N00039-18-R-0009 - Amendment 0005.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) Provide Attachment 2(a) Task Order 0001 - CANES Training Virtual Environment Statement of Work (SOW), Rev 04, dated 12 April 2018 to

Section J (previous version removed in its entirety); and,

2) Revise Section M to correct quantities listed in Subfactor 1.4 (b).

Date and Time specif ied for Receipt of Offers is UNCHANGED.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 12

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 13-Apr-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 N0003918R0009

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

15-Feb-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 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

13-Apr-2018

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:

N0003918R0009

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The following have been modified:

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment (1): CANES Training Virtual Environment Statement of Work (SOW) – Rev 03 –

04 April 2018

Attachment (2): Draft Task Order 0001 - CANES Training Virtual Environment – Rev 02 –4 April 2018

Attachment (2a): Task Order 0001 - CANES Training Virtual Environment Statement of Work (SOW) –

Rev 04 – 12 April 2018

Attachment (2b): Exhibit (A) - Task Order 0001 - CANES Training Virtual Environment CDRLs –

Rev 01 - 26 February 2018

Attachment (3): Security Classification – DD254 – 07 November 2017

Attachment (4): Contractor Cost Summary Spreadsheet – Rev 02 – 4 April 2018

Attachment (5): Past Performance Questionnaire

Attachment (6): Reference Information Sheet – Rev 01

Attachment (7): Small Business Participation Data – Rev 01 – Rev 01 – 8 March 2018

Attachment (8): Technical Documents (via AMRDEC) to include Bill of Materials, Training Curriculum and Interactive Electronic Technical Manuals (IETMs) – Rev 01

EXHIBITS:

Exhibit (A): CANES Training Virtual Environment DDG DD 1423 Contract Data Requirements List

(CDRL) – Rev 01 - 26 February 2018

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following were previously included by full text and are now included by reference:

52.252-1

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

M-TXT-03 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS FOR AWARD (BEST VALUE)

(1) The contract resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation, is determined to provide the “best value” to the Government. Such offer may not necessarily be the proposal offering the lowest price or receiving the highest technical rating. An offeror must quote on all items in this solicitation to be eligible for award.

(2) Proposals will be rated in accordance with evaluation factors listed below. It should be noted that cost is not a numerically rated factor. Although technical factors are significantly more important than cost, cost is an important factor and should be considered when preparing responsive proposals. The importance of cost as an evaluation factor will increase with the degree of equality of the proposals in relation to the remaining evaluation factors. When the offerors within the competitive range are considered essentially equal in terms of technical capability, or when cost is so significantly high as to diminish the value of the technical superiority to the government, cost may become the determining factor for award In summary, price/technical trade-offs will be made, and the extent to which one may be sacrificed for the other is governed only by the tests of rationality and consistency with the established evaluation factors.

(3) The Government intends to award a contract without discussions as permitted by FAR 15.306(a) and 52.215-1.

Therefore, offerors are cautioned not to submit an offer which takes exception to any term or condition of the RFP or imposes any additional condition or omits any required information. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and to permit offerors to revise their proposals if it is determined to be in the best interest of the

Government. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the minimum 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.

(4) Evaluation of an offeror’s proposal shall be based on the information presented in the proposal and information available to the contracting office from sources deemed appropriate. Sources typically considered include the

Defense Contract Audit Agency, Defense Contract Management Administration offices, and other contracts with same firms for similar items or services, etc. Proposals which are unrealistic in terms of technical or schedule commitments, or unrealistically high or low in terms of cost, may be deemed to be reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence, or indicative of a failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the proposed work and may be grounds for rejection of the proposal. The quality of organization and writing reflected in the proposal will be considered to be an indication of the quality of organization and writing which would be prevalent in the proposed deliverable data. Subjective judgment on the part of the Government evaluators is implicit in the entire process.

(5) The relative importance of the evaluation factors is as follows.

Non- price/cost Factors 1 through 4 are listed in descending order of importance.

Within Factor 1, Subfactors 1.1 through 1.5 are in descending order of importance.

When combined, the non-price/cost Factors 1 through 4 are significantly more important than Evaluated

Cost.

Any proposal rated as “Unacceptable” under any one of the evaluation factors may be eliminated from award consideration.

