2.06 Solicitation Amendment N0018926RL0040003 SF 30.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

SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Solicitation/Contract Form Continuation

The following changes have been made:

INFORMATION FROM TO

Response Due Time 10:00 AM 11:00 AM Response Due Date 02 Mar 2026 04 Mar 2026

N0018926RL0040003

Addendum to 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Products and Commercial Services

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

The Government intends to award a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP), multiple award Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract with up to five (5) awards as a result of this solicitation in accordance with FAR Part 12, Part 15 and Subpart 16.5. Award will be made to offerors whose proposals are most advantageous to the Government under the selection criteria set forth in this solicitation. An award will be made to each and all qualifying offerors. To be determined a qualifying offeror, the offeror must meet the technical capability evaluation and meet the responsibility requirements of FAR 9.104. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract based on initial proposals. Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a technical, past performance and price standpoint.

The Government reserves the right to award a FFP contract to other than the lowest priced proposal; award a FFP contract without discussions; or award a FFP contract after discussions, whichever is in the best interest of the Government.

The Government intends to make no more than five (5) awards under this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to make fewer awards, or no award, if determined to be in the Government's best interest.

QUESTIONS:

Offerors may submit questions regarding clarification of the solicitation requirements directly to the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer at borui.z.tang.civ@us.navy.mil and joseph.p.caltagirone3.civ@us.navy.mil (respectively). It is requested that all questions be received no later than 10:00 AM EST, 11 February 2026 as time may not permit responses to questions received after that date to be prepared and issued prior to the receipt of proposals.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMISSIONS OF PROPOSALS:

(1) Proposals shall be submitted to Borui Tang and Joseph Caltagirone electronically no later than the due date of the solicitation via email borui.z.tang.civ@us.navy.mil and joseph.p.caltagirone3.civ@us.navy.mil. Offerors shall comply with the detailed instructions for the format and content of the proposals contained herein; proposals that do not comply may be considered unacceptable and may render the proposal ineligible for award.

Offerors are strongly encouraged to confirm their proposal was received PRIOR to the closing date and time. It is the responsibility of the offerors to ensure that the Contracting Office has received their entire proposal, with all attachments, PRIOR to the solicitation closing date and time. Only the documents received prior to the solicitation closing date and time will be evaluated.

Offerors should include the following information in the Subject Line of their electronic submission:

Proposal - N0018926RL004 - (Name of Offeror) - Email (#) of (#)

(2) All submissions and attachments shall be in Microsoft Office Word or PDF with the exception of pricing information which may be submitted utilizing Microsoft Office Excel. Submissions are page limited to the maximum number of pages as defined below. Only the price supporting information may be submitted utilizing Microsoft Office Excel. Submissions are page limited to the maximum number of pages as defined below. These page limitations are inclusive of the executive summary and any charts, diagrams, and/or other graphics. Graphics (including tables) in the proposal may use Times New Roman font with 8-point size type or larger. Each "page" is defined as one sheet, 8 1/2 " x 11", with at least one inch margins on all sides, using Times New Roman font with a point size of 12 or greater. Lines shall, at a minimum, be selected as single-spaced in Microsoft Word with Microsoft Word Normal character spacing. Pages shall be consecutively

N0018926RL0040003

mailto:borui.z.tang.civ@us.navy.mil mailto:joseph.p.caltagirone3.civ@us.navy.mil mailto:borui.z.tang.civ@us.navy.mil mailto:joseph.p.caltagirone3.civ@us.navy.mil numbered. The offeror is permitted to submit no more than one page for each of the following, which will not be included in the page count: a cover sheet, list of tables, list of figures, list of acronyms, compliance matrix, and table of contents.

Pages submitted in excess of the page limitations described within will not be evaluated.

GENERAL:

Proposals shall include the following legend on each page:

Source Selection Information - FAR 2.101 and FAR 3.104

PROPOSAL CONTENT:

The proposal should contain the following items in addition to other information required by this solicitation:

The cover page should indicate the following:

- Title of the proposal

- Volume Number (I, II or III)

- Proposal Category (Factor)

- Request for Proposal Number

- Name and Address of Offeror, CAGE Code, SAM Unique Entity ID, and applicable Tax I.D. Number (TIN)

- Point of Contact name, telephone number, and email address

- Proposal valid for 180 days after solicitation closing

Proposals shall be prepared in three (3) separate and distinct volumes (attachments):

- Volume I - Non-Price Proposal

Factor I: Technical Submission

Factor II: Past Performance

Factor III: Small Business Participation Plan

- Volume II - Price Proposal

Factor IV: Price

- Volume III - Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Other than Small Businesses)

Table of Contents: The table of contents should provide sufficient detail as to allow the important elements to be easily located.

