N00024-18-R-5310-0003.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 amendment is to:

1) Delete CLINs 1107 and 1209.

2) Provide an updated attachment J-S8.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 13

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 14-Aug-2018

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 N0002418R5310

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

19-Jul-2018

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 4 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

14-Aug-2018

CODE

NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND

1333 ISAAC HULL AVENUE

WASHINGTON NAVY YARD DC 20376

N00024 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N0002418R5310

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 1107

The CLIN description has changed from MK 41 MOD 15 VLS MECHANICAL to DELETED.

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

MANUFACTURE, ASSEMBLE, AND TEST MK 41 MOD 15 VLS MECHANICAL COMPONENTSNOTES A

and G

To:

DELETED

SUBCLIN 1107AA

The CLIN description has changed from MK 41 MOD 15 VLS MODULE MECH to DELETED.

MANUFACTURE, ASSEMBLE, AND TEST MK 41 MOD 15 VLS MODULE MECHANICAL

COMPONENTSNOTES A, E, and G

SUBCLIN 1107AB

The CLIN description has changed from VLS MECH ANCILLARY to DELETED.

MANUFACTURE, ASSEMBLE, AND TEST VLS MECHANICAL ANCILLARY COMPONENTSNOTES A, E,

SUBCLIN 1107AC

The CLIN description has changed from VLS SILL ADAPTER ASSEMBLIES to DELETED.

MANUFACTURE, ASSEMBLE, AND TEST VLS SILL ADAPTER ASSEMBLIESNOTES A, E, and G

CLIN 1209

The CLIN description has changed from MK 41 MOD 15 VLS MECHANICAL to DELETED.

MANUFACTURE, ASSEMBLE, AND TEST MK 41 MOD 15 VLS MECHANICAL COMPONENTSNOTES A

SUBCLIN 1209AA

The CLIN description has changed from MK 41 MOD 15 VLS MODULE MECH to DELETED.

MANUFACTURE, ASSEMBLE, AND TEST MK 41 MOD 15 VLS MODULE MECHANICAL

COMPONENTSNOTES A, E, and G

SUBCLIN 1209AB

The CLIN description has changed from VLS MECH ANCILLARY to DELETED.

MANUFACTURE, ASSEMBLE, AND TEST VLS MECHANICAL ANCILLARY COMPONENTSNOTES A, E,

SUBCLIN 1209AC

The CLIN description has changed from VLS SILL ADAPTER ASSEMBLIES to DELETED.

MANUFACTURE, ASSEMBLE, AND TEST VLS SILL ADAPTER ASSEMBLIESNOTES A, E, and G

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The following have been modified:

List of Solicitation Attachments:

J-S1 Terms of Use Agreement

J-S2 Question Submittal Form

J-S3 Electronic CLIN Pricing (rev 08-01) (excluding stepladder CLINs)

J-S4 Mechanical CLIN Pricing (rev 08-01) (excluding stepladder CLINs)

J-S5 CDRL Price Group – Electronic

J-S6 CDRL Price Group – Mechanical

J-S7 Press Release Information Form

J-S8 CLIN Matrix (rev 08-13) (for informational purposes)

The following document(s), exhibit(s), and other attachment(s) form a part of this contract:

Exhibits A-B, Electronics Contract Data Requirements List, DD Form 1423, 46 pages

Exhibits C-D, Mechanical Contract Data Requirements List, DD Form 1423, 46 pages

List of Attachments:

1. Statement of Work Vertical Launching System Electronic, 30 pages, and Appendices A - D

Appendixes:

A. Electronic Parts List- rev 1, 67 pages

B. Electronic Option Item Stepladder Price, (Offeror to Propose)

C. Deck and Hatch Assembly Cross Reference, 7 pages

D. Module and Ancillary Cable Kits, 1 page

2. Statement of Work Vertical Launching System Mechanical, 28 pages, and Appendices A - B

Appendix:

A. Parts List, 25 pages

B. Mechanical Option Item Stepladder Price, (Offeror to Propose)

3. VLS Technical Data Package (TDP) and associated drawings.

4. SLS98-1 VLS Test Assessment Plan, 12 pages

5. Configuration Management Plan for the MK 41 Vertical Launch System, Vol. 1 Equipment

(Hardware) Configuration Management, 109 pages

6. Production Readiness Review Plan, 18 pages

7. Instruction for Contractor Registration Access for VLS Interface Control Documents and

Corporate Data Management System Registration, 1 page

8. MK 41 VLS Standing Instruction 94-1F, 11 pages

9. MK 41 VLS MODs 0/2/7/15 Technical Manual, SW394--AF--MMO--010/VLS Revision 4, and associated Maintenance Requirement Cards.