(6) The evaluation factors are as follows:

FACTOR 1 – TASK ORDER 0001 TECHNICAL APPROACH

The Government will assign a single adjectival rating to Factor 1 based on the evaluation of Subfactors 1.1 – 1.5 in accordance with the criteria below and their relative importance. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposed technical approach demonstrates the ability to meet the requirements of the Task Order 0001

SOW consisting of the following five (5) subfactors as follows:

Subfactor 1.1: The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates an effective approach to developing and fielding a CANES Training Virtual Environment solution, to include hosting environment, Learning

Management System (LMS), interfaces, required simulation, curriculum, and all necessary components. The

Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates an effective approach to program management, decision-making, cost savings, and risk mitigation strategy, to account for any technology, engineering, or design changes that may be required during development and fielding of the CANES Virtual

Environment Training solution.

a. Threshold (required): The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed CANES Training

Virtual Environment solution enables a remote environment that replicates an experience similar to the shipboard fleet user environment, with instructors teaching and guiding students through job sheets

b. Objective (desired): The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed solution provides automated guidance that is built into the CANES Training Virtual Environment solution

Subfactor 1.2: The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates an effective approach to providing a hosting environment (e.g. web hosting service, hosting servers), including:

a. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed virtual hosting environment is cost effective for the Government throughout the life of the contract

b. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed risk mitigation plan is effective in the event that the primary hosting option becomes unavailable

Subfactor 1.3: The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates an effective approach to test and/or demonstrates that capability requirements below are met, to include:

a. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed approach demonstrates student throughput requirements (100 at one time, 840 per year), remote login capability up to eight (8) sites simultaneously, ability for users to remote to multiple CANES SW baselines simultaneously, and Operational Availability

(Ao) requirements (95%)

b. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates an effective Information

Assurance (IA), personnel and cyber security, and Authority to Operate (ATO) compliance strategy in accordance with DoD Directive 8140.01, DoD 8140.01-M, DoD 5200.2-R, DoDM 5200.01, DoDD

5205.02E, DoD 5205.02-M, DoDI 8500.0,1, SECNAV M-5510.30, SECNAVINST 5510.30

Subfactor 1.4: The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates an effective approach to meeting schedule, and/or expediting development and fielding of the CANES Training Virtual Environment solution, to include all training curriculum. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed approach includes detailed processes and factor(s): areas that can be completed in parallel, initial personnel surge capability, and any other schedule improvement initiatives available. This section shall include a Plan of Action and

Milestones (POA&M).

a. Threshold (required): The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed approach demonstrates the ability to deliver and test the CANES Virtual Environment Training in the NETC electronic classroom by the end of the delivery date of Task Order (TO) 0001

b. Objective (desired): The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed CANES Training

Virtual Environment is likely to be incorporated into the NETC electronic classroom by 210 Days after

Task Order award.

c. Threshold (required): The Government will evaluate the extent to which train the trainer (T3) redlines are likely to be incorporated into the curriculum by the end of the delivery date of TO 0001 (12 Months after

Task Order Award).

d. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed POA&M demonstrates an effective approach to:

i. Delivering a CANES Training Virtual Environment solution, to include LMS and hosting environment, as described above in Technical Factor 1.1

ii. Hosting CANES SW baselines: 1.0, 1.2, 2.0, 2.0.1, and 3

iii. Key deliverables in an Integrated Master Schedule (IMS), to include: key milestones, virtual environment solution documentation, configuration data, interface diagrams, training curriculum and training package documents, dates that each SW version will be available in the hosted environments, and dates of delivery to each NETC site.

Subfactor 1.5: The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates an effective approach to sustain and maintain the training virtual environment once delivered to the NETC schoolhouse, to include train-the-trainer and initial training. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed approach demonstrates a contingency plan in the event of connectivity loss, to ensure that the Ao requirements (95%) of the system are met, and experience and qualification of trainers:

a. Threshold (required): The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed approach demonstrates that trainers shall have 3-5 years of experience with training a similar capability in a classroom setting

b. Objective (desired): The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed approach demonstrates that trainers have experience with DoD schoolhouse training, preferably in an Information Technology-related field

FACTOR 2 - CORPORATE EXPERIENCE

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates relevant corporate experience creating a virtual hosting environment for a large scale training effort covering the depth and breadth of the requirements in accordance with the TO 0001 scope of work. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates relevant corporate experience training instructors to provide training to students, including experience and/or training in utilizing the CPM/LO, AIM, and HARPS tools, as well as experience utilizing the OPNAVINST

1500.76 series instructions and the NETC E2E Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). Experience training

Department of Defense/military training instructors on C4I systems and will be evaluated more favorably.

FACTOR 3 - PAST PERFORMANCE

The past performance evaluation will result in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contracts requirements. The currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. 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).

Recency. The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. To be deemed recent, the work must have been performed since 1 January 2013. If a reference is not deemed to be recent, it will not be evaluated in the second or third aspect of this evaluation factor.

Relevancy. The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. With respect to relevancy, past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and extent of subcontracting/teaming. In accordance with Government requirements, direct experience providing similar support services to SPAWAR, PEO C4I and other Navy Systems Commands will be considered more favorably than non-

Navy experience. Experience building curriculum IAW OPNAVINST 1500.76 and NETC E2E processes will be rated more favorably. Experience creating a virtual hosting environment for a large scale training effort similar to the one requested in this contract will be rated more favorably. There are four levels of relevancy as detailed in the

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings section below.

Quality of Products or Services. The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance. The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the

Offeror performed those past contracts. Past performance information will be reviewed to determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. A separate quality assessment rating is not required; rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. This quality assessment will be made on the basis of CPARS or PPQs submitted with the proposal, though in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the Government may consider past performance information from any other appropriate source.

At the factor level, one Performance Confidence Assessment rating will be assigned for each Offeror based on an evaluation of the merit of all individual experiences’ relevancy and quality combined. Past performance references may be considered in the aggregate when determining overall relevance. If the Offeror’s past performance information is unavailable or the Offeror has no record of relevant Past Performance, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on Past Performance. However, the Government may determine that a

“Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral

Confidence” past performance rating in the best value tradeoff. The evaluation may take into account past performance of subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition.

FACTOR 4 - SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION (Large and Small Businesses)

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s approach demonstrates a commitment to and understanding of small business objectives in accordance with the Factor 4 small business rating definitions. The offerors Small Business Participation Data Form (Attachment 7) will be reviewed to ensure the subcontractor names and values listed in the Small Business Participation Form (Attachment 7) match the Technical and Cost volumes of the proposal.

This factor will assess the extent to which Offerors commit to small business performance (whether as a prime or subcontractor) in terms of the proposed value of the subcontracted amount.

This factor will also assess the extent to which the Offeror has met small business subcontracting goals on prior contracts/orders, including the extent to which subcontractors have been timely paid. The Government may consult various sources, including CPARS Assessments, Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs), the Past Performance

Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and Electronic Subcontracting Reporting Systems (eSRS) databases and/or

DD 294s, or any other relevant sources deemed appropriate to verify proposal statements. If, historically, the offeror has not met small business goals, the Government will assess the offeror’s explanation of what actions it took to resolve the previous occurences and what actions the offeror has proposed to take to meet goals on this effort. The evaluation of an Offeror’s history of meeting subcontracting goals on prior contracts/orders will not also be evaluated under Factor 3 Past Performance.

Information provided under RFP Small Business Participation Data Form (Attachment 7) will be evaluated as provided in the table below. ALL prime contractors (both Large AND Small Business) are required to complete the

Small Business Participation Data attachment.

The Government reserves the right to verify that the subcontractors are small businesses by checking the System for

Award Management website (http://www.sam.gov), checking the SBA Small Business Administration (SBA)

Dynamic Small Business Search tool (http://dsbs.sba.gov/dsbs/search/dsp_dsbs), contacting the Small Business

Administration (SBA), and/or contacting the subcontractor/vendor. Such actions are clarifications and do not constitute discussions.