(3) Requirements for Style: Each offeror shall submit a proposal that clearly and concisely describes and defines the contractor's response to the requirements contained in the RFP. Unnecessary elaboration or other presentations beyond that sufficient to present a complete and effective proposal are not desired and may be construed as an indication of the offeror's lack of understanding of price consciousness. The proposal shall contain all the pertinent information in sufficient detail in the one area of the proposal where it contributes most critically to the discussion of the same information. When necessary, the offeror shall refer to the initial discussion and identify its location within the submitted proposal.

(4) Proposal Page Limitations

Volume I - Non-Price Proposal - The following page limitations are established:

Title Page Limit*

Non-Price Proposal - Factor I: Technical Submission 12 Pages

Non-Price Proposal - Factor II: Past Performance 12 Pages

Non-Price Proposal - Factor III: Small Business Participation Plan No limit

Pages submitted in excess of the page limitations described above will not be evaluated.

* Small Business Participation Plan is not page-limited; however, the Small Business Participation Plan is strictly limited to small business participation information and completed solicitation documents as described in the General section at the beginning of this text.

* Page limits represent the maximum pages the Government will evaluate and are not construed as de facto standards for the amount of material expected in the proposal.

*Cross-Referencing: The proposal volumes shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated without cross referencing to another volume. Information required for proposal evaluation which is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal.

Volume II - Price Proposal - is not page limited; however, the Price Proposal is to be strictly limited to price information and completed solicitation documents as described in the General Section at the beginning of this text.

Price Proposal - Factor IV: Price No limit

Volume III - Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Other than Small Businesses) - is not page-limited; however, the Small Business Subcontracting Plan is strictly limited to small business subcontracting information and completed solicitation documents as described in the General section at the beginning of this text.

Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Other than Small Businesses) No limit

1. Volume I: Non-Price Proposal

Factor I - Technical Submission

Offerors shall submit a technical proposal that demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of, and the capability to provide, the required products identified in the Statement of Work (SOW).

Offerors must demonstrate technical capability and experience directly related to the design, integration, testing or production of the required products.

Offerors shall include the valid National Institute of Standard and Technology (NIST) certification number and tested configuration to meet the encryption requirements per the SOW.

***The Technical Submission is limited to 12 pages***

Factor II: Past Performance

To demonstrate its past performance, the offeror shall identify up to three (3) of its most relevant contracts within the past

(5) five years from the solicitation closing date. In addition, performance data will only be assessed for those references demonstrating at least one (1) year of completed performance within the five (5) years prior to the closing date of this solicitation. Offerors shall provide a detailed explanation demonstrating the relevance of the contracts to the requirements of the solicitation.

For purposes of this solicitation, a contract is defined as a single contract or a single task order placed under an IDIQ contract, a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA), or a Federal Supply Schedule. If an offeror submits the IDIQ contract, FSS contract, or BPA itself as a reference, then the offeror must identify: a) the total number of orders actually awarded to the offeror during the ordering period in the past five (5) years from the solicitation closing date; and b) the total dollar amount of those orders. The total dollar amount shall be the sum of the orders actually awarded, not the contract maximum or ceiling. Orders are defined as either delivery orders (DOs), task orders (TOs), technical direction letters (TDLs), and/or technical area tasks (TATs) placed under an IDIQ or BPA or Federal Supply Schedule contract. Orders must also meet the recency requirements stated above: each order must have been performed within five (5) years of the solicitation closing date. If an offeror submits an IDIQ contract, FSS contract, or BPA itself as a reference, the ordering period must be at least one (1) year in length and any ordering period prior to the five-years before the solicitation date will not be considered. If an IDIQ contract, FSS contract, or BPA itself is submitted as a reference, the offeror shall state the specific experience claimed from the orders (i.e. the offeror shall identify what work was actually completed on the orders and the relevance to this solicitation, as opposed to generically stating that orders were merely awarded). A Past Performance example that does not provide the level of detail required may not be evaluated. If the offeror includes delivery orders/task orders as past performance, the offeror shall state specifically what work was performed by the offeror under the delivery order/task order and the dates during which work was performed.

If a proposed subcontractor's past performance is provided as part of the three (3) of its most relevant contracts or efforts, the percentage and type of work to be done by the subcontractor on the solicitation requirement must be stated. The offeror's submittal shall also detail clearly the aspects of the work in the solicitation that the subcontractor is proposed to perform. A Past Performance example which does not detail clearly the aspects of the work in the solicitation that the subcontractor is proposed to perform may not be evaluated.

If the prime offeror or intended subcontractor/partner submits a past performance example in which it served as a subcontractor, the prime/sub/partner shall detail clearly the work that it performed and the magnitude (dollar value) of that subcontracted work only. A Past Performance example that does not differentiate between the overall contract effort and the subcontractor effort may not be evaluated.

The past performance of subcontractors who will be performing major or critical aspects of the solicitation will be considered as highly as a prime contractor's past performance.

Failure of offerors to provide the required information and level of specificity may result in the contract reference not being evaluated.

With respect to joint ventures, the procuring activity will consider work done individually by each member of the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself previously. Joint venture references must meet the temporal requirements described in addendum FAR 52.212-1 (within five years and a year of completed performance).

Additionally, if a joint venture member submits a past performance reference, the joint venture member shall detail clearly the work that it performed in that effort and the magnitude (dollar value) of that work. A reference that does not differentiate between the overall contract effort and the joint venture member's effort for that reference may not be evaluated. The past performance of a joint venture member who will be performing major or critical aspects of the solicitation will be considered as highly as the joint venture's past performance.

The references provided will be evaluated in the aggregate in order to allow offerors who may not have the entire scope and magnitude of the requirement, under one individual contract, to still be considered relevant if past performance with the full scope of the requirement can be demonstrated within the allotted number of references as described above.

The offeror shall complete a "Past Performance Information Form" for each reference submitted. The form is an attachment to the solicitation.

In addition to the information requested above, offerors shall contact their past performance references and request that each reference complete the Past Performance Report Form attached to the solicitation and e-mail the completed survey form directly to Borui Tang at borui.z.tang.civ@us.navy.mil and Joseph Caltagirone at joseph.p.caltagirone3.civ@us.navy.

mil by the DUE DATE IN THIS SOLICITATION. The Government reserves the right to consider past performance report forms received after the due date of the solicitation and to contact references for verification or additional information.

***The Past Performance submission is limited to 12 pages***

Factor III - Small Business Participation Plan

Offerors (large and small businesses) provide a Small Business Participation Plan. Small Business Participation SHALL Plans shall address the following:

The extent to which small business concerns are specifically identified;

The extent of commitment to use small business concerns (for example, enforceable commitments will be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones);

Past performance of the offerors in complying with requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

The extent of participation of small business concerns in terms of the value of the total acquisition.

Volume II: Price Proposal

Factor IV: Price

This factor shall include completed solicitation documents and additional supporting documentation described below:

mailto:borui.z.tang.civ@us.navy.mil

A complete and signed SF1449 (Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial items) and executed copy of Amendments, if applicable, completed by the offeror;

A completed and signed Page 1 of the solicitation and a completed and signed Page 1 of any amendments.

Unless completed in the System for Award Management, the offeror shall complete the solicitation's representations, certifications and other statements of offerors. This solicitation is subject to the Buy American Act.

Offerors are required to complete and submit FAR 52.225-18 and DFARS 252.225-7000 certifications as part of their proposal.

Proposals shall include Firm-Fixed-Unit-Pricing for the delivery quantities identified in Attachment 1 - estimated Seed Delivery Order Pricing Spreadsheet, along with any applicable discount terms. All dollar amounts shall be rounded to no more than two (2) decimal places.

Submission of other than certified cost or pricing data is required. Prospective offerors may provide commercial catalog pricing and/or redacted invoices from other customers for items comparable to those required under this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to request additional information as necessary to determine that proposed prices are fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR 15.4033.

Note: The Seed Delivery Order pricing is requested solely for the purpose of assessing price fair and reasonableness and evaluating offerors' understanding of the requirements. Future delivery orders will be competed among the multiple award IDIQ awardees.

***The Price submission is not page limited, but is strictly limited to Price information.***

Volume III: Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Other than Small Businesses)

Large business offerors SHALL submit a Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR 19.704, Subcontracting Plan Requirements. Offerors are permitted to submit a master subcontracting plan so long as it is created in accordance with FAR 19.701 and FAR 19.704(b). Subcontracting Plans are not required from small business offerors. It is the goal of this solicitation that prime contractors subcontract with small businesses to the maximum extent practicable. For other-than-small (large) prime contractors, the Small Business Subcontracting Plan goals shall be expressed in terms of whole dollars and percentages based on total planned subcontracting dollars. Of the total planned subcontracting dollars, the Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall include goals for Small Businesses, Small Disadvantaged Businesses, Woman-Owned Small Businesses, HubZone Small Businesses, Veteran Owned Small Businesses and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business. The Government will consider prior achievement of small business subcontracting plan goals as well as the proposed dollar values and percentages related to this solicitation. Small businesses are not required to submit a subcontracting plan, but are required to submit a small business participation plan.