10. MK 41 Vertical Launching System Packaging and Transportation Plan, 56 pages

11. Government Furnished Property (Electronic) rev 1 dated 08 August 2018*

12. Contract Security Classification Specification, DD Form 254, 4 Pages

13. Make or Buy Program (Offeror to Propose), TBD pages

14. Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Offeror to Propose), TBD pages

15. DFARS 252.227-7017 Identification and Assertion of Restrictions on the Government’s Use, release or Disclosure of Technical Data or Computer Software, incorporated upon award, if applicable (Offeror to propose)

16. DFARS 252.227-7018 Technical Data or Computer Software Previously Delivered to the

Government, incorporated upon award, if applicable (Offeror to propose)

17. Supplemental Information – Noncommercial Technical Data, Noncommercial Computer

Software, Noncommercial Computer Software Documentation, incorporated upon award, if applicable (Offeror to propose)

18. Commercial Technical Data, Commercial Computer Software, and Commercial Computer

Software Documentation – Government Use Restrictions, incorporated upon award, if applicable (Offeror to propose)

At contract award, the Contracting Officer reserves the right to unilaterally incorporate the successful offeror’s proposed Attachment(s), 1 Appendix B, 2 Appendix B, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 and/or all, some, or none of the successful offeror’s proposal.

*If there are two separate awards, Attachment 11 is only applicable to the electronic requirement and will be removed and listed as RESERVED in the mechanical requirements.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

Note: The following section applies to both the Electronic and Mechanical requirements and Offerors.

1.0 General

There may be one contract awarded for the electronic requirements and one for the mechanical requirements, to

Offeror(s) whose proposals are technically acceptable and are the lowest price. If the same Offeror is the lowest price technically acceptable for both the electronic and mechanical requirements, only one award may be made.

Therefore, the Government may award one Firm Fixed Price contract for electronic requirements and a separate

Firm Fixed Price contract for mechanical requirements, or one Firm Fixed Price contract for both the electronic and mechanical requirements. Offerors who propose for both efforts may be awarded either the electronic or the mechanical requirements, or both in the event the same Offeror is selected under the source selection criteria.

The following scenarios illustrate the award decision process:

Scenario 1:

Offerors Electronic Mechanical

A $10 $15

B $12 -

C - $14

D $15 $22

Award Offeror A Offeror C

Under this scenario, assuming Offerors A and C are technically acceptable, electronic requirements would be awarded to Offeror A and mechanical requirements would be awarded to Offeror C.

Scenario 2:

Offerors Electronic Mechanical

A $10 $15

B $12 -

C - $14

D $9 $11

Award Offeror D Offeror D

Under this scenario, assuming Offeror D is technically acceptable, electronic and mechanical requirements would be awarded to Offeror D under one contract. Note that in the event that one Offeror is selected for both the electronic and mechanical requirements, the mechanical requirements shall be CFE vice GFE.

Offers will be evaluated solely utilizing the factors detailed in this solicitation. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (see FAR 52.215-1(f)(4)). Materially unbalanced pricing may result in proposal rejection (see FAR 52.215-1(f)(8)).

The Government will evaluate each offeror’s understanding of the Government’s requirements and ability to perform the work. It is the offeror’s responsibility to provide information and evidence which clearly demonstrates its ability to satisfactorily perform the contract requirements stated in the solicitation. All information submitted as part of the proposal will be used to evaluate the offeror’s capability to perform and understanding of the solicitation requirements.

The Government reserves the right to award no contracts at all depending upon the quality of proposals received and the availability of funds.

Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions and representations and certifications (Section K) and to provide all information required by Section L of this solicitation. Failure to comply with all of the solicitation requirements may result in the removal of the Offeror from consideration for award and eliminate from the competition.

An “Unacceptable” rating for any single factor will render the entire proposal ineligible for award.