To be eligible to receive an Outstanding, the total proposed small business participation should be at least 33% of the total subcontracted amount, and meet or exceed the objectives for each socioeconomic category identified in

Section L. As noted in Section L, the Government will evaluate proposed percentages against the total proposed contract value to assess the extent to which they meet objective percentages. Small businesses that qualify under more than one socioeconomic category may be counted to meet more than one of the socio-economic category proposed percentages. However, for purposes of calculating the total proposed small business participation percentage, each small business may only be counted once. E.g., Company A is both a SDB and a VOSB and accounts for 16.5% of the Offeror’s total proposed contract value. Company A could be counted under both the SDB and VOSB objective percentages as meeting for those socio-economic categories but for the total proposed small business participation percentage, the Offeror could only count 16.5% versus 33% for Company A.

The Government reserves the right to consider proposed small business participation not meeting the above eligibility guidance on a case-by-case basis that warrant an Outstanding rating despite any non-compliance(s). The

Offeror is advised that meeting the above criteria does not automatically warrant an Outstanding rating and the

Government at its discretion may determine a lower rating is warranted in consideration of the Offeror’s Factor 4 proposal, Factor 4 evaluation criteria, and rating definitions.

Small Business Socioeconomic Categories Small Business Subcontracting Goals

(Based upon 33% of subcontracted amount)

Total Small Business (includes the below) 33%

Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) 5%

Women-Owned Small Business 5%

Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) 3%

Historically Underutilized Zone (HUB Zone) 3%

FACTOR 5 – EVALUATED COST/PRICE

(a) The Government will perform an evaluation of all costs and prices proposed. This evaluation will consist of price analysis, cost analysis and cost realism analysis on each offeror’s proposal. The

Government’s objective is to assess how well the amount of effort proposed correlates to the proposed costs and prices, and provides best value to the Government given the proposed costs and prices.

(b) Cost analysis and cost realism analysis will be conducted on all firm and option cost reimbursement line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(c) and FAR 15.404-1(d) respectively. The resulting estimate will be used in the evaluation of cost. The purpose of this evaluation shall be (a) to verify the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements; (b) to assess the degree to which the cost/price proposal reflects the approaches and/or risk assessments made in the technical proposal as well as the risk that the Offeror will provide the supplies for services for the offered prices/cost; and (c) assess the degree to which the cost reflected in the cost/price proposal accurately represents the work efforts included in the technical proposal.

Proposed costs may be adjusted, for purposes of evaluation, based upon the results of the cost realism evaluation. When this cost realism analysis is performed and adjustments are made (if any), the resulting probable cost estimate shall be used in the evaluation. In addition to easily identifiable cost adjustments, unrealistic cost proposals may result in a re-evaluation and concurrent rescoring of technical proposals.

Such re-evaluation based on cost or probable cost analysis could negatively impact the technical rating and ranking of the proposal.

(c) Price analysis will be performed as defined in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i) by comparing the evaluated/realistic total prices of offers received in response to this solicitation to establish price reasonableness.

(d) The Government will arrive at a total evaluated cost for each Offeror by adding: (1) the total evaluated Cost Plus Incentive Fee (Evaluated Cost plus Proposed Target Fee) for CLIN 0001, (2) the total evaluated Cost Plus Fixed Fee (Evaluated Cost plus Proposed Fixed Fee) for CLIN 0004, (3) the

NTE ODC amounts provided in Section L for ODC CLIN 0005 and (4) the total evaluated Firm

Fixed Price for CLIN 0007. The Government will not evaluate the proposed incentive fee for cost realism.

The proposed Target Fee will be for evaluation purposes and incorporated into an Offeror’s total evaluated cost. The Performance Incentive Bonus (CLIN 0003) will NOT be included as part of the evaluation.

(e) HUBZone Evaluation Preference.

The Government will give Offerors from qualified HUBZone concerns a preference in the cost evaluation in accordance with FAR clause 52.219-4, unless waived by the offeror. Qualified HUBZone firms are identified in the Small Business Administration’s website (www.sba.gov/hubzone).

(f) Professional Employees Compensation Plan.

The information provided under the Professional Employees Compensation Plan will be evaluated by the

Government on an acceptable/unacceptable basis to determine if the Offeror’s plan and supporting documentation demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to meet the provisions of the FAR 52.222-46 “Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees” provision.

(7) Other Considerations

Small Business* Subcontracting Plan

The information provided in the Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be evaluated by the Government in accordance with FAR Part 19/DFARS Part 219 on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. The approved

Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall be incorporated into any resulting contract award. It should be noted that failure to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan acceptable to the Contracting Officer shall make the offeror ineligible for award of a contract. The SPAWAR Subcontracting Goals for this procurement are provided above (under paragraph 5.0) and will be used when evaluating the

Subcontracting Plan.

*Small Businesses include Small Disadvantaged Businesses, Women-Owned Small Businesses, Veteran-

Owned Small Businesses, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business, HUBZone Small Businesses and

(8) EVALUATION RATINGS DEFINITIONS:

Since it is impossible to anticipate the nature of each Offeror's proposal in advance or to describe the myriad qualities and considerations that could result in one of the above meanings for ratings, these definitions should be looked upon as examples of typical characteristics of that rating, and should 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.

(a) The Government will evaluate technical factors, Factor 1, Technical Approach (including subfactors 1.1 through

1.5) and Factor 2, Corporate Experience, on an adjectival basis, considering risk in conjunction with the strengths, weakness, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining the ratings. The Government will utilize the combined technical/risk rating definitions from DoD’s Source Selection Procedures Guide of April 2016, as detailed below.

Adjectival

Rating

Description

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.

http://www.sba.gov/hubzone

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.

(b) In evaluating Factor 3 Past Performance, the Government will use the following past performance relevance and performance confidence ratings:

Factor 3: Past Performance Ratings Definitions

Past Performance Recency Ratings

Recent: Contracts/orders performed within the last five (5) years from date of RFP issuance, but not necessarily completed, and have at least nine (9) months of performance within those last five (5) years.

Not Recent: Contracts/orders not performed within the last five (5) years from date of RFP issuance, and/or have less than nine (9) months of performance within those last five (5) years.

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

Rating Definition

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 effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude 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.

Performance Confidence Ratings

Rating

Definition

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.

(c) In the evaluation of Factors 4 aspects of the proposal may be found to be advantageous or disadvantageous to the Government. The ratings are defined as follows:

Factor 4: Small Business Participation Ratings

Factor 4: Small Business Participation Ratings

Rating Definition

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Acceptable The Proposal meets the requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Unacceptable The Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

(d) 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:

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.

WEAKNESS: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR

15.001.

SIGNIFICANT WEAKNESS: A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

See FAR 15.001.

DEFICIENCY: 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

RISK: As it pertains to source selection, it 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 subfactor 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.

(End of text)

M-TXT-07 EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE RISK

(a) During the source selection process, the government will assess the relative risks associated with each offeror and proposal. It is important to note the distinction between proposal risk and performance risk.

(1) Proposal risks are those associated with an offeror’s proposed approach in meeting the government’s requirements. Proposal risk is assessed by the proposal evaluators and is integrated into the rating of each specific evaluation subfactor under the technical and cost factors.

(2) Performance risks are those associated with an offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the solicitation’s requirements as indicated by that offeror’s record of past performance.

(b) The government will conduct a performance risk assessment based upon the quality of the offeror’s past performance as well as that of its proposed subcontractors, as it relates to the probability of successful accomplishment of the required effort. When assessing performance risk, the government will focus its inquiry on the past performance of the offeror and its proposed subcontracts as it relates to all solicitation requirements, such as cost, schedule, and performance, including the contractor’s record of conforming to specifications and to standards of good workmanship; the contractor’s record of containing and forecasting costs on any previously performed cost reimbursable contracts; the contractor’s adherence to contract schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance. Performance risk is assigned a weight as part of the Technical Evaluation. The relative weighting is reflected in M-TXT-03.

(c) A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the source selection process. A negative finding under any element may result in an overall high performance risk rating resulting in a potential reduction of the overall technical score (correspondingly, a low risk assessment may result in a higher evaluated score in accordance with the evaluation factors set forth in Section M).

Therefore, offerors are reminded to include all relevant past efforts, including demonstrated corrective actions, in their proposal.

(d) In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

(e) Offerors are cautioned that in conducting the performance risk assessment, the government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources. Since the government may not necessarily interview all of the sources provided by the offerors, it is incumbent upon the offeror to explain the relevance of the data provided. Offerors are reminded that while the government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information rests with the offerors.

(End of text)

(End of Summary of Changes)