Amendment N0018926RL0130002.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 I - Contract Clauses

Additional Information/Notes

The following clauses were added:

FAR Clauses Incorporated by Reference

Number Title Effective Date Alternate/ Deviation

Variation Effective Date

52.222-90 Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors. (Deviation 2026-O0038) Apr 2026

N0018926RL0130002

Section L - Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors or Quoters

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

SECTION L: INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS:

The Government intends to award a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) task order as a result of this solicitation in accordance with FAR

16.505 and FAR Subpart 19.5. Award will be made to that offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government under the selection criteria set forth in this solicitation. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a task order based on initial proposals. Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a Facilities Security Clearance, Technical, Past Performance, and Cost/Price standpoint.

The Government intends to award the task order without exchanges. The establishment of a competitive range is not anticipated.

Accordingly, each Offeror should submit its most favorable terms from a Facilities Security Clearance, Technical, Past Performance, and Cost/Price standpoint. However, the Government may contact any or all offerors with questions concerning their responses as permitted under FAR Part 16. The Government reserves the right to award a CPFF task order to other than the lowest cost offeror;

award a CPFF task order without exchanges; or award a CPFF task order after exchanges, whichever is in the best interest of the Government.

Offerors are hereby instructed that, regardless of any language that may be used in this solicitation, the Government is NOT conducting this procurement under FAR Part 15. This procurement is being conducted under FAR Subpart 16.505.

QUESTIONS: Offerors may submit questions regarding clarification of solicitation requirements via email to Samantha Ballance at samantha.a.ballance.civ@us.navy.mil and Zackery Bowman at Zackery.l.bowman.civ@us.navy.mil. It is requested that all questions be received by by , as time may not permit responses to questions received after that date to be 06 May 2026 1200 Eastern Time prepared and issued prior to the receipt of proposals.

FOR SUBMISSIONS OF OFFERS:

(1) Proposals shall be submitted electronically no later than the due date of the solicitation via email to Samantha Ballance at samantha.

a.ballance.civ@us.navy.mil and Zackery Bowman at Zackery.l.bowman.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. All electronic files and versions of offerors' proposals shall be compatible with the current release of Adobe Acrobat and Microsoft Office Suite version 2016 (Excel). The offeror shall be responsible for ensuring that their electronic proposals are virus free.

(2) Offerors shall comply with all instructions for submitting proposals and attachments.

(3) Volume I - Facilities Security Clearance

This volume shall address the Facilities Security Clearance and include all information required for proposal evaluation. This volume of the proposal shall exclude any cost/price information. Each page of each copy shall be affixed with the following legend:

Source Selection Information

See FAR 2.101 and FAR 3.104

(4) Volume II - Technical

This volume shall address the Technical factor and subfactors and include all information required for proposal evaluation. This volume of the proposal shall exclude any cost/price information. Each page of each copy shall be affixed with the following legend:

Source Selection Information

See FAR 2.101 and FAR 3.104

1.

2.

(5) Volume III - Past Performance

This volume shall address the past performance factor and include all information required for proposal evaluation. This section shall exclude any reference to the cost/price aspects of the proposal. Each page of each copy shall be affixed with the following legend:

Source Selection Information

See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

(6) Volume IV - Cost/Price Proposal

This volume shall include the completed solicitation documents and a complete and detailed cost breakdown with all supporting information. Each page of each copy shall be affixed with the following legend:

Source Selection Information

See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

II. REQUIREMENTS FOR 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, III, or IV) Proposal Category (Factor/Subfactor) Request for Proposal Number Name and Address of Offeror, CAGE Code, DUNS number, and applicable Tax I.D. Number (TIN) Identification if original or a copy of the proposal Point of Contact name, telephone number, and email address Proposal valid until task order award

Proposals shall be prepared in four (4) separate and distinct volumes:

- Volume I, Factor I - Facilities Security Clearance

- Volume II, Factor II - Technical Approach

Subfactor I - Performance Approach Subfactor II- Staffing and Management Approach

Volume III, Factor III - Past Performance Volume IV, Factor IV - Price

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

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 cost 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.

Proposal Page Limitations

The following page limitations are established:

Title Proposal Quantities Page Limit*

Volume I - Factor I: Facilities Security Clearance 1 Electronic Submission No Limit

Volume II - Factor II, Subfactor I: Performance Approach 1 Electronic Submission 60 Pages

Volume II - Factor II, Subfactor II: Staffing & Management Approach 1 Electronic Submission

Volume III - Factor III, Past Performance 1 Electronic Submission 15 Pages

Volume IV- Factor IV: Cost/Price 1 Electronic Submission No Limit

* 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.

** Staffing Plan will be included as an attachment to the final contract award.

Proposals shall be submitted electronically no later than solicitation closing date via email to Samantha Ballance at samantha.a.

ballance.civ@us.navy.mil and Zackery Bowman at Zackery.l.bowman.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.

All submission and attachments shall be in Microsoft Office Word or Excel. Submissions are page limited to the maximum number of pages as defined above. These page limitations are inclusive of the executive summary and any charts, diagrams, and/or other graphics. Graphics (including tables) in the proposal must use 12-point size type or greater. Each "page" is defined as one sheet, 8 1/2" x 11", with at least one inch margins on all sides, using a font with a point size of 12 or greater (e.g., "Times New Roman" style with 12-point font), and the orientation shall be portrait. Lines shall, at a minimum, be selected as single-spaced in Microsoft Word with Microsoft Word Normal character spacing. Pages shall be consecutively numbered. Multiple pages, double pages, two-sided pages, or foldouts will count as an equivalent number of 8 1/2" x 11" pages. 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, compliance matrix, table of contents, tabs, and dividers.

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

The 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.

Volume I, Factor I - Facilities Security Clearance

The offeror shall provide verification that it possesses an active Facilities Security Clearance (FCL) at the level at the time of Secret proposal submission as identified in the PWS. The verification shall be provided via the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency's (DCSA) National Industrial Security System (NISS) and obtained no earlier than 30 days prior to the issuance of the solicitation. The Verification request shall include the following: Cage Code, Facility Name, Physical Location, Facility Clearance Status/Level, Status Date/Issue Date, Safeguarding Level, Authorized Access to FCL Limitation, Facility Security Officer, Facility Security Officer Phone Number, DCSA Field Office, and DSCA Officer Phone Number.

Volume II, Factor II - Technical Approach: Factor II will consist of two subfactors: Subfactor I, Performance Approach, and Subfactor II, Staffing &Management Approach.

Factor II, Subfactor I - Performance Approach

The offerors shall demonstrate an understanding of the requirement and ability to perform the required tasks and shall demonstrate to the government that the offeror is capable of fully providing the services identified in PWS Sections 4.

Factor II, Subfactor II - Staffing and Management Approach

The offeror shall provide a staffing approach that demonstrates the offeror's ability to recruit, hire, and retain the appropriate mix and quantity of personnel resources with the skillset levels necessary within Section 6 of the PWS. The offeror shall provide a detailed management approach that will successfully accomplish the requirements of the solicitation by describing the management controls, techniques and procedures that will be used to ensure the objectives of the PWS are performed in a timely, responsive, professional and efficient manner. The offeror shall provide a management approach that demonstrates the offeror's ability to flexibly staff with commitment to perform work assignments on short notice based on changing task priorities, and effective allocation of staff and resources to accomplish goals.

The vendor's staffing approach will also be evaluated on how well it clearly and effectively:

Details how this effort will be managed within the offeror's corporate organizational structure. This includes the roles, responsibilities, authorities and professional qualification(s)/ background(s)/ experience(s) of those individuals to be dedicated to this contract effort.

Demonstrates utilization of the offerors personnel resources and demonstrated understanding of the skill sets and LOE/Labor mix required to successfully accomplish the tasks/requirements specified in Section 4 of the PWS.

Identifies a comprehensive and feasible approach that places a fully qualified workforce in place on the first day of performance.

Identifies a comprehensive and feasible methodology for identifying, recruiting, preparing, training, and retention of qualified personnel for performance at each site and the offeror's plan to minimize staff turnover.

Identifies a comprehensive and feasible mitigation for the retention of personnel in the event of non-consecutive task orders so to not delay continuation of services.as Mitigates risks associated with its staffing approach and implementation of its approach.

Volume III, Factor III - Past Performance:

To demonstrate its past performance, the offeror shall identify up to three (3) of its most relevant contracts performed within five (5) years of the solicitation issuance date. Those contracts must also reflect one year of completed performance by the closing date of the 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 ID/IQ contract, a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA), or a Federal Supply Schedule. Offerors shall not submit the IDIQ contract, FSS contract, or BPA itself as a reference. Offerors may submit a combination of no more than three (3) delivery orders (DOs), task orders (TOs), technical direction letters (TDLs), and/or technical area tasks (TATs) placed under an ID/IQ or BPA as one of the three examples of past performance. Such a combination must also meet the requirements stated above: each individual example in the combination must have been performed within five (5) years of the solicitation issuance date . If a combination of DOs, TOs, TDLs and or TATs are used as a past performance example, the offeror shall state the specific experience claimed, period of performance, and dollar value of each.

A Past Performance example that does not provide the level of detail required may not be evaluated. No more than one combination of DOs, TOs, TDLs and or TATs is permitted in the past performance submittal.

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.

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 Zackery.l.

bowman.civ@us.navy.mil and Samantha Ballance at samantha.a.ballance.civ@us.navy.mil by the closing date of the 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.