SECTIONS 2-4 ARE APPLICABLE TO MK 41 VERTICAL LAUNCHING SYSTEMS ELECTRONIC

REQUIREMENTS AND OFFERORS ONLY:

The evaluation methodology is set forth as follows for MK 41 Vertical Launching Systems Electronic

Requirements:

Items 0001-0010, 0014-0023, 0100, 0500-0506, and (if options are exercised) Items 0011-0013, 0024-0058, 0099, 0137- 0158, 0237-0258, 0301-0304, 0337-0358, 0437-0458, 0507-0520, 0600-0621, and 0700-0706.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal according to the following factors:

Factor 1: Technical Approach and Capability

Factor 2: Physical Plant

Factor 3: Resources

Factor 4: Subcontractor Management

Factor 5: Past Performance

Factor 6: Price (Total Evaluated Price)

Acceptability determinations will be made for Factors 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

3.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

3.1 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH AND CAPABILITY

The Technical Approach and Capability factor will be rated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. In order to be acceptable, the Offeror’s proposal shall clearly demonstrate its technical approach and capability to perform the work statement items and demonstrate its understanding of the TDP and capability of producing a quality product

IAW the delivery schedule. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s proposed technical approach and capability demonstrates an acceptable approach to meeting the solicitation requirements.

3.2 FACTOR 2: PHYSICAL PLANT

The Physical Plant factor will be rated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. In order to be acceptable, the Offeror’s proposal shall clearly describe its infrastructure for manufacturing and testing capability and capacity for the production of high quality products that will be delivered to the Government on schedule. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s proposed approach and infrastructure demonstrates an acceptable approach and plan for passing Production Readiness Reviews and infrastructure for manufacturing and testing capability and capacity to meeting the solicitation requirements.

3.3 FACTOR 3: RESOURCES

The Resources factor will be rated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. In order to be acceptable, the Offeror’s proposed staffing plan shall clearly demonstrate that the Offeror can provide engineering staff to execute contract requirements. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s proposed resources demonstrates an acceptable existing production support engineering staff to meeting the solicitation requirements.

3.4 FACTOR 4: SUBCONTRACTOR MANAGEMENT

The Subcontractor Management factor will be rated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s proposed subcontractor management approach demonstrates an acceptable approach

3.5 FACTOR 5: PAST PERFORMANCE

The Past Performance factor will be rated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. The Government will use information provided by the Offeror, as well as any other information deemed necessary to assess the Offeror's ability to meet the solicitation requirements. This assessment will be based on a demonstrated record of past performance, taking into consideration the recency and relevancy of the past performance data. The Government may also evaluate the past performance of an Offeror's proposed major subcontractors. In the investigation of an

Offeror's past performance, the Government reserves the right to contact former customers, Government agencies and other private and public sources of information.

In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the

Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, unknown past performance shall be considered acceptable.

3.6 FACTOR 6: PRICE – TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE

Only pricing entered on Section B of the SF 33 will be considered when determining the evaluated price for the non-stepladder CLINs. Only pricing provided in Attachment 1 Appendix B will be considered when determining the evaluated price for the stepladder CLINs. The Government will arrive at a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) by utilizing the methodology described below:

Step 1 - CLINs 0001-0036, 0043-0047, 0049, 0099, 0143-0147, 0149, 0243-0247, 0249, 0301-0304, 0343-0347, 0349, 0443-0447, 0449, 0500-0506, 0510-0513, 0517-0520, 0603-0606, 0610-0613, 0617-0621, and 0703-0706 will be added together at the maximum quantity level to develop the evaluated price.

Step 2 - The stepladder pricing for CLINs 0037-0042, 0048, 0050-0058, 0137-0142, 0148, 0150-0158, 0237-0242, 0248, 0250-0258, 0337-0342, 0348, 0350-0358, 0437-0442, 0448, 0450-0458, 0507-0509, 0514-0516, 0600-0602, 0607-0609, 0614-0616, and 0700-0702 will be evaluated by comparing the product of a randomly selected evaluated quantity (EQ) for each CLIN and the unit price associated with the randomly selected quantity for the CLIN.

Offerors are hereby advised the EQ in no way restricts the Government as to the number of units it may order under each line item. It is used solely for evaluation purposes. The Government reserves the right to order any quantity within a stepladder subject to the availability of funding at time of initial award or option exercise.

Step 3 (Final Step) - The Government will determine a TEP for each offer by adding together the prices of all max quantity non-stepladder CLINs and the EQ of stepladder CLINs.

FAR 52.215-1(f)(8) applies here, and states

The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

4.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government will evaluate all Offerors' price proposals to determine their Total Evaluated Price (TEP) first, in accordance with Section M Paragraph 3.6 of this solicitation. The technical proposal of the Offeror with the lowest

TEP will then be evaluated for technical acceptability. If the Offeror with the lowest TEP is found to be technically acceptable, the Government will not evaluate the technical acceptability of any other proposals. If the Offeror with the lowest TEP is found to be technically unacceptable, then the Government will evaluate the technical acceptability of the Offeror with the next lowest TEP, and will continue in this fashion until a technically acceptable Offeror is determined. If at any point in this process, the Government determines that it is necessary to enter into discussions, the Government may evaluate the technical proposals of all Offerors not otherwise excluded from competition.

