N00173-25-R-0005 0001.pdf

R

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

Offers 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 electronic communication 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 letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication 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 NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

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

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, 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.)

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

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

Previous edition unusable STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016) Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Section J - List of Attachments

The following attachments were added:

Attachment 2 - SOW SDS 6 Dec 2024 Attachment 9 - Questions and Answers

The following attachments were deleted:

Attachment 2 - SOW SDS

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

SECTION M

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 and Subfactors identified below. In accordance with FAR 52.215-1(f)(c), which provides that 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 and Subfactors 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 or subfactor. A proposal receiving an unacceptable in any factor or subfactor 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 an 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 and subfactors contained in Section L and listed below to determine the best value proposal. The evaluation factors and subfactors represent key areas of importance to be considered in the source selection decision. The factors, subfactors, and 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 and subfactors listed in the table below:

N0017325R00050001

Factors Subfactors

1. Technical Capability

1. Technical Understanding

2. Personnel Qualifications

3. Management Capability

2. Past Performance (None)

3. Small Business Participation (None)

4. Cost/Price (None)

Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the following criteria:

Factor 1: Technical Capability includes the following three subfactors: 1) Technical Understanding, 2) Personnel Qualifications, and 3) Management Capability. The technical subfactors are listed in descending order of importance. A rating will be assigned at the Factor 1 level only. The subfactors will not be individually rated.

Factor 1: Technical Capability, including all subfactors, is more important than Factor 2: Past Performance.

The technical and past performance factors, 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. Factor 3, Small Business Participation, will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis.

Technical proposals that are unrealistic in terms of technical commitment will be deemed reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence or indicative of failure to comprehend the complexity and risk involved in the contract requirements and may be grounds for rejection of the proposal.

Data rights evaluation: The Government intends to acquire unlimited rights in respect to all data produced and provided under this effort. Should an Offeror assert other than unlimited rights on any data aspects of this procurement, such as by asserting government purpose rights, limited rights, or restricted rights on such data, that information will be reviewed by the requisite technical expert and contracting officer to determine acceptability of this approach within the Total Cost of Ownership of the procurement lifecycle.

M-2 EVALUATION OF FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

SUBFACTOR 1: TECHNICAL UNDERSTANDING

Offerors' proposals will be evaluated on the Offeror's demonstrated understanding of the requirements in accordance with Attachment 2 - Statement of Work.

The evaluation will consist of a review of:

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, experience, capability, and approach (for both Prime and Subcontractors) to perform all aspects of the tasks in accordance with the Statement of Work.

4. That sufficient detail was provided to complete an accurate evaluation of the technical proposal.

5. The degree to which the Offeror's technical proposal identifies technical uncertainties and assumptions and how adequately they address the resolution of them.

6. The degree to which the Offeror has experience with same or similar projects in the areas required by the SOW.

SUBFACTOR 2: PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS

The proposals will be evaluated on the Offeror's demonstrated ability to provide personnel in accordance with Attachment 1 - 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 personnel;

2. The qualifications of proposed key personnel;

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

4. The proposed personnel's availability to span the total requirements (60 months).

The evaluation of this subfactor will cover the qualifications of all proposed KEY personnel; missing a minimum or required qualification shall be deemed as a 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.

Contractor personnel assigned to this contract who require Top Secret/SCI access must have a favorably adjudicated DoD Tier 5 investigation; a final Top Secret security clearance, with eligibility of SCI prior to submission. Contractor personnel assigned to this contract who require Top Secret access must have a favorably adjudicated DoD Tier 5 investigation; a final Top Secret security clearance prior to submission. Contractor personnel, who require access to Secret information, must have a favorably completed Tier 3 investigation and a final Secret clearance prior to proposal submission. See the SOW for additional security information.

SUBFACTOR 3: MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY:

The proposal will be evaluated on the Offerors' 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 Offerors' ability 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.

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 Staffing Plan will be evaluated on:

1. Completeness of proposed personnel tasking and cross referencing of staff with appropriate SOW tasking's.

2. Offeror's proposed mapping of any company-specific labor categories with solicitation labor categories and their requirements/qualifications, if applicable.

3. Offeror's Proposed staff's knowledge and capabilities to execute the proposed technical approach

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

5. Completeness of contingent hire documentation.

The proposed Transition Plan will be evaluated on:

a. a plan for the transition of personnel (contractor personnel shall have the necessary skill set and be able to execute on the first day of the contract, only acclimation/gaining familiarity with NRL is allowable, there is no budget for training);

b. the transfer of work control and information;

c. complying with NRL security regulations; and

d. 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-3 EVALUATION RATING CRITERIA

(1) FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY ADJECTIVAL RATINGS

The Government will perform an analysis of the Technical Capability subfactors and assign an adjectival rating to Factor 1 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 adjectival ratings and rating definitions will be used to assign an overall rating for Factor 1. They will also be used to assign an overall combined Technical/Risk Rating for the technical proposal (Factor 1: Technical Capability):

Table 1. Evaluation Definitions

Term

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

Table 2. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings to be used for Factor 1

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

Blue

Outstandin g

Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, 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 or significant 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

Unaccepta ble

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

M-4 FACTOR 2: 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.

(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 establishing the relevancy of past performance information. Offerors shall provide Past Performance references from the past five (5) fiscal years. Include any current contracts or subcontracts for similar services that were awarded at least one year prior to the date of this solicitation. Contractors that have no similar previous or current awards should provide the following information for proposed subcontract that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement.

1. Name of contracting organization.

2. Contract number

3. Contract type

4. Total contract value

5. Description of the contract work

6. Contracting officer and telephone number

7. Contracting officer's representative, program manager, or similar official and telephone number

2. Relevancy: 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:

Table 3: Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Description

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 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.

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.

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.

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:

Table 4: Performance Confidence Ratings

Rating Description

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.

M-5 FACTOR 3: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

(1) Offerors completion of the Small Business Participation Plan will be evaluated based on the following descriptions. As 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 or exceed its goals for the participation of small business firms (including those in socioeconomic categories as defined in FAR Part 19) in terms of the percentage and dollars of the total acquisition value. If the offeror submits less than the minimum goals in any of the categories, the offeror shall provide a detailed explanation and address how the offeror will attempt to increase small business subcontracting in any category where the proposed goal is less than the minimum subcontracting goal

b) To be acceptable, the offeror must describe its use of small businesses in terms of the complexity and variety of work to be performed.

c) To be acceptable, the offeror must describe 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 describe the process used to ensure the proper flow down of requirements, process management and performance assessments of small business utilization at the first tier.

(2) The Government will assess the offeror's submission to this factor for adequacy of proposed Small Business Participation. To be acceptable, the offeror shall provide a complete and responsive small business participation volume and will be assigned adjectival ratings in accordance with the Table below. 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:

Table 5 SBP Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

M-6 SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING (applicable only to offerors that are other-than small businesses, i.e. large businesses)

The contracting officer will review subcontracting plans on an acceptable or unacceptable basis. A subcontracting plan is unacceptable if it does not clearly include all requirements in FAR 19.704, FAR Clause 52.219-9 (Alternates and Deviations) and DFARS 252.219-7003 (or DFARS 252.219- 7004 if the offeror has a DoD Comprehensive Test Program subcontracting plan). An unacceptable plan will make the Offeror ineligible for award.

M-7 FACTOR 4: COST

(1) Although cost or price is not scored, numerically weighted, or combined with the other evaluation factors to establish an adjectival rating, it will be evaluated for reasonableness and realism. Cost realism is a determination of the probable cost of performance for each Offeror.

The degree of importance of the cost or price factor will increase with the degree of equality of the proposals in relation to the other factors on which selection is to be based.

Proposals which are unrealistic in terms of technical or schedule commitments or unrealistically high or low in cost may be deemed reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence, or indicative of a failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the proposed work, and may be grounds for rejection of the proposal.

In evaluating cost type offers, realism of the Offeror's estimated cost will be considered. "Realism of Estimated Cost" is determined by reference to the costs which the Offerors can reasonably be expected to incur in performance of the Contract in accordance with the offer. Therefore, in addition to generating a probable cost for each cost reimbursement CLIN based on the Offeror's proposed approach (i.e., the CLIN's evaluated cost), this cost realism analysis may identify areas of cost realism risk where no substantiating cost realism data supports the proposed costs such as proposals that include unrealistically low labor rates or that do not otherwise demonstrate cost realism.

The purpose of the evaluation is to: (1) verify the Offerors' understanding of the requirements; (2) assess the degree to which the cost proposal reflects the approaches and/or risk that the Offerors will provide the supplies or services at the proposed costs; and (3) assess the degree to which the cost included in the cost proposal accurately represents the effort described in the technical proposal. The proposed costs may be adjusted for purposes of evaluation based on the results of the cost realism evaluation. Unrealistic rates will be considered in the risk assessment and may result in a reduced technical rating.

(2) It is intended to reimburse support and subcontract costs on the basis of actual reasonable and allowable costs incurred plus G&A. The Offeror shall propose the total plug amount listed in Section B, which is inclusive of indirect rates.

If proposed indirect rates on support and subcontract costs are not consistent with DCAA information for that Offerors, the proposed rates may be adjusted for realism when applied for evaluation purposes.

Evaluation of FAR 52.217-8 pricing: The pricing for this will be evaluated consistent with the evaluation of the rest of the proposal. The price of this evaluation however will not be included in the Government's total evaluated cost, and will not be included in the award amount.

M-8 COMPETITIVE RANGE DETERMINATION AND DISCUSSIONS

The Government intends to make award without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed necessary. If conducted, discussions will be IAW FAR 15.306.

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.

M-9 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.

M-10 DISCUSSIONS/FINAL PROPOSAL REVISIONS

If discussions are held, the Contracting Officer shall indicate to, or discuss with, each Offerors still being considered for award, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and other aspects of its proposal (such as cost, price, technical approach, past performance, and terms and conditions) that could, in the opinion of the Contracting Officer, be altered or explained to enhance materially the proposal's potential for award.

The scope and extent of discussions are a matter of Contracting Officer judgment. At the conclusion of discussions, each Offerors still in the competitive range shall be given an opportunity to submit a final proposal revision. A final cut-off date for receipt of final proposal revisions will be established by the Contracting Officer.

(1) The Contract(s) resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to the responsible Offerors(s) whose offer(s), conforming to the solicitation, is determined most advantageous to the Government, cost and other factors considered.

M-11 ONLY ONE OFFEROR

In the event that only one proposal is received, the Government reserves the right to conduct a less formal evaluation of the proposal. A technical analysis of the proposal will be performed to determine the extent in which it meets the elements/requirements contained in the evaluation factors for award.

4555 OVERLOOK AVE SW, WASHINGTON DC 20375-5328

WASHINGTON, DC 20375-5328

UNITED STATES

GRAHAM IRBY, Email: graham.d.irby.civ@us.navy.mil Telephone: 2029231377 AdminBy:

SCD: PAS: