N0003019R4444_0004.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 make the follow ing changes: 1) FAR 52.212-1 Addendum Volume III Section 6 has been changed to

Section 7, 2) a new Section 6 has been added to FAR 52.212-1 Addendum Volume III, and 3) Section 5 has been added to FAR 52.212-2

Addendum.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 9

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 24-Jul-2019

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 N0003019R4444

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

30-May-2019

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

24-Jul-2019

CODE

STRATEGIC SYSTEMS PROGRAMS

1250 10TH STREET SE

SUITE 3600

WASHINGTON DC 20374-5127

N00030 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N0003019R4444

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

FAR 52.212-1 ADDENDUM: Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items

Proposals shall be received by the Government by the time and date listed in Box 8 of the SF1449 to provide the supplies/services described in this Request for Proposal (RFP). The Government will accept questions from potential offerors until noon EST on 7 June 2019. Contractors responding to this request must furnish a proposal as described below.

Proposal shall contain three (3) volumes: Volume I Executive Summary, Volume II Technical, and Volume III pricing. Volume I and II shall not include any pricing from Volume III. The following is the pages limits for each volume: Volume I page limit is 10 pages, Volume II page limit is 35 pages (an acronym table if provided will not count towards the page count limit), and there is no page limit on Volume III. The cover page and table of contents in each volume will not count towards the page count limit.

Volume I Executive Summary shall include the following:

Section 1: Cover Letter: Provide the name, title, telephone number, and e-mail address of the company/division point of contact that can contractually obligate your company. Also, identify those individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government. Lastly, provide the company name, street address, and CAGE Code for the

Contractor proposing.

Section 2: Executive Summary - General. Volume I, the Executive Summary, is a summary of the entire proposal.

It must include a short summary of the Offeror’s proposal, certain company information, and acceptance of solicitation terms and conditions. All technical and price information presented in Volume I should be for summary purposes only. Information presented in Volume I will not be considered in the Government’s Technical and Price evaluations. Any summary material presented in Volume I must not be considered as meeting the requirements for any portions of other volumes of the proposal.

Section 3: Master Table of Contents. This area must include a master table of contents of the entire proposal

(include in Volume I only).

Volume II Technical shall include the following:

Section 1: Cover Page and Table of Contents: A cover page must be the first page of the Technical Volume. A table of contents listing all subdivisions and applicable page numbers must follow the cover page.

Section 2: Past Performance.

“Past Performance” refers to the quality of the offeror's performance of work that is the same as or similar to the contract work. The offeror's past performance is different from the offeror's corporate experience. Past performance describes how well the offeror has performed work that is the same as or similar to the contract work, while corporate experience reflects whether the offeror has performed such work.

A maximum of five efforts (contracts or subcontracts) may be submitted for the entire team. The team consists of the prime contractor and the proposed subcontractors (including joint ventures). The number of past performance efforts performed by the prime that are submitted shall be equal to or greater than the total number of past performance efforts performed by the prime’s subcontractors that are included in the proposal. Past performance will only be considered by a subcontractor if they are included in the proposal as a subcontractor.

The offeror shall submit the following information for each proposed effort:

a) Contracting party or agency.

b) Contract number.

c) Contract type.

d) Dollar value.

e) Period of performance. Contracts or subcontracts in progress or completed within 3 years of the RFP closing date will be considered recent. Contracts or subcontracts that do not meet this definition of recent will not be evaluated.

f) Extent of subcontracting or teaming.

g) Compliance with the requirements of FAR 52.219-8, if applicable to the effort.

h) Consent Letter (Attachment 3) if the effort was performed by a subcontractor. This letter allows the release of adverse past performance information to the offeror (prime) so the offeror can respond to such information. If the offeror fails to submit consent letters with the proposal, the Government will not be able to discuss adverse subcontractor past performance information with the prime and will deem the failure to submit subcontractor consent letters to be a waiver of any Government obligation to disclose or discuss adverse subcontractor past performance information.

i) Describe the work performed and explain how it relates to the scope of work required under this RFP.

