17RJM08_sol_0001.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 answ er submitted questions from potential offerors, update price evaluation information in Section M, remove clause HQ-C-2-0023, and extend the proposal submission due date.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 12

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 12-Sep-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 N0016417RJM08

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

18-Aug-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 X is extended, 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

11-Sep-2017

CODE

NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER CRANE DIV

H. SLAUBAUGH (812-854-2604)

BLDG 3373

300 HWY 361

CRANE IN 47522-5001

N00164 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N0016417RJM08

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

RFP QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

RFP QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

The following are questions submitted regarding solicitation N00164-17-R-JM08 by potential offerors along with the Government’s response to each. The referenced amendment 1 to the solicitation is detailed immediately following the end of the RFP Questions & Answers section.

1) If Offeror “A” bids $0 for the CLIN 0003 Molds (i.e. Offeror “A” elects to utilize its own funding in the procurement of the molds) and Offeror “B” bids $1, and Offeror “A” is the successful bidder and awarded CLIN 0003, then the CLIN 0003 Molds would not be available as GFP as Offeror “A” would have procured them without use of Government funds. What then would Offeror “B” do for cell cases and covers, assuming that the Government procures a quantity of 750 Ah cells from Offeror “B”? The Government would not have a set of “Government-owned” molds to provide as GFP.

If Offeror “A” were to bid $0 for CLIN 0003, the Government would interpret this as the vendor not proposing on this CLIN and would then be awarded to another Offeror. Additionally, to meet the potential maximum requirement under CLIN 0003 of one (1) mold, the item must become Government property for the delivery to be completed.

Without the Government taking ownership of the item, the requirement would not be met. In regards to how the Government intends to provide molds as GFP in the event that two contracts are awarded, the Government currently owns one (1) Cell Case and Cover Mold and, if necessary, intends to procure a second mold through CLIN 0003 under the contract that includes the award of CLIN 0003.

2) If Offeror “A” bids NSP for the CLIN 0003 Molds (i.e. Offeror “A” elects to utilize its own funding in the procurement) and Offeror “B” bids $1, and Offeror “A” is the successful bidder and awarded CLIN 0003, then again, the CLIN 0003 Molds would not be available as GFP as Offeror “A” would have procured them without use of Government funds. What then would Offeror “B” do for cell cases and covers, assuming that the Government procures a quantity of 750 Ah cells from Offeror “B”? The Government would not have a set of “Government-owned” molds to provide as GFP.

If Offeror “A” were to bid CLIN 0003 to be NSP, the Government would expect that the cost of the mold be included in the other items on the contract. Therefore, Government funds would be used to procure the item despite the funding being under another CLIN. Additionally, to meet the potential maximum requirement under CLIN 0003 of one (1) mold, the item must become Government property for the delivery to be completed. Without the Government taking ownership of the item, the requirement would not be met. In regards to how the Government intends to provide molds as GFP in the event that two contracts are awarded, the Government currently owns one (1) Cell Case and Cover Mold and, if necessary, intends to procure a second mold through CLIN 0003 under the contract that includes the award of CLIN 0003.

3) In the event that there is no government-owned tooling for cases and covers but Offeror A owns the tooling as hypothesized above, will the government buy the required quantity of cases and covers from Offeror A and make those available as GFP to both offerors?

In the event that Offeror A proposes to use a contractor owned mold that meets the specification requirements of the Cell Case and Cover Mold, the Government would still include the proposed pricing for CLIN 0003 in the price evaluation. Should Offeror A using its own mold during performance of the contract be determined beneficial to the Government, the Government would provide the GFP mold currently in its possession to a potential second offeror or store it. CLIN 0003 would still be awarded as intended and the minimum quantity of zero (0) met with the potential to order the maximum of one (1) mold remaining.

4) How can the Government ensure that its RFP results in GFP molds being made available to bidders? Or, at a minimum, GFP cases and covers are available to both offerors to ensure parallel production of cells?

