A0003 SF30.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 update Section M-4 of Section M to remove references to subcontracting plan requirements.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 14

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 24-Aug-2022

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 N0017322RSD01

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

25-Jul-2022

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

24-Aug-2022

CODE

NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY

4555 OVERLOOK AVE, SW

WASHINGTON DC 20375

N00173 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N0017322RSD01

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M-1 EVALUATION FACTORS

Basis for Award The Offerors proposal must comply in all material respects with the requirements of the law, regulation and conditions set forth in this solicitation. The proposal must meet all Solicitation requirements.

The Government anticipates a single award resulting from this solicitation. The award decision will be based on the Government’s evaluation of each Offeror’s complete proposal against the evaluation Factors identified below. In accordance with FAR 52.215-1(f)(1), the award will be made to the responsible Offeror(s) whose proposal represents the best overall value to the Government after evaluation based on the Factors described herein. Best value means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement (FAR 2.101). A best value analysis will not be performed or developed for any Offeror whose proposal is found to be technically unacceptable or unsatisfactory in any other factor. A proposal receiving an unacceptable in any factor will render the Offeror ineligible for award.

A tradeoff analysis may be used when it is in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror. In order to select the successful Offeror, the Government will compare the Offerors proposal volumes. The comparison will trade off differences in technical capability based on the non-cost factors and cost factors. If one Offeror has both the better technical capability and the lower TEP, then that Offeror will be the better value. If one Offeror has the better technical capability and a higher TEP, the Government will decide whether the difference in technical capability is worth the difference in price. If it is determined that the difference in technical capability is worth the difference in price, then the more capable, higher-priced Offeror will be the better value. If not, then the less capable, lower-priced Offeror will be the better value.

The Government may limit the breadth of the cost realism analyses to those Offeror and subcontractor proposals, respectively, that represent the most likely candidates for award based on information derived from the technical evaluation and relative cost comparison. If an Offeror has a lower technical rating than competing Offerors and a higher proposed cost, the Government may elect not to perform a cost realism analysis on said Offeror's proposed cost as the cost realism analysis will only result in upward adjustments to the proposed cost thereby further removing the Offeror's proposal from the most likely candidates for award.

Award will only be made to an Offeror that has no organizational conflict of interest as defined in FAR 9.5 or that the Government determines has provided a satisfactory mitigation plan in accordance with Section L. Offerors are advised that technical proposals may be evaluated without consideration of any proposed Subcontractor which is deemed to have an organizational conflict of interest and for which an unsatisfactory mitigation plan has been proposed. Failure by an Offeror that has identified a potential OCI or to submit an OCI mitigation plan with its proposal shall no longer being considered for award. Prior to award, the Government will review any submitted OCI mitigation plan and make a determination as to whether the plan adequately meets the issues and provides adequate protection to both the company and the Government.

The Government will evaluate each Offeror's proposal in accordance with the factors contained in

Section L and listed below to determine the best value proposal. The evaluation factors represent key areas of importance to be considered in the source selection decision. The factors and any associated elements have been chosen to support meaningful discrimination between and among competing proposals. As demonstrated in each proposal, a prospective Offeror shall be evaluated in terms of its ability to meet or exceed the program’s requirements stated in the SOW. Each proposal shall be evaluated in accordance with the factors listed in the table below:

Factors

1. Technical Understanding

2. Personnel Qualifications

3. Management Capability

4. Past Performance

5. Small Business Participation

6. Small Business Subcontracting Plan

7. Cost/Price

Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the following criteria:

Technical Capability includes the following three factors: 1) Technical Understanding, 2) Personnel Qualifications, and 3) Management Capability. The relative importance of the technical factors is: Technical Understanding is more important than Personnel Qualifications; Personnel Qualifications is more important than Management Capability.

Factors 1-3 of Technical Capability are more important than Factor 4: Past Performance, Factor 5: Small Business Participation, and Factor 6: Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

However, as non-price factors become closer in perceived value, price considerations will become more important.

Trade-off considerations may result in the determination that it is in the best interest of the Government to award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror.

M-2 EVALUATION OF FACTORS 1-3: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

M-2-1 TECHNICAL CAPABILITY FACTORS

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL UNDERSTANDING

Offerors’ proposals will be evaluated on their demonstrated understanding of the requirements set forth in the Statement of Work (SOW).

The Government will evaluate:

1. The degree to which the Offeror's technical proposal clearly demonstrates the capability, knowledge and approach, for both Prime and Subcontractors in performing all aspects of the SOW.

2. The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates an overall understanding of the scope of work and provides an approach to performing the tasks described in the RFP.

3. The Offeror’s size, scope, and complexity, as well as demonstrated knowledge, capability, and approach (for both Prime and Subcontractors) to perform all aspects of the tasks in accordance with the Statement of Work.

4. The Offeror shall specifically demonstrate its ability to perform the following tasks as described in the SOW including:

a. Engineering functions, including thermal systems engineering, contamination engineering, instrumental optical and RF engineering, instrument systems engineering, mechanisms engineering, mechanical systems engineering, and electrical systems engineering (SOW 3.1)

b. Hardware fabrication (SOW 3.2)

c. Mission Assurance (SOW 3.3)

FACTOR 2: PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS

The proposals will be evaluated on the Offeror’s demonstrated ability to provide key personnel in accordance with Attachment J-3, Personnel Qualifications to carry out the SOW. The evaluation will consist of a review of the personnel qualification information provided by the Offeror, specifically in the following areas:

1. The experience of all proposed key personnel;

2. The qualifications of proposed key personnel;

3. The availability of all key personnel to support the effort on a full-time permanent basis (for all full-time employees only); and

4. The proposed key personnel’s ability to span the total requirements (60 months).

The evaluation of this factor will cover the qualifications of all proposed KEY personnel; missing qualifications shall be deemed as proposal significant weakness or deficiency. Offerors proposals will be evaluated on the availability of all proposed project professional and technical personnel to support the effort on a permanent basis.

Key Personnel are identified as follows:

1. Senior Mechanical Systems Engineer

2. Senior Systems Engineer

3. Senior Instrument Optical Engineer

4. Senior Electromechanical Systems Engineer

5. Senior Thermal Engineer

The experience and qualifications of all Key Personnel as noted above as it relates to this SOW and RFP Attachment J-3, Personnel Qualifications are of significant importance. Lack of required experience and qualifications for these labor categories will result in a Deficiency rating for this factor.

The proposed key personnel shall be available for work efforts on the first day of the period of performance start date. The proposed non-key personnel shall be available for work efforts within two weeks of after the period of performance start date. It is critical that the Offeror has properly committed key personnel with relevant experience and qualifications to complete the proposed work rather than just “corporate history” that does not transfer to the existing personnel who will perform the proposed work.

The Offeror’s proposed Staffing Plan will be evaluated on:

a. Completeness of proposed personnel tasking and cross referencing of staff with appropriate SOW tasking’s

b. Offeror’s proposed mapping of any company-specific labor categories with solicitation labor categories and their requirements/qualifiations, if applicable

c. Offeror’s proposed staff’s knowledge and capabilities to execute the proposed technical approach

d. How the Offeror’s proposed team provides the optimal balance between size, manageability, and support capability while maintaining an integrated approach

e. Completeness of contingent hire documentation.

FACTOR 3: MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY:

The proposal will be evaluated on the Offeror’s demonstrated capacity to routinely and rapidly respond to the general science, engineering, and support requirements of a research laboratory.

The proposal will be evaluated on the sufficiency of the Offeror’s staff to accommodate program changes within the scope of the SOW.

The proposal will be evaluated on the Offeror’s management plan, which should include a description of how the different tasks can be effectively and efficiently managed with minimum demands upon Government personnel. It should include, as applicable: management experience and involvement, quality control, risk management, systems engineering, hardware development, configuration management and subcontract management.

The Offeror must also provide a narrative description of its management experience on projects with scientific, engineering and technical efforts similar to those required in the SOW. This description should clearly demonstrate how the contractor’s management plan defines the company’s management efforts resulted in its ability to meet performance requirements, cost, and schedule goals on projects of similar size and complexity.

The proposal will also be evaluated on the Offeror’s strategy for assuring a smooth and effective transition between the Offeror’s proposed personnel and the incumbent’s personnel into the ongoing system development, maintenance, and operations efforts.

The proposed Transition Plan will be evaluated on:

a. A clear ability to execute on the first day of the contract (only acclimation/gaining familiarity with NRL is allowable as there is no budget for training);

b. The transfer of work control and information;

c. Complying with NRL security regulations; and

d. Delineating the method for processing and assigning tasks during the phase-in/phase-out periods.

The plan shall address how the Awardee will implement adequate measures to coordinate communications with the Awardee and NRL staff in order to ensure minimal impact during the transition process. The proposal will be evaluated on the Offeror’s ability to complete all the transition activities within 90 days after contract award.

M-2-2 TECHNICAL CAPABILITY ADJECTIVAL RATINGS

The Government will perform an analysis of the Technical Capability factors and assign an adjectival rating to each factor as identified below. This evaluation focuses on strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of the Offeror’s proposal, resulting in the assignment of an adjectival rating at the factor level. Risk assessments will be performed as to the risk of successful performance within each factor. Responses will be evaluated in terms of quality, depth, and relevance of information presented in response to this solicitation. It should be noted that proposals found to be unacceptable in any non-cost factor may result in the entire proposal being deemed Unacceptable.

The following color/adjectival ratings and rating definitions will be used for each of the three technical factors. They will also be used to assign an overall combined Technical/Risk Rating for the technical proposal (Factor 1:

Technical Capability):

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

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

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

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

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

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance

The associated risk descriptions are as follows:

RISK DESCRIPTION

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

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

High

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

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

Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, and Deficiencies ratings in the description block of the above two tables are defined as follows:

Technical Rating Definitions

Rating Definition

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.

M-3 EVALUATION OF FACTOR 4: PAST PERFORMANCE

Past performance is a measure of the degree to which the Offeror satisfied its customers in previous relevant contracts and complied with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations.

The Government will evaluate CPAR reports, Past Performance Questionnaires and Previous Contract Effort Narratives, and may contact some of each Offeror’s customers to ask whether or not they believe: (1) that the Offeror is capable, efficient and effective; (2) that the Offeror’s performance conformed to the terms and conditions of its contract; (3) that the Offeror was reasonable and cooperative during performance; (4) that the Offeror was committed to customer satisfaction; and (5) if given a chance would they select the same or a different Contractor.

The Government may consider past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the Offeror, including Federal, State, and local Government agencies, Better Business Bureaus, published media and electronic databases. The lack of recent and relevant past performance information will result in the assignment of a neutral rating (i.e. neither favorable nor unfavorable) for this factor.

Sources of Past Performance Information for Evaluation are as follows:

• Past Performance information may be provided by the Contractor, as solicited

• Past Performance information may be obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition

Past performance information shall be obtained from any other sources available to the Government to include, but not limited to, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases, interviews with Program Mangers, Contracting Officer’s and Contracting Officer Representatives, Expert Technical Representatives and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

M-3-1 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Contractor’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements, The past performance evaluation considers each Contractor’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the Government’s requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each Contractor after evaluating the Contractor’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Government’s requirements.

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).

1. Recency: The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establish the relevancy of past performance information.

2. Relevance: The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Present/past performance effort should demonstrate scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of a Contractor’s contract history that would give the greatest ability to measure whether the Contractor will satisfy the current procurement. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity; dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming. Relevancy ratings are based on the definitions below:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Description

Very relevant Present/past performance effort involves essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involves similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

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

3. Quality: The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance (see FAR 15.304(c)(2)). The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create or change the existing record and history of the Contractor’s past performance on previous contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Contractor performed on those previous contracts.

Performance Confidence Assessment: The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into a 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. Performance Confidence Assessment ratings are as follows:

Performance Confidence Ratings

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the Contractor’s recency/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Contractor will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the Contractor’s recency/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Contractor will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Contractor’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 Contractor’s recency/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Contractor will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Contractor’s recency/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Contractor will successfully perform the required effort.

The following terms listed in the description block in the above tables are defined as follows:

Past Performance Relevancy Rating

Rating Definition Recency As it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant. For this acquisition, recency is defined as past performance references within the last five years as of the date of this solicitation release.

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.

Performance Confidence Assessment

An evaluation of the likelihood (or Government’s confidence) that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements; the evaluation is based upon past performance information.

M-4 EVALUATION OF FACTOR 5: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

Offerors’ completion of RFP Attachment J-6 – Small Business Participation, will be evaluated based on the following descriptions and will be assigned adjectival ratings in accordance with Table 7 below.

The Government will evaluate small business participation and commitment as measured against the Total Acquisition Value (TAV). As a part of this evaluation, the Government will consider each Offeror’s commitment to use small business:

a) To be Acceptable, the Offeror must demonstrate a plan to meet the minimum objectives for the participation of small business firms (5%, including those in socioeconomic categories as defined in

FAR Part 19) in terms of the percentage and dollars of the total acquisition value, or the Offeror must provide a sufficient justification for its failure to do so.

b) To be Acceptable, the Offeror must describe the nature of the commitment with each small business, including the subcontract type.

c) To be Acceptable, the Offeror must describe its use of small businesses in terms of the type and complexity of work to be performed as well as a description of the type of agreements and/or commitments to use small business firms under the contract.

d) To be Acceptable, the Offeror must explain the specific initiatives and strategies that will be used under the contract to enhance small business utilization and capabilities.

e) To be Acceptable, the Offeror must demonstrate the proper flow down of requirements, process management, and performance assessments of small business utilization at the first tier.

The Government will assess the Offeror’s submissions to this factor for adequacy of the proposed Small Business Participation Plan. To be acceptable, the Offeror shall provide a complete and responsive small business participation plan. In accordance with 13 C.F.R. 125.3(g)(3), a small business concern submitting an offer will be rated Acceptable for this Small Business Participation Factor, even if they elect not to submit any information in connection with this factor.

The following adjectival ratings/descriptions shall be used for the Small Business Participation evaluation factor:

Adjectival Rating

Description

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not indicate an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

M-5 EVALUATION OF FACTOR 6: SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

The following adjectival ratings/definitions shall be used for the Small Business Subcontracting Plan evaluation factor:

Small Business Subcontracting Plan Ratings

COLOR RATING DESCRIPTION

Green Acceptable:

Proposal meets all requirements of the solicitation and FAR 52.219-9 on small business subcontracting, small business subcontracting is tailored to requirement (if no corporate comprehensive subcontracting plan) 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 contract performance is no worse than moderate.

All small business concerns shall receive an acceptable rating for this factor

Red Unacceptable:

Proposal does not meet all the requirements of the solicitation and FAR 52.219-9 as they pertain to small business subcontracting and proposed small business subcontracting is not tailored to requirement (excluding corporate comprehensive subcontracting plans).Proposal does not meet the requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. The proposal is unawardable.

M-6 EVALUATION OF FACTOR 7: COST

Proposals will be evaluated using the cost/price analysis methods of FAR Subpart 15.4.

Cost will become significantly more important as technical and past performance ratings approach equality.

Cost Evaluation

Cost Factor Basis of Evaluation

Cost

Completeness, realism, and reasonableness.

The Government will evaluate each Offeror's proposed CLIN pricing to ensure all proposed costs were proposed in accordance with the instructions outlined in Section L of this solicitation. The Government will evaluate each Offeror's proposed pricing to establish that it is reasonable. At the Contracting Officer's discretion, price reasonableness may be presumed without further review based on adequate price competition for the requirement that is the subject of this solicitation.

Where adequate price competition is deemed not to exist based on proposals received or on other factors, the Government, at its election, may determine the reasonableness of any Offeror's proposed pricing with reference to the factors identified at FAR 15.404-l(b)(2)(ii)-(vii). The Government reserves the right to reject, without further consideration and without notice to the Offeror, any offer where the proposed pricing is determined to be unreasonable.

The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced from year to year. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

Options. Evaluation of Options will be conducted in accordance with FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options, to include FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services and FAR 52.217-9, Option to Extend the Term of the Contract. The objective of the evaluation of the option is to determine that the price is fair and reasonable. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise any options.

Total costs proposed will be evaluated for completeness, realism, and reasonableness. Cost Completeness means the proposed costs are in complete in terms of adequacy of the identification, estimation and support all relevant costs.

Cost Realism (FAR 2.101) means the proposed costs are (1) realistic for the work to be performed, (2) reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and (3) are consistent with the various elements of the Offeror’s technical proposal. Cost reasonableness (FAR 31.201) is defined as reasonable if the cost does not exceed the amount incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of a competitive business.

Experience in Navy programs indicates that a contract awarded to a contractor submitting an unrealistically low cost proposal (whether resulting from a decision on the part of the contractor to submit a price below anticipated costs;

from inaccurate, incorrect or improper assumptions in the cost, technical, or other areas; from a lack of understanding of the contract requirements, or other circumstances) may cause problems for the Navy, as well as the contractor during contract performance. Such problems may result in significant cost overruns which may substantially impair the contractor’s ability to meet its requirements. Accordingly, Offerors are cautioned that should the Government determine that a proposal submitted in response to this RFP is unrealistically low based on the Governments cost realism analysis; the Government may reject the proposal regardless of its technical merit and/or evaluated cost.

The Cost Proposal evaluation will be based on compliance with the solicitation, a cost realism analysis, completeness of the cost data, traceability of the cost to the Offeror’s capability data and the proposed allocation of man-hours, materials, and labor mix. Pertinent cost information including, but not limited to, DCAA or DCMA recommended rates for such costs as direct labor, overhead, G&A, etc., as necessary and appropriate, will be considered in arriving at the Government determination of the most probable estimated cost to be incurred in the performance of the contract. BECAUSE OF THIS, OFFERORS ARE INSTRUCTED TO PROVIDE THEIR

ACTUALLY INCURRED DIRECT AND INDIRECT LABOR RATES FOR THE PAST THREE

CONTRACTOR FISCAL YEARS. SALARY DATA FOR PERSONNEL PROPOSED MAY BE

SUBMITTED IN LIEU OF CORPORATE LABOR RATES IF CORPORATE LABOR STRUCTURE

DOES NOT SUPPORT. THIS DATA SHALL BE PROVIDED ON CORPORATE LETTERHEAD AND

SIGNED BY THE COGNIZANT REPRESENTATIVE.

Based upon the results of this analysis, the Government will develop a "Projected Cost to the Government” for each priced CLIN, excluding those CLINs which the Government has provided value Offerors are to propose, which represents, in the Government's judgment, the overall cost (projected cost plus fee) that will result from the Offeror's actual performance of the contract requirements.

The Government will then calculate the Government Total Evaluated Price (GTEP) for each offer which is calculated by summing the Government-determined realistic total estimated costs for all priced base and option CLINs. In developing the GTEP, through cost realism analysis, the Government reserves the right to perform an upward adjustment to any cost in the Offeror’s proposal for EVALUATION PURPOSES ONLY. The GTEP will be used in making an award recommendation. The contract award will be made at the proposed cost and fee amounts of the successful Offeror.

The GTEP is calculated as follows:

The Governments Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated by summing the projected cost to the Government for each of the following CLINs as follows:

CLIN 0001 + CLIN 0002 + CLIN 0003 + CLIN 1001 + CLIN 1002 + CLIN 1003 + CLIN

2001 + CLIN 2002 + CLIN 2003 + CLIN 3001 + CLIN 3002 + CLIN 3003 + CLIN 4001 +

CLIN 4002 + CLIN 4003

Another way of looking at this:

CLINs Cost Element Base Year Option Year

Option Year

Option Year

Option Year

CLINs 0001, 1001, 2001, 3001 and 4001 Labor Offeror to

Propose Offeror to Propose

Offeror to Propose

Offeror to Propose

Offeror to Propose

CLIN's 0002, 1002, 2002, 3002 and 4002

Material Cost $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000

CLIN's 0003, 1003, 2003, 3003 and 4003

ODC $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000

Total Evaluated Price

Offeror to Propose

Offeror to Propose

Offeror to Propose

Offeror to Propose

Offeror to Propose

*The values provided by the Government in the table above are not inclusive of Offeror indirect costs. Offerors are instructed to propose accordingly.

For evaluation purposes only, the Government will utilize the above formula for evaluating each Offerors proposal.

Any Offeror who fails to populate Section B CLIN pricing within Volume IV will not be considered for award. If for any reason, the pricing found in the Offeror’s populated Attachment J-4 differs from those values proposed in Section B, the Section B values will be used by the Governments in calculating the TEP.

The burden of proof for cost credibility rests with the Offeror. Therefore, any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between the technical proposal and cost should be explained in the supporting cost data volume. Offerors are cautioned that to the extent proposed costs appear unrealistic or unsupported by cost realism substantiating data and analysis; the Government may infer a lack of understanding of the requirements, increased risk of performance, or lack of credibility on the part of the Offerors. Therefore, each Offeror should ensure that its proposal provides a clear and complete discussion of the methodologies and cost realism substantiating data that demonstrate the cost realism of the Offeror’s proposed costs. Proposals should also include, for Government review, all underlying substantiating data that the Offeror used in demonstrating the cost realism of its proposed costs.

Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). The evaluation will be based on an analysis of the realism and completeness of the cost proposal, the traceability of the cost to the Offeror's technical proposal, and the proposed allocation of man-hours and labor mix. If proposed direct and indirect labor rates are considered to be unrealistic, the Offeror’s proposed costs will be adjusted upward to reflect more realistic costs.

Based on this analysis, an adjusted cost for the Offeror will be calculated to reflect the Government’s estimate of the Offeror’s most probable costs for evaluation purposes only.

Offerors will be evaluated on both the Prime Offerors and major subcontractors (subcontractors exceeding the requirement for certified cost or pricing data, currently at $2,000,000) proposed Small Business Participation.

M-7 COMPETITIVE RANGE DETERMINATION AND DISCUSSIONS

The Government intends to make award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical and cost/price standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined to be necessary and/or in the best interest of the Government IAW FAR 15.306(a)(3).

Clarifications and award without discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306(a)(2). If the Government decides to open discussions and establish a competitive range, the competitive range may be reduced for purposes of efficiency to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(2).

FINAL PROPOSAL REVISIONS

If discussions are deemed necessary with offeror(s), upon completion of those discussions, the PCO will request that the offeror provide a Final Proposal Revision (FPR). Revisions to any volume(s) shall be submitted by providing two electronic copies, one “clean” copy, and one with “track changes”. The offeror is advised that any changes to the proposal in the FPR shall be fully addressed and/or explained and reflected in the proposed price. Failure to comply with this requirement can adversely influence the evaluation of the proposal. The PCO will establish a common due date and time for submission of the FPR.

When final proposal revisions are requested, any revisions or non-compliance with terms and conditions submitted in the final proposal revision may not be subject to further discussion or negotiation and may render the offer unacceptable to the Government. This provision is not intended to restrict the offeror’s opportunity to revise figures, e.g., prices, discounts, or percentage rates. Rather, it is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government that could result if new or revised terms and conditions submitted in the final proposal revision have not been fully disclosed, discussed, and understood during discussions or negotiations.

M-8 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. Offerors failure to complete or omission of required data for evaluation or award may make them ineligible for award evaluation and/or subsequent contract award.

(End of Summary of Changes)