For the past performance relevancy evaluation, the scope of work required under this RFP is Asset

Accounting Operations, Federal Government Accounting, U.S. Standard General Ledgers (USSGL), Managers’ Internal Control Program (MICP), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-123

(Management’s Responsibility for Internal Control), OMB Circular A-127 (Financial Management

Systems), OMB Circular A-134 (Financial Accounting Principles and Standards), and OMB Circular A-

136 (Financial Reporting Requirements). This section shall address whether and to what extent the proposed effort included work in those areas.

j) Reference information. Provide contact information (Name / Position / Phone / Email) for up to two customer references with knowledge of the offeror’s performance on the effort. The offeror is responsible for sending the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) form (Attachment 2) to these two references. The references should be directed to submit the completed PPQ to the Primary POC Alexander Miller at

Alexander.Miller@ssp.navy.mil no later than the proposal due date. The Government reserves the right to contact these references for any purpose (including if they do not submit PPQs by the proposal due date) and consider any information received in making a past performance assessment.

The offeror may submit an Organizational Change Roadmap at its discretion, if such information is necessary for the

Government to evaluate the relevancy of proposed efforts. The Organizational Change Roadmap should describe all changes in the organization of the offeror and any teaming partners, as applicable. As part of this explanation, the offeror must show how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts identified for past performance evaluation.

The Organizational Change Roadmap should be both specifically applicable to the efforts identified and general enough to apply to efforts on which the Government receives information from other sources. The Organizational

Change Roadmap is limited to a period of five years prior to the RFP closing date.

Section 3: Corporate Experience. This section shall describe the offeror’s level of experience in Wide Area

Workflow (WAWF), Defense Cash Accountability System (DCAS), and Systems, Applications & Products in Data

Processing (SAP). Experience with Navy Enterprise Resource Planning (Navy-ERP) is preferred.

Section 4: Customer Relations Management. This section shall describe the offeror’s proposed approach to interacting with the following Government organizations to accomplish the work required under this contract: (1)

The Office of Financial Operations (FMO), under the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Financial Management and

Comptroller (ASN, FM&C); and (2) Defense Finance and Accounting Services (DFAS).

Section 5: Technical Approach. This section shall describe the offeror’s technical approach to performing the following complex functions: forensic accounting research, data validation and reconciliation, asset valuation, and property baselining efforts.

Volume III Pricing shall include the following:

Section 1: Cover Letter and Table of Contents. The first page of Volume III must include a cover letter containing all the information required in paragraph (c) (2) of the provision “Instructions to Offerors – Competitive

Acquisition” at FAR 52.215-1, and a table of contents listing all subdivisions and applicable page numbers must follow the title page.

Section 2: Pricing: Contractor shall submit all pricing for the proposal in a Microsoft Office Excel format including all formulas. For Firm Fixed Price Level of Effort (FFP-LOE) Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) a labor hour rate shall be provided for each CLIN, which calculates the total price of the CLIN (hours * labor rate = CLIN price).

FFP CLINs shall be priced by month. A total price shall be provided for each CLIN and a total contract value summing up the value of all the CLINs.

Section 3: Request for Proposal (RFP), Amendments, and Full Text Clauses/Provisions: Contractor shall provide the following: a signed copy of the RFP (only signature page required), signed copy of all amendments (if applicable) (only signature page required), and filled out copies of all full text clauses and provisions, which require to be filled out in the RFP.

a. Contractor shall certify pricing is proposed is in accordance with FAR Clause 52.219-14 Limitations on

Subcontracting (Jan 2019) (Deviation 2019-O0003). The Contractor shall also provide a breakdown of the overall price identifying the percentage of the price each Contractor included in the proposal is to be paid.

Section 4: Contractor’s 8(a) Documentation: Contractor shall submit documentation demonstrating the Contractor is a current Small Business Administration (SBA) certified 8(a) Contractor. The Contractor’s SBA point of contact information shall also be provided (first and last name, phone number, and email address).

Section 5: Exceptions to the RFP: Identify any exceptions taken with the RFP content and the rationale for the exceptions to the RFP.

NOTE: Exceptions to the RFP may render the proposal noncompliant and ineligible for award.

Section 6: Organizational Conflict of Interest Statement: The Contracting Officer has determined that current SSP support contractors may have an organizational conflict of interest (OCI) arising from performance of current SSP support contracts. Accordingly, offerors should review FAR Subpart 9.5 – Organizational Conflicts of Interest before submitting a proposal.

Offerors are required to submit a list of current SSP contracts being performed by all companies identified in the proposal (including consultants and subcontractors). The following information is required for each current SSP contract.

a. Contract #

b. Description of services

c. If there is an OCI associated with performance of the contract, the offeror shall include a statement explaining how the OCI was avoided, neutralized, mitigated, or waived. If the offeror believes that there is no OCI associated with performance of the contract, the offeror shall include a statement explaining the basis for that conclusion.

Section 7: Other Information: This section shall contain the following:

a. A list of companies included in the proposal (prime and subcontractors). The list should include the cage code and a point of contact information (first and last name, phone number, and email address) for each company. Also in the list each Contractor should be clearly identified if they are the prime or a subcontractor, and the percentage of the total price of the proposal they will be paid.

b. A statement that the offeror will comply with the requirements in Attachment 1 – DD Form 254.

c. A statement that the offeror will comply with the requirements of DFARS 252.204-7012.

Proposals shall be e-mailed directly to Alexander.Miller@ssp.navy.mil the sole designated e-mail address and inbox for submission and receipt of proposals. No other electronic means of submission, used in whole or in combination with e-mail, is permitted. E-mail proposals shall be in either Adobe or Microsoft Office format unless identified in a specific format already. Offerors are advised that the Government may be unable to receive an email greater than 20 megabytes (this includes all attachments and images included in the email). The Government takes no responsibility for proposals being late if they are blocked due to exceeding the email size identified above. The offeror is responsible for ensuring their proposal is received by the Government before the time and date identified in the RFP.

Unless offeror proposes a shorter period, by submission of an offer, the offeror agrees that its offer, including any timely revisions thereto, shall remain valid until the Government makes award under this solicitation. The foregoing does not preclude an offeror from withdrawing its offer prior to award.

FAR 52.212-2 ADDENDUM: Evaluation– Commercial Items

1. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

The Government anticipates that it will award one contract (if any) under this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose proposal represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the factors in FAR 52.212-2

ADDENDUM. The Government may reject any or all offers if such action is in the public interest; accept other than the lowest priced offer or the highest technical rated offer; and waive informalities and minor irregularities in offers received. The Government’s award decision will take into account the funding limitations that are applicable to this procurement.

This is a subjective tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with FAR Part 12/15. The subjective tradeoff factors are listed in Section 3 of FAR 52.212-2 ADDENDUM. Award will not be made to an offeror whose proposal is rated No Confidence for the Past Performance Factor or Unacceptable for any of the other subjective tradeoff factors.

The Mandatory Requirements listed in Section 2 of FAR 52.212-2 ADDENDUM are not part of the subjective tradeoff and will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis. Award will not be made to an offeror whose proposal is rated

Unacceptable for any of the Mandatory Requirements.

The Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions with offerors. Therefore, the offeror’s initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the

Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary.

If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

2. MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS

A proposal must meet these criteria in order to be eligible for award. These criteria are not part of the subjective tradeoff and will be rated on an Acceptable / Unacceptable basis in accordance with Section 4.1 of FAR 52.212-2

ADDENDUM.

2.1 Solicitation Compliance. Proposals must comply with all of the Instructions, Conditions and Notices to

Offerors contained in FAR 52.212-1 ADDENDUM of the solicitation including proposal submission requirements. The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications and other information required by FAR 52.212-1 ADDENDUM of this solicitation.

Proposals must provide unconditional assent to the material terms of the solicitation. A solicitation package missing any of the components will be rated Unacceptable and will be ineligible for award.

2.2 DD Form 254 Compliance. Proposals must include a statement that the offeror meets and will comply with the requirements in Attachment 1 - DD Form 254.

2.3 DFARS 252.204-7012 Compliance. Proposals must include a statement that the offeror meets and will comply with the requirements of DFARS 252.204-7012.

3. SUBJECTIVE TRADEOFF FACTORS

3.1 Evaluation Approach and Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors. The Government will evaluate the proposals using a Price factor and the following non-Price factors:

Past Performance

Corporate Experience

Customer Relations Management

Technical Approach

Past Performance is the most important factor. Corporate Experience, Customer Relations Management, and Technical Approach are equally important. All evaluation factors other than the Price factor, when combined, are significantly more important than the price factor.

Price will not be a numerically weighted factor in the evaluation of proposals, and the importance of the price factor does not bear a linear relationship to the importance of the non-price factors. The importance of price will increase as differences in the evaluated quality of proposals decrease or when price is so significantly high as to diminish the value of the technical superiority to the Government.

3.2 Past Performance. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information). These are combined to establish one performance confidence rating for each offeror

(see Section 4.3 of of FAR 52.212-2 ADDENDUM). Contracts or subcontracts without performance quality data or lacking sufficient information to establish recency and relevancy will not be considered in establishing the performance confidence rating.

3.2.1 Past Performance - Recency. The first step is to evaluate the recency of an effort. Contracts or subcontracts in progress or completed within 3 years of the RFP closing date will be considered recent.

Contracts or subcontracts that do not meet this definition of recent will not be evaluated for relevancy or quality and will not be considered in establishing the performance confidence rating.

3.2.2 Past Performance - Relevancy. The second step is to evaluate the relevancy of an effort and assign one of the ratings listed below. Contracts or subcontracts that are not recent or do not have performance quality data will not be evaluated for relevancy. The relevancy evaluation may include, but is not limited to, the following: scope (similarity of product/service/support to the scope of work required under this RFP, which for the relevancy evaluation includes Asset Accounting Operations, Federal

Government Accounting, U.S. Standard General Ledgers (USSGL), Managers’ Internal Control

Program (MICP), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-123 (Management’s

Responsibility for Internal Control), OMB Circular A-127 (Financial Management Systems), OMB

Circular A-134 (Financial Accounting Principles and Standards), and OMB Circular A-136 (Financial

Reporting Requirements)), magnitude (dollar value / duration), and complexity (including extent of subcontracting/teaming). Efforts of greater relevancy will be considered a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than the past performance of lesser relevance.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

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.

3.2.3 Past Performance - Quality. The third step is to consider the overall quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment (Section 4.3 of of FAR 52.212-2 ADDENDUM). In accordance with DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the evaluation will consider the offeror’s historical compliance with the requirements of FAR 52.219-8. A separate quality assessment rating will not be assigned; rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

3.2.4 Sources of Past Performance Information.

a. Past performance information may be provided by the offeror, as solicited;

b. Past performance information may be obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition; and

c. Past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee

Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials.

3.3 Corporate Experience. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s level of experience in Wide Area

Workflow (WAWF), Defense Cash Accountability System (DCAS), and Systems, Applications & Products in Data Processing (SAP). Experience with Navy Enterprise Resource Planning (Navy-ERP) is preferred.

3.4 Customer Relations Management. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed approach to interacting with the following Government organizations to accomplish the work required under this contract: (1) The Office of Financial Operations (FMO), under the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Financial Management and Comptroller (ASN, FM&C); and (2) Defense Finance and Accounting Services

(DFAS).

3.5 Technical Approach. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s technical approach to performing the following complex functions: forensic accounting research, data validation and reconciliation, asset valuation, and property baselining efforts.

3.6 Price. The total evaluated price will equal the sum of the proposed CLIN prices. To be eligible for award, an offeror’s total evaluated price must be determined fair and reasonable. Materially unbalanced pricing may cause a proposal to be unacceptable if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

4. RATINGS

4.1 Mandatory Requirements Rating Method. The Government will assign Acceptable / Unacceptable ratings for the Mandatory Requirements (see Section 2 of FAR 52.212-2 ADDENDUM).

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

4.2 Combined Technical/ Risk Rating Method. The Government will assign combined Technical / Risk ratings for the tradeoff factors other than Price and Past Performance. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Color Rating

Adjectival 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.

4.2.1 Risk Descriptions. A separate risk rating will not be assigned. The assessment of risk in the

Combined Technical / Risk Rating shall be based on the following risk descriptions.

Low: Proposal may contain weaknesses(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance.

Moderate: Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High: Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable: Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

4.3 Past Performance Confidence Rating Method. Once the Government has completed the recency, relevance, and quality review (see Section 3.4 of of FAR 52.212-2 ADDENDUM), the Government will assign one

Past Performance Confidence rating to the offeror’s proposal. 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.” Although the Government may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the Government may determine that a “Satisfactory Confidence” or “Substantial Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating.

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.

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 a low expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

5. ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Based on the information provided in response to FAR 52.212-1 ADDENDUM Volume III Section 6, and any other information solicited or obtained by the Contracting Officer, the Contracting Officer may determine that an organizational conflict of interest exists.

The Contracting Officer has the sole authority to determine whether an organizational conflict of interest exists and to determine whether the organizational conflict of interest has been reasonably resolved.

The Contracting Officer shall not award a contract to the apparent successful offeror until determining that any organizational conflict of interest is reasonably resolved.

The Contracting Officer may communicate with any Offeror at any time during the evaluation process concerning its OCI submission.

The Government reserves the right to waive the requirements of FAR 9.5, in accordance with FAR 9.503.

(End of Summary of Changes)