Should the Government award two (2) contracts as a result of this solicitation, assuming that neither vendor proposes to use a vendor owned mold meeting the specification requirements for a Cell Case and Cover Mold, the Government would intend to order a mold from whichever offeror is awarded CLIN 0003. The mold delivered as well as the one currently in the Government’s possession would then be provided as GFP, one to each offeror as indicated within the solicitation in Section H, GFP and Section M, Factor IV: Price, paragraph (a) shown below.

Section H, GFP In the event an offeror is awarded CLIN 0003 upon delivery to the contractors facility it will be become Government Furnished Property in performance of the contract.

Section M, Factor IV: Price, paragraph (a) “While the Government intends to provide a Cell Jar and Case Mold as GFP under one (1) of the potential two (2) contracts, the cost of the maximum quantity associated to the Cell Jar and Cover Mold will be included in the TEP of each vendor for evaluation purposes.”

5) Will the government entertain each supplier owning a separate case and cover tool to have the parts produced at its preferred molder?

It is the Government’s intent that, should the solicitation result in two (2) contracts, each vendor would be provided a mold to be used by that vendor alone until it is returned to the Government following the expiration of the contract.

6) For CLIN 0004, how should this be quoted? As a $ per hour? Or $ per MD (man-day)?

A pricing proposal will not be required for CLIN 0004 prior to the award of the contract. As stated in Section B under the CLIN description for 0004, “Firm-fixed price engineering services will be as required/negotiated for definitive support requirements.” Therefore, the pricing for any services required under a resulting contract will be negotiated when that requirement is identified and defined. For price evaluation purposes, the NTE for CLIN 0004 ($1,000,000) will be included in the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of each proposal. Section M, Factor IV, paragraph

(a) has been updated in amendment 1 to state this aspect of the evaluation.

7) Can Progress Payments (IAW 52.232-14 or 52.232-16) be included within the RFP?

The Government does not intend to include the potential for progress payments within the solicitation.

8) On page 71 of 84 Technical Documentation of Cells, it allows in sub-paragraph (b) that available test results may be included. Are these test results (if incorporated) included in the page count, or, are they not included (as the summary matrix is not included).

These test results are not included within the page count, but should not include information not directly related to the test.

9) [Potential offeror] respectfully requests an extension of approximately 1 week, from 19 September to 28 September.

The Government intends to extend the proposal submission due date by one week to 26 September 2017 on amendment 1 as a result of changes made in the amendment. Additional extensions are not anticipated.

10) Item 0002 cites Repair Parts kits. Per amendment 1, plug-in intercell connectors and plug-in jumper cables are required. Is there a specific part number or drawing available for these items?

The Government anticipates that each vendor has previously produced these or similar cells and has a design that would meet the requirements of the specification and its amendment. The Government would prefer that each vendor propose the parts used within their own design under Repair Parts. As these may vary between potential vendors, the Government does not have drawings or part numbers for these items.

11) Solicitation Clause HQ-C-2-0023 includes the exclusion of mercury. The SOW did not highlight a change to paragraph 3.4.12 of DOD-C-24594(SH) to remove the use of mercury. Is mercury acceptable for use in the zinc electrode or a mercury substitute is required?

Mercury is acceptable for use in the zinc electrode. Clause HQ-C-2-0023 will be removed from the solicitation in amendment 1.

12) The Battery Evaluation Test Plan (JXM-SOW-0988) cites that 84 cells will be provided per reference (b), solicitation N00164-17-R-JM08. Are these cells part of or addition to the Item no. 0001 deliverable?

The Government intends to perform the test for the evaluation of Phases II and III as noted within the Evaluation Test Plan (JXM-SOW-0988) on a random sampling of the cells procured on the first delivery order under CLIN 0001. Therefore, these cells are part of the Item No. 0001 deliverable.

13) Due to the summer month we require more time for material costs. Therefore, we request a two week extension to submit the solicitation October 2, 2017.