***The small business subcontracting plan submission is not page limited, but is strictly limited to small business subcontracting information.***

The completion and submission of the above items will constitute an offer (proposal) and will indicate the offeror's unconditional assent to the terms and conditions of this RFP and any attachments and/or exhibits hereto. Alternate proposals are not authorized. Objections to any of the terms and conditions of the RFP will constitute a deficiency (see FAR 15.001) which will make the offer unacceptable. An offeror may correct a deficiency only through discussions (see FAR 15.306(d) and 15.307).

Evaluation - Commercial Products and Commercial Services

Additional Information/Notes

The following clauses were modified:

52.212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Products and Commercial Services. Nov 2021 hereby reads as follows:

Evaluation-Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Nov 2021)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

The Government intends to award a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP), multiple award Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract with up to five (5) awards as a result of this solicitation in accordance with FAR Part 12, Part 15 and Subpart 16.5. Award will be made to the offerors whose proposals are most advantageous to the Government under the selection criteria set forth in this solicitation. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract based on initial proposals. Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a non-price and price standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to establish a competitive range and conduct discussions if later determined by the PCO to be necessary. Offerors simply providing general statements or paraphrasing/parroting the SOW in whole or in any part may result in a rating of unacceptable. The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offeror; award a contract without discussions; or award a contract after discussions, whichever is in the best interest of the Government.

The Government intends to award no more than five (5) FFP IDIQ contracts to the responsible offeror whose proposal represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the factors in the solicitation by utilizing the Tradeoff Source Selection process. The Offeror's proposal shall be in the form prescribed, and shall contain a response to each of the areas identified in FAR 52.212-1 Addendum of the solicitation.

All proposals will be reviewed for timeliness. If the proposal is received after the closing date and does not meet the criteria for "late proposals" in the solicitation, the proposal will not be opened. Timely proposals will be reviewed for compliance to the solicitation. If the proposal is not compliant to the solicitation, it will not be evaluated, and the offeror will be notified that the proposal is non-responsive.

The evaluation of proposals will consider the Non-Price Proposal to be significantly more important than the Price Proposal. Within the Non-Price Proposal, Factors I, II and III are in descending order of importance. Offerors receiving a rating of "Unacceptable" for Factor I are considered un-awardable and will not be further evaluated.

To be awardable, offerors must be evaluated to have, a Factor I - Technical Submission rated as "Good" (or higher), Factor II - a Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating of "Satisfactory Confidence" (or higher) AND Factor III - Small ward will be made to no more than five (5) offerors with Business Participation Plan rated as "Acceptable" (or higher). A the highest ratings and the lowest priced offerors as those offerors represent the best value for the Government.

If no proposals are evaluated with a Factor I - Technical Submission rated as "Good" (or higher), Factor II - Past Performance rated as "Satisfactory Confidence" (or higher) AND Factor III - Small Business Participation Plan rated as "Acceptable" (or higher), the Contracting Officer shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision where from among the offerors.non-price is considered to be significantly more important than price

Offerors simply providing general statements or paraphrasing/parroting the SOW in whole or in any part may result in a rating of unacceptable. Offerors should be aware that a complete understanding as to technical, price, and all terms and conditions of the proposed contract must exist between the offeror and the Government at the conclusion of exchanges, if held. Material changes to proposals submitted in any final proposal revisions, if made, may not be subject to further discussions and may render the offer unacceptable to the Government. All offeror and team member/subcontractor information must be incorporated into one coherent proposal to be considered complete.

Although price is not the most important evaluation factor, it has the potential to become more significant during the evaluation process. The degree of importance of price will increase with the degree of equality of the proposals in relation to the other factors on which selection is to be based. The importance of price will also increase when a proposal's price is so significantly high as to diminish the value to the Government that might be gained under the other aspects of the proposal. If, at any stage of the evaluation, all offerors are determined to have submitted equal, or virtually equal, non-price proposals, price could become the factor in determining which offerors shall receive the award.

