N00024-20-R-4400-0002.pdf

N0002419FR62007

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:

-Revise Section J as indicated herein.

-Revise Note D language as indicated herein.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 11

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 20-Feb-2020

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 N0002420R4400

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

17-Jan-2020

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

20-Feb-2020

CODE

NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND

1333 ISAAC HULL AVE SE

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:

N0002420R4400

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

The following have been modified:

NOTE D: SCHEDULE OF DAILY RATES FOR PIERSIDE AND DRY DOCKING (FULLY BURDENED)

FOR PURPOSES OF A COMPENSABLE EXTENSION TO THE DELIVERY DATE

1. In the event of a compensable extension to the delivery date, the Contractor’s fully burdened daily rates as outlined within this Note will be used for negotiating additional dry-dock and/or pierside performance days at the contractor’s facility under this contract.

2. The contractor agrees that the daily rates shall include all costs that run with time associated with additional performance days in accordance with the work package specification requirements of this availability. The daily rates shall include all costs associated with additional performance days (whether charged directly or indirectly by the offeror’s accounting systems) including but not limited to:

Temporary Services, including but not limited to:

o Decking services o Pumping services

Internet Connectivity

Air Conditioning

Support Services for the Navy, its agents and contractors

Facilities, including but not limited to:

o Piers o Office spaces o Trailers o Parking o Flammable Liquid Storage and Hazardous Material Storage o Material Warehousing and Lay-down space

Project Management and other labor costs that run with time including but not limited to:

o Program Management o Supervision o Integration & Scheduling o Cleaning (except tank cleaning) o Quality Assurance o Execution Planning o Security o Administration o Contracts o Purchasing o Other indirect support o Safety/Environmental

Transportation

3. The fully burdened daily rates are fixed rates that include all wages, overhead, all other indirect costs, general and administrative expenses, Facilities Capital Cost of Money (FCCOM) and profit.

4. The contract’s fixed fully burdened daily rates for pierside and dry-docking are shown below. These rates are to be used during the availability’s extension period, up to 24 months after the attachment J-3 “Contract

Complete” date. These fixed rates shall be used for additional docking and pierside days:

USS PREBLE FY20 DMP Additional Day requiring

Availability Extension

Additional Day does not require

Availability Extension

Additional Dry-Docking Day TBD TBD

Additional Pierside Day TBD

5. The Contractor bears the burden of proving the requested extension is compensable. The Contractor agrees that, in the event of such an extension, a bilateral modification will be executed with the price of the extension calculated as follows:

Total Price of Extension = D(e) * (P/D)

D(e) = Agreed Extension Days to the Delivery Date

(P/D) = Price/Day entered in “Daily Extension Rate” tab of Attachment J-4

The Price/Day will be utilized to execute any modifications to extend the contract, regardless of the number of modifications or the number of days required to meet the Schedule Milestone “Contract Complete” within 24 months of the “Contract Complete” date. All terms and conditions under the contract apply to all modifications to extend the delivery date. If the Contracting Officer determines a delay in meeting the “Schedule Milestone” is not compensable, no modification will be executed and the contractor will be directed to continue work until certified

‘Contract Complete’ by the RMC. Additionally, if the Contracting Officer and Contractor are unable to reach an agreement on the number of days required to extend the delivery date, the Government reserves the right to execute a unilateral modification utilizing the equation above. Failure to agree on whether a compensable extension is appropriate or the duration of any delivery date extension shall be a dispute subject to the requirements of FAR

52.233-1 ‘Disputes.’

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

DOCUMENTS/EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS

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

No. Document

Attachment S-1 Manpower Utilization Data Sheet

Attachment S-2 Past Performance CPARS References

Attachment S-3 Pre-Proposal Information (PPI) Form

Attachment S-4 Manpower Plan to Actual Data Sheet

Attachment S-5 Eligibility Criteria Data Sheet (A0001)

Attachment S-6 Value Adjusted Total Evaluated Price Reduction Tables

Attachment S-7 Proposal Assessment

Attachment S-8 Pier and Dry-dock Graphical Representation Template

Attachment S-9 Past Performance Questionnaire

The following document(s), exhibit(s), and other attachment(s) also form a part of this solicitation and will form a part of the contract resulting from this solicitation:

Attachment J-1 Specification Package TPPC-DDG88-SWRMC20-CN01 (Addendum 1, Errata 1, Errata

2, Errata 3, Errata 4, Errata 5, Errata 6, Errata 7, Errata 8)