The Government intends to extend the proposal submission due date by one week to 26 September 2017 on amendment 1 as a result of changes made in the amendment. Additional extensions are not anticipated.

(End of RFP Questions & Answers)

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 19-Sep-2017 02:00 PM to 26-Sep-2017 02:00 PM.

SECTION C - DESCRIPTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS

The following clauses have been removed from the solcitation:

HQ-C-2-0023 Exclusion of Mercury

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Within the following Factor IV: Price has been modified:

CNIN-M-0002 BEST VALUE EVALUATION (JAN 2014)

Note: This provision addresses the best value evaluation for Phase(s) I, II, and III of the acquisition.

Additional requirements and information for Phase(s) II and III awards are address in the solicitation’s Section H.

a) Contract(s) resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to that Offeror(s) whose offer, conforming to the solicitation requirements, is determined to provide the “best value” to the Government. The “best value” determination will be based on the merits of the offer and the Offeror’s capability. The “best value” may not necessarily be the proposal offering the lowest cost, nor receiving the highest technical rating. As specified in the FAR 52.215-1 “Instructions to Offerors--Competitive Acquisition” provision, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions. An offer must be acceptable for the Offeror to be eligible for award. OFFERS THAT DO NOT CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS STATED

HEREIN MAY BE DETERMINED UNACCEPTABLE AND MAY BE REJECTED WITHOUT

FURTHER EVALUATION.

b) The Government reserves the right to award specific CLINs to acceptable Offeror(s) and may not award any CLINs to all Offerors.

c) It is the Government’s intent to award up to two (2) contracts as a result of this solicitation in order to ensure a continued competitive industrial base for the manufacture of the Silver-Oxide Zinc battery cells. However, the Government reserves the right to only award one (1) contract if award of multiple contracts is not in the best interest of the Government when considering non-price and price evaluation factors listed herein.

d) If two (2) awards are made, follow-on delivery orders will be awarded based on the evaluation criteria detailed within the solicitation. Regardless of evaluation results, the Navy has the right to award delivery orders to both vendors in order to maintain a viable industrial base for the Silver Oxide Zinc batteries.

e) 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.

f) Offerors must meet the standard in FAR 9.105 for responsibility to be eligible for award. The Government may conduct a Pre-Award Survey as part of this source selection. Results of any survey will be evaluated to determine each Offeror’s capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation. Any such survey may also be used to verify statements and representations made in the Offeror’s proposal. The purpose of a preaward survey is to obtain information not available to the Contracting Officer to make a responsibility determination prior to contract award.

g) Proposals will be rated and ranked on the evaluation factors listed below. Price will not be rated, but will be considered in determining the "best value" to the Government. The Phase I, Factor IV (Price) becomes more important as the degree of equality of Factors Other Than Price increases, or when the price is so significantly high as to diminish the value of the technical superiority to the Government.

NOTE: A finding of “Unacceptable” in one technical factor and/or subfactor may result in the entire proposal being determined unacceptable.

DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS:

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.

Meets Requirement – Offeror’s Proposal merely meets the requirements of the RFP. No evidence of strengths, weaknesses, or deficiencies exists, but meets the minimum standards. For a proposal aspect that meets the requirement no strength, weakness, or deficiency are documented.

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 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.

Relevancy- as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming 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.

Confidence - a determination of how well the contractor performed on previous contracts. The past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. The more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment

STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION:

FACTOR I: TECHNICAL

The technical evaluation will be a subjective assessment of the Offeror’s ability to meet the requirements of the technical data package, to include but not be limited to, the specification and statement of work. The evaluation will also consider the successful application of Government and industry standards and best practices and innovative approaches that added value to the project/program and benefitted the Government. The objective of the evaluation is to:

1. develop insight into the Offeror’s relative capability to meet the requirement and the relative risk associated with contracting with the Offeror; and

2. determine the degree to which the Offeror has previously encountered the kinds of work, uncertainties, challenges, and risks that it is likely to encounter under the prospective contract.

