N00039-19-R-0005-0003.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to revise Section M-307(f)(1)(c) Price/Cost Evaluation to delete a sentence as a result of Q&A #4.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 11

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 11-Dec-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 N00039-19-R-0005

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

20-Nov-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

11-Dec-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:

N00039-19-R-0005

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

M-307 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS FOR AWARD (BEST VALUE) (DEC 1999)

(a) The contract resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation and is determined to provide the “best value” to the Government. As such, the proposal selected for award may not necessarily be the proposal that offers the lowest price/cost or receives the highest technical rating. Proposals will be rated and ranked on the evaluation factors listed below. Although the Technical

Factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price/cost, price/cost is an important factor and should be considered when preparing responsive proposals. The importance of price/cost as an evaluation factor will increase with the degree of equality of the proposals in relation to the remaining evaluation factors.

When offers are considered essentially equal in terms of technical capability, or when an offer’s price/cost is so significantly high as to diminish the value of the technical superiority to the Government, price/cost may become a determining factor for award. Price/technical trade-offs will be made, and the extent to which one may be sacrificed for the other is based on rationality and consistency with the established evaluation factors. The price/cost factor will be evaluated utilizing analysis techniques identified in FAR Part 15.404-1. Analysis will include review of price reasonableness and balanced pricing. Offerors are cautioned that "unbalanced" prices and/or unreasonably high prices may cause the proposal to be rejected because it poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(b) The Government intends to award a contract without discussions as permitted by FAR 15.306(a) and

52.215-1. Failure or refusal to assent to any of the terms and conditions of this RFP or the imposition of additional conditions or any material omission by the offeror may constitute a deficiency which may make the offer unacceptable. The only way to correct a deficiency is through discussions (see FAR 15.306(d)). Therefore, offerors are cautioned not to submit an offer which takes exception to any term or condition of this RFP or imposes any additional condition or omits any required information without first consulting with the Contracting Officer. The

Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and to permit offerors to revise their proposals if it is in the

Government’s interests to do so.

Note that the Government will not award a contract to an offeror’s team that has an organizational conflict of interest unless an approved mitigation plan is on file with the Contracting Officer.

(c) 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, but are not limited to, the DCAA, DCMA offices, other contracts with same firms for similar items or services, known commercial sources such as Data Resources, Inc., Standard and Poor’s, etc. Proposals which are determined to pose a risk in terms of technical or schedule commitments, may be deemed to be reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence or indicative of a failure to comprehend the complexity of the proposed work and may be grounds for rejection of the proposal. If the proposed contract requires the delivery of data, 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.

(d) The Relative Importance of the Evaluation Factors is as follows:

Factors 1 through 5 are in descending order of importance: Factor 1 (Software Development Plan and Rationale) is more important than Factor 2 (Software Development Experience); Factor 2 (Software Development Experience) is more important than Factor 3 (Past Performance), Factor 3 (Past Performance) is more important than Factor 4

(Small Business Commitment); and Factor 4 (Small Business Commitment) is more important than Factor 5

(Systems Security Plan). When all non-price/cost evaluation factors are combined, they are significantly more important than Price/Cost.

Technical Evaluation Factors:

Factor 1: Software Development Plan and Rationale

Factor 2: Software Development Experience

Factor 3: Past Performance

Factor 4: Small Business Commitment

Factor 5: Systems Security Plan

Price/Cost

(e) Technical Evaluation.

Methodology: The Government will evaluate technical factors 1, 2, and 4 (Software Development Plan and

Rationale, Software Development Experience, and Small Business Commitment) on an adjectival basis, i.e.

Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal and Unacceptable. The Government will utilize combined technical/risk rating definitions as detailed below. The Government will evaluate Factor 3, Past Performance, by assigning a performance confidence assessment adjectival rating (Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited

Confidence, No Confidence, and Unknown Confidence). Since the Government cannot anticipate the nature of each offeror's proposal in advance or 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 that will be supported by the evaluation of each proposal using the definitions listed below. A proposal with any factor rated as “unacceptable” may cause the overall proposal to be unacceptable and the proposal may be eliminated from award consideration without being further evaluated. The only way to correct an unacceptable proposal is through discussions (see FAR 15.306(d)) and the Government does not intend to hold discussions.

