N00039-17-R-0005-03.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 Factor 5 rating definition consistent w ith Sections L and M w hich explicitly informed offerors that the Government w ill not evaluate magnitude as part of relevancy under Past Performance. Therefore, this amendment removes the w ords

"and magnitude" from the w ording in Section M definitions under Past Performance.

Signatures for this amendment are not required due to the timing of this amendment.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 4

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 14-Nov-2017

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 N00039-17-R-0005

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

21-Sep-2017

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 0 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-Nov-2017

CODE

COMMANDER, SPACE AND NAVAL WARFARE

SYSTEMS COMMAND

02 CONTRACTS

4301 PACIFIC HIGHWAY

SAN DIEGO CA 92110-3127

N00039 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N00039-17-R-0005

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

EVALUATION DEFINITIONS

Since it is impossible to anticipate the nature of each Offeror’s proposal in advance or to describe all the qualities and considerations that could result in one of the below definitions for ratings, these definitions should be looked upon as examples of typical characteristics of that rating, and will be used as a guide or reference rather than a rigid measure to be followed word-for-word. Evaluators will be instructed to select the rating/definition that most closely fits the value or desirability of the Offeror’s proposed performance.

Factors 1, 2, &4

The Government will evaluate technical factors 1, 2, and 4, including subfactors 1a-1b, on an adjectival basis, i.e.

Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal and Unacceptable. The Government will utilize the combined technical/risk rating definitions from DoD’s Source Selection Procedures Guide of April 2016, as detailed below.

Ratings Definitions

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

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

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

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

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

Findings Definitions

In the evaluation of factors 1, 2 and 4, aspects of the proposal may be found to be advantageous or disadvantageous to the Government. These are defined as follows:

Major Strength: An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Strength: 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.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency: A material failure of the 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.

Risk Definitions (integrated into Factor ratings)

Very Low - Has virtually no potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Low - Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate - Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High - Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Factor 3: Past Performance Ratings Definitions

Relevancy, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Very Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Performance Confidence Assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood (or Government’s confidence) that the

Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements. The evaluation is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy and quality of performance.

Past Performance Confidence Ratings

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.

Factor 5 Ratings

Outstanding: Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives. The objective for this rating is 11% or more of the total contract value.

Good: indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives. The objective for this rating is 9% or more of the total contract value.

Acceptable: The Proposal meets the requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives. The objective for this rating is 7% or more of the total contract value.

Marginal: Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives. The objective for this rating is 5% or more of the total contract value.

Unacceptable: The Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

(End of Summary of Changes)