Each Offeror will be evaluated on its capability to perform the requirements from the statement of work based on relevant technical expertise and experience. This shall include the Offeror’s (and subcontractors) depth and breadth of experience performing the type of work covered by the statement of work, the Offeror’s (and subcontractors) ability to perform the requirements and produce quality supplies and services. The information provided in the narrative on technical capability will be used to assess the Offeror’s technical capability.

If a vendor is awarded a contract, it is not guaranteed that the vendor will receive delivery orders for Phases II and

III.

The Offeror’s proposal shall be in the format prescribed by, and shall contain a response to, each of the areas identified in Section L. The order of relative importance for the evaluation factors is established as follows:

PHASE I, FACTOR I - TECHNICAL SUBFACTORS

A. Technical Documentation of cells B. Physical Requirements of cells C. Electrical Requirements of cells D. Cell Case Mold

PHASE I, FACTOR II – PAST PERFORMANCE

PHASE I, FACTOR III – SUBCONTRACTING

PHASE I, FACTOR IV – PRICE

1. Phase I, Factor I (Technical) is more important than Phase I, Factor II (Past Performance). Phase I, Factor II (Past Performance) is more important than Phase I, Factor III (Subcontracting). Phase I, Factor III (Subcontracting) is of equal importance to Phase I, Factor IV (Price). Phase I, Factors I and II, when combined, are significantly more important than Phase I, Factors III (Subcontracting) and IV (Price). The price factor becomes more important as a degree of equality of technical factors increases, or when price is so significantly high as to diminish the value of the technical superiority to the Government.

2. Under Phase I, Factor I, Subfactors A, B, C, and D are equally important. Under Phase I, Factor II (Past Performance), Subfactors A and B are listed in descending order of importance. Phase I, Factor IV (Price) will not be rated but will be considered in determining the “Best Value” to the Government.

Past Performance information may be evaluated upon receipt prior to the closing date of the solicitation.

PHASE II, FACTOR I - TECHNICAL SUBFACTORS

A. Series string testing B. Cell Testing – Performance, Hydrostatic w/Compensating Fluid, Hydrogen generation

C. Cell Testing- Wet life, dissection D. User Testing/End Item Compatibility

1. Under Phase II, Factor I (Technical), Subfactors A, B, C, and D are equally important.

2. Assuming the test assets perform as intended, testing under Phase II, Factor I (Technical), Subfactor D will take a minimum of 18 months to complete. Data from this test may not be available at the time of the award of the second delivery order. Therefore, Subfactor D may be assigned a rating of “Acceptable” if data is not available for the Subfactor at the time of the award of the second delivery order.

PHASE III, FACTOR I - TECHNICAL SUBFACTORS

A. Phase II, Factor I B. Product In-Service Evaluation (if applicable)

1. Under Phase II, Factor I (Technical), Subfactors A and B are equally important.

2. If performance variations resulting in performance issues are noted by end users under Factor I (Technical), Subfactor B, the Government reserves the right to conduct the technical evaluations and tests of Phase II, Factor I (Technical) again prior to order award decisions.

3. If sufficient evaluation information under Subfactor B is not available at the time of order evaluations, Subfactor B may be assigned an “Acceptable” rating for the award of that order.

PHASE I, FACTOR I: TECHNICAL, PHASE II, FACTOR I: TECHNICAL, AND PHASE III, FACTOR I:

TECHNICAL EVALUATIONS

PHASE I (CLINs 0001-0003): Evaluation will be performed prior to initial contract award and will apply to the first delivery order against the contract. Phase I will utilize written proposal evaluation of the factors detailed in Section

L – CNIN-L-0002.

PHASE II (CLINs 0001 and 0002): Evaluation will be performed prior to the award of the second delivery order and shall be considered in the evaluation of all orders thereafter as a Phase III subfactor. Phase II evaluation will utilize the results of the technical testing evaluations as identified in the US Government Evaluation Test Plan (Attachment

02) available at the time of the order.

PHASE III (CLINs 0001 and 0002): Evaluation will be performed prior to the award of the third delivery order and all orders thereafter. Subfactor A evaluation will utilize the results of the technical testing evaluations performed under Phase II, Factor I (Technical). Subfactor B will utilize the results of Product In-Service Evaluation testing as identified in the US Government Evaluation Test Plan (Attachment 02).

ENGINEERING SERVICES (CLIN 0004): Delivery orders for engineering services will be awarded on a sole source basis to up to two (2) contracted vendors. A technical proposal will be requested, evaluated, and negotiated at the time of each order. The technical proposal submitted at the time of the requirement shall address the key areas of the SOW and the offeror’s plan to meet those areas. The technical evaluation will be based upon written proposals detailing the vendors compliance with the SOW for each order.

In each phase of the evaluation, the technical factor will be assigned an adjectival rating reflecting the degree to which the offeror’s proposal meets the requirements of DOD-C-24594 of 6 September 1979 and Amendment 1 of 1 September 1982 or the product performs against the parameters detailed in the US Government Evaluation Test Plan. Adjectival ratings will be assigned in accordance with the following definitions:

Table 1: Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

PHASE I, FACTOR II: PAST PERFORMANCE

If an Offeror receives a technical rating less than "acceptable", the Government may not rate the Offeror's past performance as the Offeror may not be considered for award.

Past performance is assessed by the Contracting Officer and is assigned adjectival ratings in the evaluation. There are three (3) 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 assess each Offeror’s and proposed significant subcontractor’s past performance. The assessment will be an unbiased judgment about the quality of an Offeror’s past performance. The Government will use its subjective assessment to make a comparative assessment of an Offeror’s capability. Past performance is a measure of the degree to which an Offeror satisfied its customers in the past and complied with the Specification, Drawings, Statement of Work, Performance Work Statement, contract schedule and contract terms and conditions.

Past performance is also a measure of the risk of performance associated with the Offeror.

The Government will assess the Offeror's past performance in the areas of the quality of the product and customer satisfaction in regards to schedule, cost control, business relations, and small business subcontract plan adherence IAW Far 52.219-8 and 52.219-9 if applicable.

Assessment of past performance will be a subjective assessment based on consideration of the quality of the recent and relevant past performance being evaluated. The Government is seeking to determine whether the Offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to customer satisfaction and timely delivery of quality goods and services at fair and reasonable prices. The Government may base its judgment about the quality of an Offeror’s past performance on:

(1) Records of objective measurements and subjective ratings of specified performance attributes, if available, and

(2) Statements of opinion about the quality of specific aspects of an Offeror’s performance, or about the quality of an Offeror’s overall performance.

In addition to the sources provided by the Offeror, the Government may review Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and/or DOD Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) ratings, other Government databases, and other existing past performance ratings on relevant contracts. The Government may solicit information from an Offeror’s customers and business associates; Federal, state and local government agencies and databases; and from other persons and organizations. The Government reserves the right to limit the number of references it decides to contact and to contact references other than those provided by the Offeror. The evaluation will take in account the same type of information regarding significant subcontractors proposed in the Offeror’s proposal.

The Contracting Officer is not responsible for locating or securing any information not furnished with the offer.

The SSA/Contracting Officer may, however, utilize all available information, including information not provided by the Offeror, in the past performance evaluation. The Government reserves the right to review less than all

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

information submitted, and to only analyze sufficient information to make a reasonable determination of each Offeror’s past performance rating. If insufficient information regarding the Offeror’s corporate history is available, the Offeror is encouraged to submit for evaluation, evidence of relevant past performance on the part of the Offeror’s key/principal employees, as either a prime- or sub-contractor.

Past performance is assessed by the Contracting Officer and is assigned an adjectival confidence rating in the evaluation taking into consideration- relevancy of the information provided. Assessments will be complete based on the following:

Recency The recency of past performance is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information.

For the purposes of this solicitation, recent contracts are defined as those on which performance has occurred during the last three (3) years.

Relevance The past performance relevancy rating, as defined in Table 2 below, is the assessment of the Offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract's requirements.

Table 2: 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

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.

Overall quality of the Offerors’ past performance will be assessed through the confidence rating as defined below.

The Government will utilize information from several sources to evaluate past performance. Sources include but are not limited personal experience, CPARS, PPIRS, FAAPIS, and reference questionnaires.

Confidence The past performance confidence rating, as defined in the table below, is the evaluation of the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevance, and quality of performance utilizing the confidence ratings as shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Past Performance Confidence Assessments

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.

Offerors that have no record of past performance (i.e., new businesses) must submit a signed and dated statement to that effect. If an offer submits a certification statement and the Government has no information available regarding the Offeror’s past performance, that Offeror will receive a neutral rating (i.e., the Offeror is evaluated neither favorably nor unfavorably) for past performance. If Offerors (prime and significant subcontractors) provide reference information that is deemed not relevant and current as defined in Section L, the Offeror will receive a neutral past performance rating for those contracts.

FACTOR III: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

A subcontract participation plan shall be submitted in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section “L”.

Small Business Participation will be evaluated IAW DFARS 215.304 (c) to include the extent to which small business firms are specifically identified in proposals, the extent of commitment to use such firms (enforceable commitments vs. non-enforceable ones), the complexity and variety of the work small businesses are to perform, the realism of the proposal and the past performance of the Offerors in complying with the requirements of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan and the ability of the Offeror(s) to meet the 5% Small Business Participation objective. Information relating to the contractors performance in small business participation will be solicited from DCMA, SBA, CPARS and other sources as needed to assess this area of the proposal.

The Government will evaluate the extent of participation of small business concerns utilizing the ratings in Table 5 below.

Table 4: Small Business Ratings

Rating Description

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 the small business objectives.

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

FACTOR IV: PRICE

A Price Proposal shall be submitted for the supplies/services set forth in Section B of this solicitation. 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 Defense Contract Audit Agency office, Defense Contract Management Command, other contracts with the same firms for similar items or services, known commercial sources such as Global Insight Inc. (formally Data Resources, Inc.), Standard and Poor, etc.

Proposals which are unrealistic in terms of technical or schedule commitments, or unrealistically high or low in terms of price, may be deemed reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence, or indicative of a failure to comprehend the complexity of risks of the proposed work and may be grounds for rejection of the proposal. The quality of organization and attention to detail reflected in the business proposal will be considered to be an indication of the quality of organization and level of capability during contract performance. Subjective judgment on the part of the government evaluators is implicit in the entire process.

(a) Proposals will be evaluated for price reasonableness. The Government intends to provide a Cell Jar and Case Mold as GFP under one (1) of the up to two (2) contracts. For price evaluation purposes, the price of the maximum quantity associated to the Cell Jar and Cover Mold (CLIN 0003) will be included in the TEP calculated for each vendor. While the Government intends to negotiate delivery orders for Engineering Services (CLIN 0004) at the time of the requirement, the full NTE amount of $1,000,000 for the CLIN will be included in the TEP to be evaluated under Phase I, Factor IV Price at time of contract award. Price evaluation will be based on an examination of the unit pricing proposed and the estimated delivery order quantities per year, multiplied by the offered price for that quantity range, all years summed, with the addition of the price of the maximum quantity associated to CLIN 0003 and the NTE amount for CLIN 0004 to arrive at a total evaluated price (TEP).

Each supply consists of the total cost for material, labor, overhead, general and administrative expenses, miscellaneous subcontracting, travel/per diem, contract data and any miscellaneous cost items. Silver will provided by the Government as GFM. Contract Data is “Not Separately Priced”.

The overall total evaluated price will be used for the comparison to other offers in the competitive range for a price reasonableness determination. The Contracting Officer may additionally use any of the other proposal analysis techniques that are described at FAR 15.404-1, as appropriate, to ensure that the final agreed-to-price is fair and reasonable.

(End of Summary of Changes)