Volume I: Non-Price Proposal Evaluation Criteria

Factor I - Technical Submission

The Technical factor evaluation will be based on each Offeror's response to the requirements of solicitation Addendum FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors. In the execution of the evaluations, both the offeror's approach to meeting the Government's requirements as defined in the solicitation and the risk related to its proposed approach will be assessed.

The purpose of the technical factor is to assess the offeror's proposed approach to satisfy the Government's requirements.

The evaluation of risk is related to the assessment of the offeror's proposed technical submittal. 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 involves risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Risk will be considered in the evaluation of the technical factor. The overall assigned rating for technical risk will be the technical risk rating, defined in table identified as " " below.Technical Risk Table 2

The Technical Submission Factor will result in one Technical Submission rating detailed in the rating table identified as " ". Offers simply providing general statements or paraphrasing/parroting the SOW in Combined Technical/Risk Table 1 whole or in any part may receive a rating of unacceptable.

Note: A rating of "Marginal" for any factor means that the offeror's proposal is not awardable without a change or changes to the offeror's proposal. A proposal which includes a "Marginal" rating is not eligible for award if award is made on initial offers and will not be further evaluated unless discussions are in the best interest of the Government. Offerors that receive a "Marginal" rating are considered to be susceptible to correction if the Contracting Officer determines that a discussion is appropriate and said discussion is conducted.

Note: Offerors receiving a rating of "Unacceptable" for any factor will not be considered for an award and will not be further evaluated.

Factor II - Past Performance:

The past performance evaluation factor assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror's ability to meet the contract's requirements based on the quality of a demonstrated record of recent and relevant performance. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality. These are combined to establish a single performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

Past Performance Relevancy: The past performance relevancy ratings are defined in table identified as " Past Performance " below. Regarding relevancy, each past performance reference under each offeror's Past Relevancy Ratings Table 3

Performance submission will be evaluated to determine its scope and magnitude relative to the instant requirement. The following definitions will apply to this evaluation:

Scope: Experience in the areas defined in the SOW.

Magnitude: The measure of the similarity of the dollar value of actually performed work that exists between the PWS and the offeror's referenced contracts during the stated five-year period established by the solicitation. In addition, performance data will only be assessed for those references demonstrating at least one (1) year of completed performance prior to the closing date of this solicitation. If an offeror submits an IDIQ contract, FSS contract, or BPA itself as a reference, only the dollar value of orders actually awarded in the past five (5) years will be considered when assessing magnitude. The contract maximum or ceiling will not be considered in the magnitude assessment.

The aggregate of each offeror's past performance references in terms of scope and magnitude will result in the assessed overall relevance of that offeror's past performance, and will result in a relevancy rating as outlined in "Past Performance

" below.Relevancy Ratings Table 3

Past Performance Quality: The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror's past performance. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror's performance, including general trends and usefulness of the information, and will incorporate this into the performance confidence assessment.

Past Performance Confidence Assessment: The overall assigned rating for past performance will be the Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating, defined in table identified as " " Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings Table 4 below. The assignment of this rating will be based on the overall quality of the recent and relevant past performance and will also consider the source of the information, the context of the data, and general trends in the offeror's performance.

The quality of performance under a past performance reference that that has no relevance to the instant requirement will not be considered in the overall assessment of past performance confidence. Evaluation will focus only on work already performed. Work yet-to-be performed and work not reflecting one year of completed performance by the solicitation closing date will not be considered.

If the offeror's aggregated past performance is determined to be not relevant as defined in the solicitation, then the quality of the offeror's past performance will not be evaluated through a confidence assessment and the past performance factor will be rated as "Neutral Confidence." If an offeror's aggregate past performance is determined to be relevant, then each past performance reference under the offeror's past performance submission that contributed to the determination of aggregate relevance (i.e., each reference that is rated at least somewhat relevant) will be evaluated to determine the quality of the offeror's performance under that reference. The quality of performance on contract references that are rated "Not Relevant" is not evaluated even when the overall past performance is found to be "Relevant." In determining the rating for the past performance factor, past performance of greater relevancy will have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevancy.

In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the past performance factor. In this case, the offeror's past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of "Neutral Confidence." Although an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance may not be rated favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the Government may determine that a "Substantial Confidence" or "Satisfactory Confidence" past performance rating provides better value to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" past performance rating.