(i) FACTOR 1 – SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND RATIONALE

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Software Development Plan (SDP) conforms to SDP DID

DI-IPSC-81427B and SOW paragraph 3.5. In addition, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the

SDP rationale addresses the following:

- Whether the proposed SDP approach is appropriate for the development and sustainment of GPNTS software

- The SDP’s process for developing and sustaining software using a Modular Open

Systems Approach (MOSA), while limiting proprietary, vendor unique or closed elements

- Whether the proposed SDP processes are, at a minimum, equivalent to those articulated by CMMI® capability level 3

(ii) FACTOR 2 – SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE

The Government will evaluate that at least one (1) of the references is from the Prime offeror as a Prime on a

U.S. Federal Government contract, and no more than one (1) reference is from any individual proposed subcontractor for this solicitation. The Government will evaluate that each reference is recent.

Software Development Experience:

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the software development and sustainment efforts performed

(as the original developer or a succeeding developer) on the three (3) references correspond to the requirements of the following GPNTS SOW Sections:

3.4.1 Configuration Management and Planning

3.5.5.1 Cybersecurity Engineering

3.5.8 Software Sustainment Support

3.5.10 Software Development

3.5.12 Software Testing

3.5.16.2 System Integration Testing

3.6.3 Military Code (M-Code) Integration Engineering Support

In addition, the Government will evaluate the extent to which personnel who contributed to these previous recent experiences will be supporting this solicitation.

Software Development Process Experience:

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s previous recent experience in developing software utilizing the same or similar processes and approaches as proposed in the SDP for this solicitation and the results of any standard model-based process maturity appraisals performed within 24 months prior to the issuance date of this solicitation.

Recent experience with Real-time Position, Navigation, Timing (PNT) software development and sustainment will be evaluated more favorably than all other experience. Software Development Process Experience with a

Software Development Plan rating of Outstanding or Good will be evaluated more favorably than Software

Development Process Experience with a lower rated Software Development Plan.

(iii) FACTOR 3 - PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will assign the offeror an overall performance confidence assessment rating based on the evaluation of the offeror’s record of performance on the three (3) contracts that the offeror identified in its response to Factor 2, Software Development Experience. References will not receive an individual performance confidence assessment rating. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s probability of meeting the contract requirements considering recency, relevancy, and quality of the offeror’s record of past performance.

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). The Government will evaluate each of the past performance references as described below:

First, the Government will determine if the past performance reference is recent. Performance within the five

(5) years prior to the solicitation release date will be considered recent.

Second, the Government will then determine the relevance of the past performance reference. Relevancy is the measure of the extent of similarity (considering scope, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and the extent of subcontract/teaming, or other comparable attributes) between the reference and the solicitation requirements;

and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger indicator of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

There are four different levels of relevance that may be assigned to each individual past performance reference:

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

NOT RELEVANT - Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of

Third, the Government will then determine how well the offeror performed on the past performance reference

(i.e., quality). The performance attributes the Government may assess include the offeror’s record of conforming to contract requirements, the offeror’s reputation for good workmanship; the offeror’s record for adhering to contract schedules, the offeror’s reputation for reasonable and cooperative behavior, and commitment to customer satisfaction.

A separate quality rating will not be provided. Rather, the Government will provide a past performance confidence assessment rating based on the Government’s assessment of the recency, relevancy, and quality of each reference and how those factors indicate confidence in the offeror’s ability to perform the solicitation’s requirements. The Government will assign an overall past performance confidence assessment rating identified below:

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: 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.

If there is no information on past contract performance or where past performance information is not available, the offeror will 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 will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral Confidence.” The Government may determine a “Substantial Confidence” or

“Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is more valuable than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff.

The Government may consider past performance information submitted by the Offeror, as well as information obtained from sources other than the offeror. The Government does not assume the duty to search for data to cure the problems it finds in the information provided by the offeror. The burden of proof of providing thorough and complete past performance information remains with the offeror. The offeror is cautioned that the

Government may use past performance data provided by the offeror in the development of performance risk assessments.

(iv) FACTOR 4 – SMALL BUSINESS COMMITMENT

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal documents the offeror’s commitment to meet the following small business participation goals in terms of total acquisition value:

Small Business Categories SPAWAR Goals (Based upon % of Total

Acquisition Value (TAV))

Total Small Business (includes the below) 12%

Small Disadvantaged Business 4%

Woman-Owned Small Business 3%

HUBZone 1%

Veteran Owned Small Business 2%

Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business 2%

Commitment documented by contractually binding relationships with subcontractors, and demonstrated in the prime’s cost proposal, will be evaluated more favorably than expressed promises. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal documents that the tasks assigned to Small Businesses are meaningful in the overall success of the program. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror has met small business goals on prior contracts/orders. The Government may consult various sources, including

CPARS Assessments, PPQs, the PPIRS and eSRS databases, or any other relevant sources deemed appropriate to verify proposal statements.

The Government reserves the right to verify that the small businesses category or categories of the proposed 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.

NOTE 1: The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is a separate requirement and is in addition to the information required to evaluate this factor. For this solicitation, the subcontracting plan (that is not an approved comprehensive plan) shall be calculated as a percentage of total contract dollars, in addition to the goals established as a percentage of total subcontract dollars as depicted in FAR 19.704(a)(2).

Note 2: The evaluation of an Offeror’s history of meeting subcontracting goals on prior contracts/orders will not be evaluated under Factor 3, Past Performance.

(v) FACTOR 5 – SYSTEMS SECURITY PLAN

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s SSP implement the six (6) security requirements addressed in Section L, Factor 5.

(vi) The adjectival ratings for Factor 1 (Software Development Plan), Factor 2 (Software Development

Experience), and Factor 5 (Systems Security Plan) will be rated considering risk in conjunction with the strengths, weakness, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining the ratings. The ratings are 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.

http://dsbs.sba.gov/dsbs/search/dsp_dsbs

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.

The adjectival ratings for Factor 4 (Small Business Commitment) will be rated with the strengths, weakness(es), significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining the ratings. The ratings are as follows:

OUTSTANDING: Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

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

ACCEPTABLE: Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

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

UNACCEPTABLE: Proposal does not meet small business objectives

DEFINITIONS

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 that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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.

Risk: Risk 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, or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

(f) Price/Cost Evaluation.

The purpose of the Government’s cost evaluation is to (a) verify the offeror's understanding of the requirements; (b) assess the degree to which the cost/price proposal reflects the approaches and/or risk assessments made in the proposal as well as the risk that the offeror will provide the supplies or 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 effort included in the proposal. Proposed costs may be adjusted, for purposes of evaluation, based upon the results of the cost realism evaluation. In a competitive environment, an offeror is incentivized to propose the lowest possible price;

therefore, downward cost realism adjustments generally will not be made. However, when cost realism analysis indicates that a proposed cost is unrealistically low, an upward adjustment may be made, based on the

Government’s best estimate of cost the offeror will incur for the cost element. When a cost realism analysis is performed, the resulting most probable cost estimate will be used in the evaluation (referred to as the Government

Evaluated Cost). The sum of the most probable cost estimate on CLINs 0001, 0002, 1001, 1002, 2001, and 2002 will represent the Government Evaluated Cost. Cost realism analysis may be limited to those offerors whose proposals represent the most likely candidate(s) for award, based on the Government's technical evaluation.

Offerors are cautioned, to the extent proposed costs appear unrealistic, the Government may infer either a lack of understanding of the requirements, increased risk of performance, or lack of credibility on the part of the offeror. Unrealistic cost proposals may result in a re-evaluation and concurrent updating of technical proposal ratings. Such re-evaluation based on the most probable cost could negatively impact the technical rating. In the

Source Selection Best Value Determination, the Government may consider the degree of cost realism adjustments made during the cost realism analysis.

Depending on the number of offerors and dollar amount of proposed subcontractors, the Government may limit the extent of the cost realism analysis performed on subcontractors. In such instances, the Government will establish a threshold whereby individual subcontractor cost proposals that do not meet the threshold will not undergo a cost realism analysis. The threshold established by the Government may consist of a percentage of the Prime offeror’s proposed costs, a specific dollar amount, or a combination thereof.

The methods the Government intends to use in its realism evaluation are described below:

(1) Direct Labor

(a) The Government will determine direct labor rate realism based on two criteria: direct labor rate substantiation and direct labor qualification substantiation.

(1) Direct Labor Rate Substantiation: The Government will compare the proposed direct labor rates against the acceptable documentation listed in Section L and/or DCAA/DCMA recommended rates.

(2) Direct Labor Qualification Substantiation: The Government will also evaluate whether the proposed labor force meets the requirements of Attachment 5, Qualifications. The Government will rely on information provided in Attachment 4 - 5, Labor Rate and Qualification. The Government reserves the right to, but is not required to, verify any qualification information by means of third parties or third party databases, where available, as applicable. For example, Program Management certifications are maintained in a database by the Project Management Institute ®.

(b) In the absence of acceptable documentation listed in Section L or DCAA/DCMA recommended rates, and/or information sufficiently explaining how the proposed labor force meets the requirements of

Attachment 5, Qualifications, the Government will compare the proposed rates, consistently across all offerors for each labor category, to one of the following:

(1) Average of realistic rates in response to the solicitation. The Government will determine the

Realistic Average (RA) for each labor category by averaging all realistic labor rates in response to this solicitation for each labor category across all proposed direct labor rates (Prime offerors and subcontractors) that were determined realistic using the methodology described above. Proposed labor rates that lack either Direct Labor Rate Substantiation or Direct Labor Qualification

Substantiation will not be included in the formulation of the RA.

(2) The Lowest Realistic Rate (LRR) in response to the solicitation: The Government will determine the

LRR for each labor category by identifying the lowest rate of all realistic labor rates in response to this solicitation for each labor category across all proposed direct labor rates (Prime offerors and subcontractors) that were determined realistic using the methodology described above. Proposed labor rates that lack either Direct Labor Rate Substantiation or Direct Labor Qualification

Substantiation will not be included in the formulation of the LRR.

(3) One Standard Deviation from the Realistic Average: The Government will identify the RA as described above and then create a one standard deviation below the RA.

(4) Any other reasonable method the Government determines appropriate to evaluate the realism of direct labor rates and complies with FAR 15.404.

The Government will utilize the above methods only as needed for direct labor (unburdened) cost realism analysis.

(c) Offerors are cautioned direct labor rates proposed at a lower rate in the out years than in the first year for the same labor category may be evaluated as higher risk and less realistic due to the potential negative impacts on workforce retention and delivered level of effort over the term of the contract.

(2) Escalation

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s description of how it arrived at its proposed escalation rate. The

Government will evaluate proposed direct labor escalation rates against FPRAs, FPRRs, or DCAA/DCMA field pricing assistance reports, if available. If FPRAs, FPRRs, or DCAA/DCMA field pricing assistance reports are unavailable, the Government will evaluate escalation rates using a range of relevant rates known by the

Government at solicitation release; the Government will determine any proposed escalation rate equal to, or greater than two (2) percent reasonable and realistic for incorporation into the Government evaluated cost. Any direct labor escalation rate less than two (2) percent that is not adequately supported by the offeror will be adjusted to 2% in the cost realism analysis.

(3) Indirect Rates

Given the variation of information available or provided for each offeror the Government will use a sequential process to verify the realism of indirect rates.

First, if the most current FPRA or DCAA audit of the offeror's indirect rates is available, the Government will use those rates in the analysis, to determine the realism of the proposed rates.

If the most current FPRA or DCAA audit of the offeror's indirect rates is unavailable or does not exist, then

(second) the Government will utilize a three-year average of historical indirect data, which may include actual incurred rates, annual incurred cost claims (if submitted), and provisional rates for the three years prior to the offeror’s current fiscal year, to determine the realism of the proposed rates. Should the proposed rate vary more than 5% from the historical average, the Government will consider the narrative submitted by the offeror describing the basis for discrepancy between the historical information and proposed rate; if the offeror failed to submit a narrative or the Government determines the submitted narrative insufficient, the Government will adjust the proposed rate to the three-year historical average in the development of the Government evaluated cost. In Section L, the offeror was instructed to provide historical rates for the three years prior to the offeror’s current fiscal year. The Government intends to also request this historical rate data from DCMA/DCAA. If there are differences between the historical indirect rates provided by the Offeror and the historical indirect rates provided by DCMA/DCAA, offerors are advised that the Government will base its evaluation on the historical rates provided by DCMA/DCAA.

Should a FPRA, DCAA audit of the offeror's indirect rates or any historical information not be available, the

Government may use an FPRR or other relevant DCAA audit information to substantiate or adjust the proposed indirect rates in the development of the Government evaluated cost. If no DCMA FPRA, offeror or

DCMA/DCAA historical rates, FPRR, or other DCMA/DCAA information is available, then the Government will rely on price analysis (Third) Statistical Analysis of indirect multiplier in response to this solicitation: this method entails determining the indirect multiplier applied to the direct labor rate proposed and comparing the indirect multiplier to the average of all realistic indirect multipliers (determined realistic utilizing of the aforementioned methodologies) in response to this solicitation. An indirect multiplier is the sum of all indirect rates (in dollars) and then divided by the indirect rate, For example, Fringe 35%, Overhead 25%, and G&A 8%, renders an indirect multiplier of 68% when each cost element uses direct labor as the sole pool item (Direct

Labor Rate = $100; Fringe = $35; OH = $25; G&A = $8; Indirect multiplier = (35+25+8)/100 = 68%.

Disproportionately small valued proposals may be excluded from the indirect multiplier calculation.

Should a subcontractor’s pricing arrangement or the information submitted by the offeror prevent a meaningful cost element level analysis to be performed, the Government may rely on price analysis (Fourth) to determine the realism of the overall rate proposed. When utilizing this method, the Government would determine the

Lowest Realistic Burdened Rate (LRBR) for each labor category and then compare the proposed rates to the

LRBR. The Government will determine the LRBR for each labor category by identifying the lowest fully burdened rate of all realistic fully burdened rates submitted in response to this solicitation for each labor category across all proposed rates (from all offerors, including subcontractors) that were determined realistic using the methodologies of Direct Labor Rate Substantiation with Direct Labor Qualification Substantiation for direct labor rate realism in combination with FRPA, FPRR, DCAA Audit, or three-year historical average for indirect labor rate realism. Proposed rates that lack either Direct Labor Rate Substantiation, Direct Labor

Qualification Substantiation, or indirect rate supporting information will not be included in the formulating of the LRBR.

If any of the above methods fail to satisfy the standards of analysis required to make a determination of realism, the Government may use any other reasonable method the Government determines is appropriate to evaluate the realism of indirect labor rates and complies with FAR 15.404.

(4) Fee

Adequate competition incentivizes offerors to keep their fee competitive, which the Government anticipates receiving in response to this solicitation. Based on this information, the Government will ensure proposed fee complies with regulatory restrictions for the effort required by the solicitation.

(5) Other Direct Costs (ODCs)

The Government will verify the offer conforms to the ODC amounts specified in Section L.

(6) Compensation Plan

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

Government to determine the extent to which 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”. The Government will evaluate the compensation levels proposed to verify they reflect a clear understanding of work to be performed and indicate the capability of the proposed compensation structure to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives. Proposals anticipating to leverage current incumbent employees with compensation levels lower than those of currently being paid by the incumbent for the same work will be evaluated on the basis of maintaining program continuity, uninterrupted high-quality work, and availability of required competent professional service employees. Offerors are cautioned that lowered compensation for essentially the same employees may indicate lack of sound management judgment and lack of understanding of the requirement.

(7) Price Reasonableness

Price analysis will be conducted to determine price reasonableness in accordance with FAR Part 15. A comparison will be made between the price proposed and the technical approach of each offeror to determine price reasonableness and full understanding of the technical requirements.

(8) Uncompensated Overtime Evaluation

(1) The use of uncompensated overtime is defined in FAR 52.237-10 "Identification of Uncompensated

Overtime" and is discouraged by the Government. Based upon the Government’s assessment of the technical services required herein, it is unrealistic to expect long-term employees to continually work in excess of the industry norm of 40 hours per week. Therefore, the use of uncompensated overtime in this acquisition presents a significant risk to the Government.

(2) Offerors are advised that if uncompensated overtime is proposed, the alternate cost breakdown specified in paragraph (g) of Provision L-5 "Uncompensated Overtime and Professional Employees," will be used for cost evaluation purposes. THUS, NO EVALUATION ADVANTAGE WILL RESULT IF UNCOMPENSATED

OVERTIME IS PROPOSED.

(End of provision)

(End of Summary of Changes)