Attachment J-2 Work Item Plans, Drawings, and Other References (Errata 5)

Attachment J-3 Execution Milestones and Key Event Dates

Attachment J-4 Pricing Workbook (A0002)

Attachment J-5 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

Attachment J-6 Subcontracting Plan (to be incorporated upon award)

Attachment J-7 Schedule Model Review

Attachment J-8 Fallout System Status List

Exhibit A Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) (DD Form 1423) A001-A003; A005-A009; A011; A012;

A014-A016 (A0002)

(Does not include A004, A0010, or A0013)

Exhibit B Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) (DD Form 1423) B001-B009

Exhibit C Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) (DD Form 1423) C001-C002

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

I. GENERAL

A. The Government intends to award a single Fixed-Price contract for the completion of the USS PREBLE

(DDG 88) FY20 DMP to the Offeror whose proposal represents the Best Value to the Government.

B. Offerors are advised that the Government intends to make award on the basis of initial proposals without conducting discussions with Offerors, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined by the

Contracting Officer to be necessary (see paragraph (f)(4) of FAR 52.215-1). Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

C. Offerors are advised that the Government will not evaluate any proposal information not contained within the body of the proposal.

II. BASIS OF AWARD

A. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an assessment of non-price factors/Sub-factors and Cost/Price. A contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104, whose proposal conforms to the RFP’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and represents the best value to the Government utilizing trade-offs, in accordance with the evaluation criteria.

B. The best value basis for award will be based on the following evaluation factors:

1. Non- Price Factors

a) Factor 1: Eligibility Factor

b) Factor 2: Schedule & Resource Capacity

(1) Sub-factor A: Manpower

(2) Sub-factor B: Physical Resource Capacity

(3) Sub-factor C: Integrated Product Schedule (IPS)

c) Factor 3: Past Performance

2. Cost/Price Factor

a) Factor 4: Price

C. Ratings will be applied to each factor as follows:

a) Non-price Factor 1 in terms of acceptable or non-acceptable

b) An overall adjectival rating from section IV below for Non-Price Factor 2, as well as an adjectival ratings for each Subfactor under Factor 2.

c) A performance confidence rating from section IV below for Non-Price Factor 3.

D. The Government will first evaluate Factor 1, Eligibility for acceptability. If an Offeror is found to be unacceptable for Factor 1, then the Government reserves the right not to conduct additional evaluation.

Overall, Non-Price factors, when combined, are considered significantly more important than the Price

Factor. Factor 2 is significantly more important than Factor 3. No ratings will be assigned to sub-factors.

The importance of price as an evaluation factor will increase as the difference in Non-Price Factors among competing proposals decreases. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the benefits associated with award to the higher price Offeror outweigh the difference in price. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation.

III. EVALUATION FACTOR DESCRIPTIONS

A. Factor 1 – Eligibility Factor:

The objective of this factor is to:

1. Assess whether, upon receipt of proposals, the Offeror holds a Master Ship Repair Agreement (MSRA) or has demonstrated equivalency as outlined in Section L, subsection V.B.1 Factor 1.

2. Assess whether the Offeror has ownership or committed access to a pier capable of berthing the vessel, and has ownership or committed access to a dry dock capable of docking the vessel, in accordance with Section

L.

3. Assess if the proposed dry-dock is certified in accordance with MIL-STD-1625D, and remains certified from “Avail Start” through “Contract Complete” as outlined in Attachment J-3; and should the dry-dock certification in accordance with MIL-STD-1625D lapse anytime during the proposed docking period, the

Offeror has adequately described a plan for recertification.

B. Factor 2 – Schedule & Resource Capacity:

Basis of Evaluation - The objective of this factor is to evaluate the Offeror's response to the Section L requirements for this factor, as follows:

1. The Government will evaluate Factor 2, Subfactor A, Manpower to:

a) Assess the extent to which the Offeror’s narrative demonstrates a detailed, substantiated and complete understanding of how the Offeror will provide efficient manpower to successfully complete the

Availability’s requirements as proposed, accounting for:

a. the Offeror’s current man day performance as shown in the Offeror’s current

Progress/Manning data.

b. the Offeror’s workload during the current period.

c. the Government’s understanding of the port-wide workload during the Offeror’s current period.

d. the Offeror’s workload during the proposed Availability, accounting for work the Offeror currently has under contract and work the Offeror may complete, including the resources to complete ALL outstanding proposals and the resources required to complete any other anticipated requirements from “Avail Start” through “Contract Complete.”