In order to evaluate Past Performance, the Government may also utilize existing data sources, including the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), the Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; communication with points of contact in the offeror's customer's organization, which could include private sector requirements and contracts personnel, Administrative Contracting Officers, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) personnel, Procuring Contracting Officers, Contracting Officer's Representatives, and other Government activity requirements personnel. The Government may verify past performance information. The Government may contact some or all of the references provided, as appropriate, and may collect information through questionnaires, telephone interviews, and existing data sources. The Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any and all sources, including sources outside of the Government. This information will be used for the evaluation of past performance.

The past performance factor evaluation and past performance confidence assessment rating is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer's responsibility determination. The assessment of the offeror's past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the relative capability of the offeror and other competitors to successfully meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Note: A rating of "Limited Confidence" for the past performance factor means that the offeror's proposal is not awardable without a change or changes to the offeror's proposal. A proposal that includes a "Limited Confidence" rating is considered to be susceptible to correction if the Contracting Officer determines that a discussion (pursuant to FAR 15.306) is appropriate and said discussion is conducted. A rating of "No Confidence" for the past performance factor means that the offeror's proposal is not awardable, is not susceptible to correction, and will not be further evaluated.

Factor III - Small Business Participation Plan:

The Contracting Officer will evaluate the Small Business Participation Plan as follows:

The extent to which small business concerns are specifically identified;

The extent of commitment to use small business concerns (for example, enforceable commitments will be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones);

Past performance of the offerors in complying with requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

The extent of participation of small business concerns in terms of the value of the total acquisition.

The offeror's small business participation plan factor will be assigned a rating shown in the "Small Business Participation " below.Plan Ratings Table 5

Volume II: Price Proposal Evaluation Criteria

Factor IV: Price:

The Offeror's proposed price will be evaluated on the basis of price reasonableness. The evaluation method is at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. The price fair and reasonableness ratings are defined in table identified as "Price Fair

" below. Evaluation will be conducted on a price fair and and Reasonableness Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Table 6 reasonableness acceptable/unacceptable basis as part of a best value evaluation. Actual pricing for future delivery orders will be separately competed among multiple award IDIQ awardees. Additionally, failure to provide completed FAR 52.225-18 and DFARS 252.225-7000 certifications will render the offer ineligible for award.

Volume III: Small Business Subcontracting Plan:

Small Business Subcontracting Plan (for other-than-small businesses only). This is NOT an evaluation factor. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan requirement is mandatory for award to a large business. Each large business offeror's Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be reviewed in accordance with FAR clause 52.219-9 Alt II (Deviation), Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The plan will be reviewed for acceptability. The apparently successful offeror shall negotiate an acceptable subcontracting plan with the contracting officer prior to award. Failure to negotiate an acceptable subcontracting plan will make the offeror ineligible for award. Negotiation of the small business subcontracting plan is not considered discussions and will only occur with the apparent successful offeror. The plan will be incorporated into any resultant contract(s).

Rating Tables

Combined Technical/Risk Table 1

These ratings will be used in the evaluation of Factor I - Technical Submission.

Adjecti val Rating

Description

Outstan ding

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.

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.

Accept able

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

Margin al

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

Unacce ptable

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.

Technical Risk Table 2

These ratings will be used in the evaluation of Factor I - Technical Submission.

R at in g

Description

L o w

Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

M o d er at e

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

H ig h

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

U n ac ce pt a bl e

Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Table 3

These ratings will be used in the evaluation of Factor II - Past Performance.

Rating Description

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort this solicitation requires.

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

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort this solicitation requires.

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

Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings Table 4

These ratings will be used in the evaluation of Factor II - Past Performance.

Rating

Description

Substa ntial C onfide nce

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfa ctory Confid ence

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutra l Confi dence

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.

Limite d Conf idence

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 Co nfiden ce

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.

Small Business Participation Plan Ratings Table 5

These ratings will be used in the evaluation of Factor III - Small Business Participation Plan.

Adjectival Rating

Description

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

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

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

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

Price Fair and Reasonableness Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Table 6

These ratings will be used in the evaluation of Factor IV - Price.

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation

DEFINITIONS:

Strength - an aspect of an offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Significant Strength - an aspect of an Offeror's proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Weakness - a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness - a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency - a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Risk - (as it pertains to source selection) 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 sub-factor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Uncertainty - aspect of a non-price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake)

(b) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of provision)

ATTENTION CODE 301, 1968 GILBERT STREET SUITE 600

NORFOLK, VA 23511-3392

UNITED STATES

Borui Tang, Email: borui.z.tang.civ@us.navy.mil Telephone: (771) 229-3612 AdminBy:

SCD: PAS: