amounts for Other Direct Costs (including travel, material, expert support, Government mandatory training, and maintenance costs) will be determined by the Government and added to the contract at contract award. Offerors are not to include Other Direct Costs in their proposals.

Government Estimate for Level of Effort*

Functional Area Positions/ Labor Categories

Base Yr - 12 Months

Opt Yr 1 - 12 Months

Opt Yr 2 – 12 Months

Opt Yr 3 - 12 Months

Opt Yr 4 - 12 Months

Program Manager (K) 1,920 (1) 1,920 (1) 1,920 (1) 1,920 (1) 1,920 (1) Other Management Positions (K) 1,920 (1) 1,920 (1) 1,920 (1) 1,920 (1) 1,920 (1) Plans, Policies, Procedures Specialist 1,920 (1) 1,920 (1) 1,920 (1) 1,920 (1) 1,920 (1) Security Training & OPSEC Specialist 1,920 (1) 1,920 (1) 1,920 (1) 1,920 (1) 1,920 (1) International Security Specialist 7,680 (4) 7,680(4) 7,680(4) 7,680(4) 7,680(4) Personnel Security Specialist 7,680 (4) 7,680 (4) 7,680 (4) 7,680 (4) 7,680 (4) Intelligence/Counterintelligence Analyst (K)

7,680 (4) 9,600(5) 9,600 (5) 9,600 (5) 9,600 (5)

Information/Industrial Security Specialist

5,760 (3) 7,680 (4) 7,680 (4) 7,680 (4) 7,680 (4)

Program Security Representative 72,960 (38) 74,880 (39) 76,800 (40) 78,720 (41) 80,640 (42) Information Assurance Specialist (K) 19,200 (10) 19,200 (10) 21,120 (11) 23,040 (12) 24,960 (13) Database/Web Systems Administrator 5,760 (3) 5,760 (3) 5,760 (3) 5,760 (3) 5,760 (3) Security Assistant 24,960 (13) 24,960 (13) 26,880 (14) 28,800 (15) 28,800 (15) International Cooperation (International Relations Specialist (K)

5,760 (3) 7,680 (4) 7,680 (4) 7,680 (4) 7,680 (4)

Freedom of Information Act Specialist 5,760 (3) 5,760 (3) 5,760 (3) 5,760 (3) 5,760 (3) Polygrapher (K) 1,920 (1) 1,920 (1) 1,920 (1) 1,920 (1) 1,920 (1) Privacy Specialist (K) 1,920 (1) 1,920 (1) 1,920 (1) 1,920 (1) 1,920 (1) Budget Analyst (K) 1,920 (1) 1,920 (1) 1,920 (1) 1,920 (1) 1,920 (1) Totals 176,640 (92) 184,320(96) 190,080(99) 195,840

(102) 199,680

(104) *For each Labor Category and period, the Government Estimate for the level of effort is shown in hours and is followed in parentheses by a conversion of the hours to Full Time Equivalents (FTEs). For estimating purposes, the Government defines an FTE as 1,920 hours a year, which is estimated based on roughly a week and a half of federal holidays and two and a half weeks of employee leave. K = key personnel The total hours shown are the total hours anticipated for contract performance. If the Offeror proposes any Supervisors/Leads in non-Key Personnel positions, hours and headcount should be reduced from these positions and added to the hours and headcount shown for Other Management Positions.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

M.1. Evaluation Criteria - The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine the Offeror’s understanding, ability and approach to performing the contract requirements. The Government will make a determination of the overall value of each proposal in terms of its potential to best satisfy the needs of the Government, proposed cost/price, and other factors considered. The Offeror’s technical capability is measured by the non-cost factors (Technical Approach, Personnel, and Past Performance) below. The first two non-cost factors (Technical Approach and Personnel) are of equal importance and are both of greater importance than Factor (III), Past Performance. The three non-cost factors combined are significantly more important than the Cost/Price factor. The Other factor, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, when applicable, is less important than the Cost/Price factor. Although the three non-cost factors are significantly more important than cost/price, the importance of cost/price as a factor will increase as the three non-cost factors of the proposal become closer in merit. Offerors are advised that an unacceptable consensus score in any one or more of the three non-cost evaluation factors may render the entire proposal technically unacceptable. The Government will evaluate Offerors’ proposals based on the following factors and subfactors:

I. Technical Approach

(a) Understanding of the Statement of Work*

The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates an in-depth understanding of the types of the tasks/subtasks under the Statement of Work.