Offerors are notified that, in accordance with FAR clause 52.215-1, which is incorporated in Section L, the

Government intends to make an award on the basis of initial proposals without conducting discussions. The

Government will not perform a tradeoff analysis in its evaluation. Award will be made to the responsive and responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government. The best value to the Government is that proposal determined by the Government to offer the LOWEST PRICE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE. Award will be made on the basis of the proposal with the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP) meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors (Total Evaluated Price is defined in Section M Paragraph 3.6). To be technically acceptable, the proposal must be acceptable in Factor 1, Factor 2, Factor 3, Factor 4, and Factor 5. If any technical (non-price) factor is unacceptable, then the entire proposal will be unacceptable regardless of price.

Factors 1 – 4 (Technical Approach and Capability, Physical Plant, Resources, Subcontractor Management) will be characterized as acceptable or unacceptable as follows in Table M-1:

Table M-1: Evaluation Rating Table for Factor 1 through Factor 4

Factor 5 (Past Performance) shall be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305 and DFARS 215.305. However, the comparative assessment in FAR 15.305(a)(2)(i) does not apply. Therefore, past performance will be characterized as acceptable or unacceptable as follows in Table M-2:

Table M-2: Evaluation Rating Table for Factor 5 Past Performance

Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the

Offeror’s performance record is unknown. (see note below)

Unacceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

SECTIONS 5-7 ARE APPLICABLE TO MK 41 VERTICAL LAUNCHING SYSTEMS MECHANICAL

REQUIREMENTS AND OFFERORS ONLY:

The evaluation methodology is set forth as follows for MK 41 Vertical Launching Systems Mechanical

Requirements:

Items 1001-1004(AA, AB, & AC), 1100, 1500, 1501, 1503, 1504, 1506, and (if options are exercised) Items 1027-

1032, 1037, 1039, 1041, 1049, 1050, 1059-1069, 1099, 1105-1106(AA, AB & AC), 1137, 1139, 1141, 1149, 1150, 1159-1169, 1207-1208(AA, AB, & AC), 1237, 1239, 1241, 1249, 1250, 1259-1269, 1301(AA, AB, & AC), 1303(AA, AB, & AC), 1309-1313(AA, AB, & AC), 1337, 1339, 1341, 1349, 1350, 1359-1369, 1437, 1439, 1441, 1449, 1450, 1459-1469, 1507, 1508, 1510, 1511, 1513-1515, 1517, 1518, 1520, 1600, 1601, 1603,1604, 1606-1608, 1610, 1611, 1613-1615, 1617, 1618, 1620, 1700, 1701, 1703, 1704, and 1706

5.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal according to the following factors:

Factor 1: Technical Approach and Capability

Factor 2: Physical Plant

Factor 3: Resources

Factor 4: Subcontractor Management

Factor 5: Past Performance

Factor 6: Price (Total Evaluated Price)

Acceptability determinations will be made for Factors 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

6.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

6.1 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH AND CAPABILITY

The Technical Approach and Capability factor will be rated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. In order to be acceptable, the Offeror’s proposal shall clearly demonstrate its technical approach and capability to perform the work statement items and demonstrate its understanding of the TDP and capability of producing a quality product

IAW the delivery schedule. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s proposed technical approach and capability demonstrates an acceptable approach to meeting the solicitation requirements.

6.2 FACTOR 2: PHYSICAL PLANT

The Physical Plant factor will be rated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. In order to be acceptable, the Offeror’s proposal shall clearly describe its infrastructure for manufacturing and testing capability and capacity for the production of high quality products that will be delivered to the Government on schedule. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s proposed approach and infrastructure demonstrates an acceptable approach and plan for passing Production Readiness Reviews and infrastructure for manufacturing and testing capability and capacity

6.3 FACTOR 3: RESOURCES

The Resources factor will be rated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. In order to be acceptable, the Offeror’s proposed staffing plan shall clearly demonstrate that the Offeror can provide engineering staff to execute contract requirements. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s proposed resources demonstrates an acceptable existing production support engineering staff to meeting the solicitation requirements.

6.4 FACTOR 4: SUBCONTRACTOR MANAGEMENT

The Subcontractor Management factor will be rated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s proposed subcontractor management approach demonstrates an acceptable approach

6.5 FACTOR 5: PAST PERFORMANCE

The Past Performance factor will be rated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. The Government will use information provided by the Offeror, as well as any other information deemed necessary to assess the Offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements. This assessment will be based on a demonstrated record of past performance, taking into consideration the recency and relevancy of the past performance data. The Government may also evaluate the past performance of an Offeror’s proposed subcontractors. In the investigation of an Offeror’s past performance, the Government reserves the right to contact former customers, Government agencies and other private and public sources of information.