e. the Government’s understanding of the forecasted port-wide workload from “Avail Start” through “Contract Complete.”

b) In addition, assess the extent to which the Offeror’s narrative regarding utilization of overtime, hiring additional personnel and utilization of subcontractors is supported by current manning performance and narrative.

c) Assess the extent to which the Offeror’s proposed manpower curves (total) demonstrate a detailed, substantiated and complete understanding of how the Offeror will provide the man days to successfully complete the Availability’s requirements and all existing and proposed work. The Government will assess these curves in relation to the narrative provided in Factor 2, Sub-factor A (4). Emphasis will be placed on how the Offeror plans to de-conflict anticipated manning shortfalls and manning inefficiencies.

d) Assess the extent to which the Offeror’s proposed manpower curves (trade) demonstrate a detailed, substantiated and complete understanding of how the Offeror will provide the trade manpower to successfully complete the Availability’s requirements and all existing and proposed work. The

Government will assess these curves in relation to the narrative provided in Factor 2, Sub-factor A (4).

Emphasis will be placed on how the Offeror plans to de-conflict anticipated trade manning shortfalls and manning inefficiencies.

e) As an indicator of the Offeror’s ability to man the efforts that are the subject of the proposed solicitation in accordance with the proposed manning, the Government will evaluate the adequacy of the Offeror’s prior manning performance for current projects, as defined in Section L, including planned to actual manning performance based on an evaluation of Attachment S-4, as well as the narrative in Factor 2.

2. The Government will evaluate Factor 2, Subfactor B, Physical Resource Capacity to:

a) Assess the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates the Offeror's capability to provide the required physical resources to complete the Availability. An emphasis will be placed on how the

Offeror plans to deconflict anticipated physical resource conflicts.

3. The Government will evaluate Factor 2, Subfactor C, Integrated Production Schedule for:

a) Understanding of scope and integration of the work items in the Specification Package, including all base and option items (Attachment J-1).

b) Identifying the critical path and logically sequencing work items.

c) Integrating the milestones and key events in the Execution Milestones & Key Events (Attachment J-3) reasonably.

d) Extent to which the Offeror’s narrative explains how the Offeror has schedule the performance of all work items included in the Availability work package (including both Base and Option items) so as to permit the contract scope increases described in Note F without causing delay or disruption to the work required by the aforementioned work items, to any other Government contract, or to any other work in progress for the Government, and

e) Extent to which the Offeror’s narrative explains any areas of concern or flags in the schedule found in accordance with DCMA 14 POINT SCHEDULE METRICS FOR IMS ANALYSIS.

C. Factor 3 – Past Performance:

1. The Government will measure how well an Offeror has performed on recent and relevant contracts in the past as an indicator of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements and successful performance on the current requirement.

2. The Government will evaluate the recency, relevancy and quality of an Offeror’s past performance to assess a performance confidence assessment. The Government will utilize CPARS data (Attachment S-2) where available; if CPARS data is unavailable, the Government will utilize PPQ (Attachment S-9) as provided. The Government reserves the right to evaluate any other sources of information reasonably available to the Government.

3. Assessment of past performance will be a subjective assessment based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances. The Government is seeking to determine whether based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Offeror will successfully perform the requirement.

4. In the event an Offeror receives a negative past performance rating, it will be given the opportunity to provide further explanation to the Government. Focus will be on an Offeror’s corrective measures to prevent the reoccurrence of past performance problems. Prompt actions taken to correct performance problems will be a reflection of management concern for customer satisfaction; however, such action may not mitigate all negative performance trends.

5. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The lack of a performance record will result in a neutral performance risk assessment.

D. Factor 4 - Price

1. The Government will assess price proposals in accordance with FAR 15.404 to determine reasonableness of proposed pricing based on the information contained in the Pricing Workbook (Attachment J-4). The

Government will not conduct a price realism analysis on any aspect of an Offeror’s price proposal.

Although award will be made based on an Offeror’s total price, a price proposal that is found unreasonable and/or unbalanced may be rejected. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated.

2. Total evaluated price for the availability shall be calculated by adding:

a) The price of the basic contract line item numbers (CLIN) (this amount shall match the total price of all work items),

b) The price of all option CLINs,

c) The price of all Growth Reservation CLINS (Base and Option),

d) The price of the Extension Day Rates and Fully Burdened Ship Repair Labor Rates & Material Burden

Rates for New Work,

e) If applicable, the Value Adjusted Total Evaluated Price Schedule Acceleration adjustments, and

f) As applicable, the value of the inter-port differentials (as identified in Section L of this solicitation)

3. Evaluated price for Growth Reservation CLINs, Extension Day Rates, Fully Burdened Ship Repair Labor

Rates & Material Burden Rates, and New Work shall be calculated in the following manner:

a) Growth Reservation CLINs (Base and Option)

(1) Multiply the proposed fully burdened ship repair labor rate by the number of hours associated with the specific Growth Reservation CLIN to yield the labor hour price for that CLIN.

(2) Multiply the material burden rate proposed by the dollar value of material associated with the specific Growth Reservation CLIN to yield the burdened material price for that CLIN.

(3) Add the sum of labor hour and material dollar price to find the total price for each Growth

Reservation CLIN.

b) Extension Day Price

(1) Multiply the proposed daily rate by the number of days associated with that rate (for each extension type) to yield the evaluated price for that daily extension type.

c) New Work Price

(1) Multiply the proposed fully burdened ship repair labor rate by the number of hours associated with the specific New Work labor hours to yield the total labor price for New Work.

(2) Multiply the material burden rate proposed by the dollar value of material dollars associated with

New Work to yield the burdened material price for New Work.

(3) Add the sum of labor hour and material dollar price to calculate New Work Price.

4. Offerors are advised that the number of Extension days as well as the number of labor hours and the material dollar value used to calculate the Extension Day Price and the New Work Price are for evaluation purposes only.

5. Subcontracting Plan: (For large businesses only.) The Government will assess the plan for:

a) Compliance with FAR clause 19.704; subcontracting goals identified in Section L, V.A.4.b; and FAR

52.219-9 to include all subparagraphs in FAR 52.219-9(d).

b) Adequate rationale for any proposed goals that are lower than the goals identified in Section L, V

A.4.b.

6. Value Adjusted Total Evaluated Price (VATEP) Schedule Acceleration

a) VATEP will be used to reduce the Offerors proposed price to determine the Total Evaluated Price

(TEP). Any adjustment will be incorporated in the resultant contract via Section F and the applicable

Milestones and Key Events (Attachment J-3).

7. Inter-port Differential

a) The inter-port differential chart in Section L provides the values to be included in all Offerors’ price proposals to determine the Offeror’s Total Evaluated Price. Additionally, the Government has included an Inter-port Differential Reduction for “Days Completed Early” if VATEP schedule acceleration was proposed. This results in a IPD reduction per day of VATEP proposed. The per day rate is identified in section L.

8. Pier Differential

a) The pier differential chart in Section L provides the values to be included in the price proposals of proposing to execute the pier-side portion of the Availabilities at the Everett Naval Station.

IV. EVALUATION FACTOR RATINGS

The ratings will be based on what is contained in or referenced in the proposal, not on information obtained from other sources. The adjectival ratings described below are guides; a proposal need not have all aspects of the rating description to be rated accordingly. The ratings are set as follows:

A. Factor 1

1. For Factor 1, the rating reflects whether the information submitted in response to Factor 1 meets or does not meet the minimum requirements through an assessment of the proposal. The evaluation will identify any deficiencies in Offeror’s proposals. The ratings for Factor 1 are as follows:

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

B. Factor 2

1. For Factor 2, the Offeror’s technical (non-price) proposal shall be evaluated using the adjectival ratings defined as follows:

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

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.

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

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

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

C. Factor 3

1. For Factor 3, the Offeror’s proposed past performance efforts that meet the recency standard shall be evaluated using the following relevancy and confidence definitions in assessing an overall performance confidence rating:

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.

Substantial

Confidence

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

Satisfactory

Confidence

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

Limited

Confidence

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

No

Confidence

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

Unknown

Confidence

(Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

D. Definitions:

1. Best Value means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. See FAR 2.101.

2. Competitive Range - See FAR 15.306(c).

3. Discussions are exchanges (i.e., negotiations) in a competitive environment that are undertaken with the intent of allowing the Offeror to revise its proposal. Discussions take place after establishment of the competitive range. See FAR 15.306(d).

4. Strength is an aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

5. Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See

FAR 15.001.

6. Significant Weakness means a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

7. Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

8. Risk, as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or Sub-factor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

9. Clarifications are limited exchanges between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated.

(End of Summary of Changes)