N0017414R0005Amendment0002.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

See pg. 2.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 10

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 13-Mar-2014

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 N00174-14-R-0005

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

31-Jan-2014

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

13-Mar-2014

CODE

NSWC IHEODTD

NSWC -PICATINNY DET BLDG 3342

ATTN: EDDIE ROGAN, CODE C12P

EDWARD.ROGAN@NAVY.MIL

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806-5000

N00174 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N00174-14-R-0005

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

The purpose of this amendment is to extend the closing date of the solicitation, incorporate attachments to the solicitation, and answer questions from potential offerors.

1. The closing date of the solicitation is hereby extended as follows:

From: 17 March 2014, 4:00 PM

To: 24 March 2014, 4:00 PM

2. Important Information for All Offerors

The following questions were posed to NSWC-IHEODTD Contracts Department. The answers are provided here for use by all offerors in the preparation of proposals for solicitation N00174-14-R-0005.

Q1: Amendment 1 states:

• Answer to question 9 states in part, “Clause 52.222-41(SCA) will apply to CLINs 0001, 0005, and 0009.”

• Wage Determinations for Picatinny, Norfolk, Jacksonville, San Diego, Pearl Harbor and

Bremerton.

• On page 30, Table 1 provides Estimated Labor Hours by labor category.

No instructions are provided as to how the Estimated Labor Hours are to be distributed across the WD regions. To ensure offerors are pricing against identical labor requirements, will the Govt provide either a breakout of the hours by location or provide a single WD location to be used for proposal purposes only?

A1: The technical team is currently reviewing this inquiry and once we receive information a response will be provided in a subsequent amendment.

Q2: Section B of the RFP contains NTE values for CLINs 0003, 0007,and 0011. Please confirm these values are to be used for the proposal.

A2: These are the values that are to be used for the proposal.

Q3: Amendment 0001 eliminated the paragraph C.3.2.6.1 requirement for contractor employees to have

Secret clearances. Paragraph L.4.4 still requires all personnel to hold Secret clearances and for offerors to certify compliance with this requirement in their cover letter. Request Paragraph L.4.4 be revised to delete the requirement for all employees to hold Secret clearances.

A3: The technical team is currently reviewing this inquiry and once we receive information a response will

Q4: Question 26 asked whether or not there was a page limit for the subcontracting plan. In response, the government removed the subcontract plan from the list of sections with page limitations as specified in paragraph L.4.1.2. Section M was not revised and still specifies a 10 page limitation for the subcontracting plan. As a FAR 52.219-9 compliant subcontracting plan might exceed 10 pages, request the 10 page limitation be removed.

A4: 10 page limitation has been removed from Section M.

Q5: The original RFP includes 3 separate Sections M, beginning on pages 130, 133, and 134 respectively.

Amendment 0001 only includes the version of Section M beginning on page 134 of the original RFP. Was it the government’s intent to delete the duplicate Sections M from pages 130 and 133?

A5: Section M - Clause IHEODTD 210 on page 130 of original solicitation document is hereby removed.

Q6: In the answer to Question 28, the government will accept shipboard installation experience as a substitute for the engineering degree and engineering experience specified in the requirements for the Field

Service Engineer. One of the new requirements is that individuals have 2-3 years of experience directly related to CIWS installations. This requirement is an unnecessary impediment to competition and eliminates many offerors with the experience needed to perform this work. For example, SCD 0061, currently being installed on CVN 74, replaces the Block 1 CIWS on MTs 21 and 24 with Block 1B

Baseline 1 CIWS systems and removes MT 23. Other than landing and connecting a full-up CIWS system, the majority of this work includes disconnecting and reconnecting electrical cabling and cooling systems, installing a new Local Control Station (LCS) and new foundations, installing fiber optic cabling, and installing operator chairs. This type of work can be performed by companies with extensive relevant ship alteration installation experience, regardless of the system being installed. Recommend the government remove the requirement for specific CIWS installation experience or revise the requirement to read “2-3 years of experience directly related to CIWS installations or installations of similar scope and complexity.”

A6: The technical team is currently reviewing this inquiry and once we receive information a response will

Q7: Amendment 0001 included a revision to Section J, List of Attachments, which added Attachment 9, Key Personnel Info. There was no Attachment 9 issued with the Amendment.

A7: Attachment 9 was provided with the release of the original solicitation. Amendment 0001 revised

Section J to list Key Personnel Info as Attachment 9.

Q8: Paragraph L.3.1.1 calls for submission of 5 copies of the Technical Volume, 2 copies of the Past

Performance Volume, 2 copies of the Cost Volume, and a separate volume for Individual Small Business

Subcontracting Plan Goals (the number of copies is not specified). As the Past Performance Volume only requires lists of relevant contracts for the prime and subcontractors in the form of Past Performance

Matrices and Past Performance Questionnaires (RFP Attachment J-2 and J-3) request offerors be allowed to combine Volumes I and II into a single bound document. Additionally, how many copies of Volume IV are required?

A8: Please keep Volume I and II separate. Please provide 2 copies of Volume IV.

Q9: Which number of hard copies and electronic (CD) copies are required of each volume including the

Volume IV - Individual Small Business Subcontracting Plan?

Is the “Offer” intended to be a numbered volume?

Is the page limitation of the Subcontract plan removed?

A9: Submission of (CD) copies are not required. Please email an electronic copy of the proposal to edward.rogan@navy.mil. The volumes that are to be submitted are as follows: Volume I Technical, Volume II Past Performance, Volume III Cost, and Volume IV Individual Small Business Subcontracting

Goals. Yes, page limitation of the subcontract plan is removed.

Q10: 2. Page 20 of the Amendment 0001 says that the Offeror shall also submit one proposal in electronic copy to: Edward.rogan@navy.mil mailto:edward.rogan@navy.mil

Question: Is it the Government’s intent that the entire proposal to be emailed in addition to the electronic

(CD) copies?

A10: Please do not provide CD copies. Please email an eletronic copy to edward.rogan@navy.mil.

Q11: Page 2 of the Amendment 0001 indicates that work may be assigned in areas where there is

“Sensitive information or equipment” and that the contractors’ employees shall possess and maintain a security clearance appropriate to the level of work in these areas. Page 3 of Amendment 0001 specifies handling of material at the “Classified” level (classified is not a security level) but at no time will any secret material be in the possession of the contractor. Page 21 of Amendment 0001 specifies that all personnel must be cleared at the SECRET level.

Clarification: Please identify which security clearance level is required.

A11: The technical team is currently reviewing this inquiry and once we receive information a response will be provided in a subsequent amendment.

NOTE: ALL VENDOR QUESTIONS MUST BE SUBMITTED NO LATER THAN 17 MARCH, 2014,

4:00PM. NO QUESTIONS WILL BE ACCEPTED AFTER THIS DATE.

The following SF33 changes are hereby made as follows:

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 17-Mar-2014 04:00 PM to 24-Mar-2014 04:00 PM.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been deleted:

IHEODTD 210 SECTION M BEST VALUE EVALUATION AND BASIS

FOR AWARD (CPFF)(APR 1997)

MAR 2000

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

General:

1. It is the intention of the Navy to award an IDIQ contract with CPFF or FFP orders with one base year and two option years.

2. Award will be made to that Offeror whose proposal is the most advantageous to the

Government under the selection criteria set forth in this Section M. Offerors are required to follow specific instructions in submitting their proposal. Each Offeror’s submission will be screened upon receipt by the Contracting Officer or a designee of the Contracting Officer to ensure compliance with the RFP instructions and requirements. Elimination of an Offeror due to failure to comply with the submission requirements of the RFP is at the sole discretion of the

Contracting Officer.

3. As a result of this solicitation, the Government intends to award a single contract based on initial offers and without holding discussions, but reserves the right to hold discussions at the

Government’s discretion. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, in accordance with FAR 15.306 --

Exchanges With Offerors After Receipt of Proposals, may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. IAW FAR: “Clarifications are limited exchanges, between the

Government and Offerors. If award will be made without conducting discussions, Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of proposals (e.g., the relevance of an

Offeror’s past performance information and adverse past performance information to which the

Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor or clerical errors.”

4. The following factors will be used to evaluate offers. The factors are listed in descending order of importance. All non-cost factors, when combined, are more important than cost;

however, cost becomes more of a deciding factor of importance when Offerors receive similar ratings for the other factors.

Volume I: Factor 1: Technical: Subfactors listed are of equal importance.

Sub-Factor 1: Technical Approach

Sub-Factor 2: Relevant Corporate Experience

Sub-Factor 3: Facilities and Equipment

Sub-Factor 4: Personnel Resources

Sub-Factor 5: Safety Plan

Volume II: Factor 2: Past Performance

Volume III: Factor 3: Cost

Volume IV: Factor 4: Small Business Subcontracting Plan

Technical Ratings:

The Government will use the following combined technical/risk rating which includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

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.

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.

“Risk” as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance.

The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

“Deficiency” is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

“Weakness” is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

“Strength” is 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.

Factor 1 – Technical (Volume I)

The Government has established the page limit for each technical subfactor in Section L of the

RFP. Offerors are advised that excess pages will not be evaluated. The Government will assess whether or not the Offeror has simply restated the Statement of Work, which is unacceptable.

SUB-FACTOR 1: Technical Approach (Not to Exceed 20 Pages)

The Government will not evaluate corporate relevant experience in this sub-factor. Corporate experience will only be evaluated under the Corporate Relevant Experience sub-factor (2).

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s detailed description of their approach to perform the requirements listed in sections 3.2.1 through 3.2.13 of the Government provided Statement of

Work (SOW). The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstration an understanding of the Government requirements including any proposed innovations by the Offeror to performing those requirements.

SUB-FACTOR 2: Corporate Relevant Experience (Not to Exceed 5 Pages)

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s summary of their corporate relevant experience; this summary shall not include the experience of the Offeror’s personnel. The Government will evaluate whether this summary contains a description of the Offeror’s relevant experience, within the past five (5) years, performing efforts similar to those in the SOW. The summary shall not parrot the SOW task descriptions, as that is ineffective in supporting the Offeror’s claim of having gained relevant experience. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s relevant work processes and procedures associated with performing the individual task work and the nature, difficulties, uncertainties and risks associated with performing the kind of work that is required under the Statement of Work. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstrated, beneficial experience gained from previous contracts or subcontracts they have performed.

SUB-FACTOR 3: Facilities and Equipment (Not to Exceed 10 Pages)

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s facilities and equipment and its ability to aid in the support of, and compliance with, the tasks described in the Statement of Work. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstration of their plan to ensure all the necessary facilities and equipment will be available within one month of contract award.

SUB-FACTOR 4: Personnel Resources (Not to Exceed 10 Pages)

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstration that its proposed personnel possess the technical knowledge and capability necessary to meet the requirements of the SOW and the

Key Personnel Requirements document. The Government will evaluate whether the personnel are presently employed with the Offeror, or whether they are proposed under a letter of intent.

Offerors that propose a majority of personnel as contingent hires will be evaluated as a higher risk, and this will be considered as a weakness in the Offeror’s proposal.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s plans to incorporate flexibility in its staffing plan to accommodate new staffing requirements or to remove staff, if required, during the period of performance of this contract. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstration of their plan to provide Key Personnel at the time of contract award, and non-key personnel and contingent hires within 30 days of contract award.

SUB-FACTOR 5: Safety Plan (Not to Exceed 10 Pages)

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstration of their safety plan and how they will comply with all applicable DOD, DON, NAVSEA, NFELC (Naval Facilities Expeditionary

Logistics Center), NSWC IHEODTD, OSHA and private shipyard facility safety instructions, policies, procedures and guidance while on Government or private shipyard property.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstration of their plan to ensure that all safety and personal protection equipment (PPE), such as hard hats, safety shoes and safety glasses are worn by their employees in designated areas.

Factor 2 – Past Performance (Volume II)

The Government will evaluate the Prime’s and Subcontractors’ past performance to develop the

Offeror’s past performance rating. Past Performance will be evaluated by the Contract

Specialist.

Past performance information is one indicator of an Offeror’s and subcontractors’ ability to perform the contract successfully. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s and subcontractors’ probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s and subcontractors’ demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products that meet the contract’s requirements. The

Government will evaluate the Offeror’s and subcontractors’ past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort is to the current solicitation requirement (i.e., Quality Assurance) cited in the Scope of this solicitation) and to determine how well the contractor performed on those previous contracts. Relevancy includes similarity of service/support, complexity and dollar value. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each Offeror after evaluating the Offeror’s recent past performance and its relevancy.

The reference information must be current to facilitate the evaluation process. If the Offeror and/or subcontractors has no relevant past performance within the last five years or cannot provide a list of relevant contracts, then the Offeror must provide an explanation.

In the evaluation of an Offeror’s and subcontractors’ past performance, the Government reserves the right to use relevant performance only within the past five years. The Government will not evaluate past performance information outside of the five year timeframe which begins at the date of solicitation issuance. Relevant and timely past performance information including, but not limited to, information in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System

(CPARS), and Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) (http://www.ppirs.gov/) including the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) will be considered during the evaluation of an Offeror’s past performance. Other sources of information available to the Government may also be used in the evaluation of Past Performance.

The following adjectival ratings/definitions shall be used to assign a rating for each effort for the

Relevancy of the Past Performance obtained by the Government:

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 much of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved similar 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.

The following adjectival ratings/definitions shall be used to assign one rating for the

Performance Confidence Assessment to each Prime Offeror. This rating shall be based on the

Prime’s and its subcontractors’ Past Performance Information.

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.

VOLUME III – COST (FACTOR 3)

The Government may conduct price analysis, cost analysis, and/or cost realism analysis on the cost proposal.

Although cost is the least important factor, it becomes more of a deciding factor of importance, when Offerors receive similar ratings for the other factors.

The evaluation will be based on an analysis of the realism and completeness of the cost data, the traceability of the cost to the Offeror’s capability data and the proposed allocation of man hours and labor mix in accordance with Section L. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s cost proposal as it compares to the level of technical capability depicted in the Offeror’s technical proposal to determine cost realism. Pertinent cost information, including but not limited to

DCAA recommended rates for such costs as direct labor, overhead, G&A, as necessary and appropriate, will be used to arrive at the Government determination of most probable cost to be incurred for the performance of this contract. If proposed costs are considered to be unrealistically low, including unrealistic labor and indirect rates, the Offeror’s proposed cost will be adjusted upward to reflect more realistic costs. The Government will not adjust proposed costs downward. Based on such analysis, an evaluated cost (including proposed fee) for the base year and evaluated cost for all option years will be calculated. This evaluated cost will be used in making an award recommendation. Therefore, the Government will consider the Offeror’s explanation of any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between promised performance and cost. The burden of proof for cost credibility rests with the Offeror. To the extent proposed costs appear unrealistically low; the Government may infer a lack of understanding of the requirements, increased risk of performance, or lack of credibility on the part of the Offeror. If the Government is unable to verify the cost proposal, it will be deemed unrealistic and not be eligible for award.

Subcontractors Providing Cost Data Separately: Cost data provided separately by a subcontractor or consultant should be received by the time and date specified for receipt of proposals. Failure of the subcontractor’s cost data to be timely may result in the Prime Offeror being late.

If an Other Than Small Business Offeror’s proposal does not demonstrate that at least 5% of the total dollar amount of its proposal will consist of subcontract awards to Small Business

Concerns, that proposal will be considered to have a deficiency and will therefore be ineligible for award based on initial proposals. A deficiency can only be corrected through discussions.

Cost realism review will only be performed on those contractor proposals that represent the most likely candidates for award based on information derived from initial technical review and relative cost considerations.

VOLUME IV: Small Business Subcontracting Plan Goals (Factor 4)

This applies to other than small businesses only. The plan will be evaluated as part of the FAR

Part 9.1 Responsibility Determination and not be subject to merit evaluation. It will be pass/fail only, and the Government will only evaluate the plan submitted by the apparently successful

Offerors. The evaluation will be performed by the Small Business Specialist and the Contract

Specialist. The Government reserves the right pursuant to FAR 9.105-1(c) (3) and 19.705-3 to confer with the Offeror on elements of the Small Business Subcontracting Plan in order to determine Responsibility prior to award. These conversations will not constitute discussions as defined in FAR 15.306(c).

METHODOLOGY

Proposals will be evaluated for the degree of understanding demonstrated, the technical excellence or lack thereof within the factors, and the level of competence proposed within each factor, as appropriate. Risk assessments will be performed as to the risk of unsuccessful performance within each factor. Each factor will be reviewed based on the merits of the information contained in the Offeror’s submission. Evaluators will not allow any prior knowledge of the Offeror to affect the evaluation of Factor 1, but relevant and timely past performance information will be considered during the evaluation of Factor 2.

At the conclusion of the Technical and Past Performance evaluations, the Government will reach a consensus rating for the Technical factor and for the Past Performance factor for each Offeror.

If an Offeror receives a Technical rating less than “Acceptable” the Government may not rate the

Offeror’s Past Performance as that Offeror may not be considered for award. Only Offerors receiving a Technical rating of “Acceptable” or better and a Past Performance rating other than

“Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence” will be eligible for award. The Government will not assign a rating to the Price factor, but will determine the evaluated price for each Offeror based on information provided, for the Offerors that represent the most likely candidates for award.

These Offerors will then be compared using tradeoffs between the Technical factor, the Past

Performance factor and Price. Offerors are advised that the Government seeks proposals that demonstrate the greatest technical ability at a reasonable and realistic price. Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government.

(End of Summary of Changes)