The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates that it understands how these tasks are generally conducted within the framework of this organization and its mission.

The degree to which the Offeror provides insight into any risks associated with the tasks and demonstrates an effective mitigation of those risks.

The likelihood that the Offeror’s proposed approach to meeting the requirements of the solicitation would cause significant disruption of schedule, increased costs, or degraded performance, (i.e., proposal risk).

(b) Management Plan and Execution of Contract Requirements*

The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates processes, procedures, and supervision that will assure timeliness, quality, cost control, and customer satisfaction of the contract requirements in the Statement of Work.

And further, the degree to which the indicated processes, procedures, and supervision demonstrates an effective, efficient, and comprehensive approach to the management and execution of these requirements.

The degree to which the Offeror provides insight into any risks associated with its management and execution of the contract requirements as well as demonstrates an effective mitigation of those risks.

The extent to which the Offeror identifies innovative management practices that promote initiative and demonstrate benefit to the Government, (e.g., streamlines processes and supervision; lowers cost to managing and executing effort; lowers risk of schedule slips, increased costs, or degraded performance; etc).

The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates an approach to effectively communicate with its team members and the government customer.

The extent to which the Offeror provides a transition-in plan that demonstrates an orderly transition process that results in a fully functioning staff in place and able to carry out the tasks in the SOW at the conclusion of the transition-in period.

The likelihood that the Offeror’s proposed approach to meeting the requirements

(c) Staffing Plan/Teaming Arrangements*

The degree to which the Offeror’s Staffing Plan and Teaming Arrangements demonstrates the capability to provide a high quality professional staff/team in a security services environment that can respond to all functional areas, tasks, and subtasks in the Statement of Work.

The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a Staffing Plan and Teaming Arrangements that can quickly respond to temporary surge requirements.

The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a Staffing Plan and Teaming Arrangements that can quickly respond to staff turnover.

The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a Staffing Plan and Teaming Arrangements that can quickly respond to shifting emphasis between work areas or tasks within the statement of work.

The extent to which the Offeror identifies innovative management practices that demonstrate benefit to the Government, (e.g., corporate benefits and strategies to hire and retain high performing employees).

The adequacy of the Offeror’s proposed Training Plan.

The degree to which the Offeror provides insight into any risks associated with the Staffing Plan and Teaming Arrangements and demonstrates an effective mitigation of those risks.

The likelihood that the Offeror’s proposed approach to meeting the requirements

(d) Corporate Support/Facilities*

The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates that its corporate philosophy, structure, physical facilities, in-house support staff, and any other features of its operation might enhance or otherwise support the project.

The degree to which the Offeror, both prime and subcontractors, meet the requirement for having a TOP SECRET facility clearance granted by the Department of Defense, Defense Security Service.

The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates the provision of unclassified, collaterally classified, SAP and SCI security support in a multi-disciplined security environment.

The likelihood that the Offeror’s proposed approach to meeting the requirements of the solicitation would cause significant disruption of schedule, increased costs, or degraded performance, (i.e., proposal risk).

*Sub-factors (a) through (c) of Factor I above are of equal importance and are each of higher importance than Sub-factor (d).

II. Past Performance

*All sub-factors of Factor (III) above are of equal importance.

V. Other

Small Business Subcontracting Plans submitted in accordance with FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS 252.219-7003 will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed participation of small businesses in performance of the contract complies with the small business subcontracting goals contained in Public Law 15 U.S.C. 644(g). The government will evaluate the extent to which small business firms and historically black colleges or universities and minority institutions are specifically identified in proposals and the extent of participation of small businesses and historically black colleges or universities and minority institutions in terms of the value of the total acquisition.

M.2. BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government intends to award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, is determined to be the best value to the

Government, cost and other factors considered. The determination of which proposal provides the best value to the Government will be made utilizing the tradeoff process where the non-cost factors combined are significantly more important than the Cost/Price factor. The Other factor, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, when applicable, is less important than the Cost/Price factor.

(End of Summary of Changes)