In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the

Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, unknown past performance shall be considered acceptable.

6.6 FACTOR 6: PRICE – TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE

Only pricing entered on Section B of the SF 33 will be considered when determining the evaluated price for the non-stepladder CLINs/SLINs. Only pricing provided in Attachment 2 Appendix B will be considered when determining the evaluated price for the stepladder CLINs. The Government will arrive at a Total Evaluated Price

(TEP) by utilizing the methodology described below:

Step 1 - CLINs/SLINs 1001-1004(AA, AB, & AC), 1027-1032, 1049, 1099, 1105-1106(AA, AB, & AC), 1149, 1207-1208(AA, AB, & AC), 1249, 1301(AA, AB, & AC), 1303(AA, AB, & AC), 1309-1313(AA, AB, & AC), 1349, 1449, 1500, 1501, 1503, 1504, 1506, 1510, 1511, 1513, 1517, 1518, 1520, 1603, 1604, 1606, 1610, 1611, 1613, 1617, 1618, 1620, 1703,1704, and 1706 will be added together at the maximum quantity level to develop the

TEP.

Step 2 - The stepladder pricing for CLINs 1037, 1039, 1041, 1050, 1059-1069, 1137, 1139, 1141, 1150, 1159-1169, 1237, 1239, 1241, 1250, 1259-1269, 1337, 1339, 1341, 1350, 1359-1369, 1437, 1439, 1441, 1450, 1459-1469, 1507, 1508, 1514, 1515, 1600, 1601, 1607, 1608, 1614, 1615, 1700, and 1701 will be evaluated by comparing the product of a randomly selected evaluated quantity (EQ) for each CLIN and the unit price associated with the randomly selected quantity for the CLIN.

Offerors are hereby advised the EQ in no way restricts the Government as to the number of units it may order under each line item. It is used solely for evaluation purposes. The Government reserves the right to order any quantity within a stepladder subject to the availability of funding at time of initial award or option exercise.

Step 3 (Final Step) - The Government will determine a TEP for each offer by adding together the prices of all max quantity non-stepladder CLINs and the EQ of stepladder CLINs.

FAR 52.215-1(f)(8) applies here, and states

The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

7.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government will evaluate all Offerors' price proposals to determine their Total Evaluated Price (TEP) first, in accordance with Section M Paragraph 6.6 of this solicitation. The technical proposal of the Offeror with the lowest

TEP will then be evaluated for technical acceptability. If the Offeror with the lowest TEP is found to be technically acceptable, the Government will not evaluate the technical acceptability of any other proposals. If the Offeror with the lowest TEP is found to be technically unacceptable, then the Government will evaluate the technical acceptability of the Offeror with the next lowest TEP, and will continue in this fashion until a technically acceptable Offeror is determined. If at any point in this process, the Government determines that it is necessary to enter into discussions, the Government may evaluate the technical proposals of all Offerors not otherwise excluded from competition.

Offerors are notified that, in accordance with FAR clause 52.215-1, which is incorporated in Section L, the

Government intends to make an award on the basis of initial proposals without conducting discussions. The

Government will not perform a tradeoff analysis in its evaluation. Award will be made to the responsive and responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government. The best value to the Government is that proposal determined by the Government to offer the LOWEST PRICE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE. Award will be made on the basis of the proposal with the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP) meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors (Total Evaluated Price is defined in Section M Paragraph 6.6). To be technically acceptable, the proposal must be acceptable in Factor 1, Factor 2, Factor 3, Factor 4, and Factor 5. If any technical (non-price) factor is unacceptable, then the entire proposal will be unacceptable regardless of price.

Factors 1 – 4 (Technical Approach and Capability, Physical Plant, Resources, Subcontractor Management) will be characterized as acceptable or unacceptable as follows in Table M-3:

Table M-3: Evaluation Rating Table for Factor 1 thru Factor 4

Factor 5 (Past Performance) shall be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305 and DFARS 215.305. However, the comparative assessment in FAR 15.305(a)(2)(i) does not apply. Therefore, past performance will be characterized as acceptable or unacceptable as follows in Table M-4:

Table M-4: Evaluation Rating Table for Factor 5 Past Performance

Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the

Offeror’s performance record is unknown. (see note below)

Unacceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

(End of Summary of Changes)