Volume IV, Factor IV - Cost/Price Proposal

In addition to the items required in the General Section above, Volume IV shall include the completed solicitation documents, completed Schedule B pricing to include a complete and detailed cost/price breakdown with all supporting documentation. The cost /price proposal shall include all elements of cost and such other cost information as considered appropriate to support the Offeror's proposal.

The Cost/Price Proposal shall include the completed solicitation documents. The cost/price proposal shall include all elements of cost and such other cost information considered appropriate to support the offeror's proposal. The cost information shall be completed in accordance with the following:

a. Basic Cost Information - Offeror's proposal must contain sufficient information to allow for the Government to perform an analysis of the proposed cost and to determine cost reasonableness and cost realism. Cost shall be broken down by cost element for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN). These elements shall at a minimum include, as applicable: direct labor, other direct cost, travel, subcontracts, indirect cost and rates, and fee. Offeror shall provide for each element of cost, the basis of estimate, including explanation and rationale sufficient to support a determination of reasonableness. Any and all subcontracts shall be identified and priced in the proposal. Subcontracts (regardless of dollar value) shall be adequately documented. The same level of detailed cost information required in this solicitation of the prime contractor, to include certified cost and pricing data if required, shall be provided by each subcontractor proposed for this effort. Subcontractor cost/price breakdowns shall be submitted as described above.

Subcontractors can submit information email to Samantha Ballance at samantha.a.ballance.civ@us.navy.mil and Zackery Bowman at Zackery.l.bowman.civ@us.navy.mil by the due date of this solicitation.

b. The itemized cost proposal must include the following:

1. Direct Labor: Show the current and projected salary amounts in man-hours, man-months, or annual salary to be charged by any technical personnel either by person or position. State the number of man-hours used to calculate a man-month or man-year. For each person or position, provide the following information:

a. The basis for the direct labor hours or percentage of effort (e.g., historical hours or estimates).

b. The basis for the direct labor rates or salaries. Labor costs should be based upon current labor rates or salaries. Rates may be adjusted upward for forecast salary or wage cost-of-living increases that will occur during the agreement period. The cost proposal should separately identify the ratio applied to base salary /wage for cost-of living adjustments and merit increases. Each must be fully explained.

c. The portion of time (hours) by labor category to be devoted to the proposed effort.

d. The total annual salary charged to the effort.

e. Any details that may affect the salary during the effort, such as plans for leave.

2. Fringe Benefits and Indirect Costs (Overhead, General and Administrative (G&A), Facilities and Other): The most recent rates, dates of negotiation, the base or bases, and periods to which the rates apply must be disclosed and a statement included to identify whether the proposed rates are provisional or fixed. If a Forward Pricing Rate Agreement has been negotiated by a Government agency, state when and by which agency. A copy of the negotiation memorandum and the approved or provisionally approved rates shall be provided. If negotiated forecast rates do not exist, offerors must provide sufficient detail to enable the Government to determine that the costs included in the forecast rates are allocable, allowable, and reasonable according to applicable FAR/DFARS provisions. An offeror's disclosure should be sufficient to permit a complete understanding of the content of the rate

(s) and how it was established. As a minimum, the submission should identify:

a. All individual cost elements included in the forecast rate(s);

b. Bases used to prorate indirect expenses to cost pools, if any;

c. How the rate(s) was calculated;

d. Distribution basis of the developed rate(s);

e. Bases on which the overhead rate is calculated, such as "salaries and wages" or "total costs;" and

f. The period of the offeror's fiscal year.

3. Subcontracts: A precise description of proposed services or materials that are subcontracted must be provided. For all subcontracts proposed, provide the following specific information:

a. A clear description of the work to be performed.

b. If known, the identification of the proposed subcontractor and an explanation of why and how the subcontractor was selected or will be selected.

c. The identification of the type of award to be used (cost reimbursement, fixed price, etc.).

d. Whether or not the award will be competitive and, if noncompetitive, rationale to justify the absence of competition.

e. A detailed cost summary (i.e., cost elements) to include the cost pool and allocation base for each element and a certificate of current cost and pricing data (if required).

f. The results of the offeror's cost or price analysis of the subcontractor's proposed price.

4. Other Direct Costs (ODCs)/Travel/Materials: Offeror shall insert the Government estimated ODCs/Travel /Materials plug numbers in their proposed price in addition to any applicable General and Administrative (G&A) and/or Overhead (OH) rate applicable in accordance with FAR Part 31 and their accounting system.

Only G&A and/or OH indirect costs are allowed to be applied to ODCs/Travel/Materials, no profit or fee is allowed. The offeror shall include an explanation in their price proposal as to how the proposed rates will be applied to ODCs/Travel/Materials in accordance with FAR Part 31 and their accounting system. Additionally, offerors shall state in their cost/price proposal if the proposed indirect rates are approved by or have been audited by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) or the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA). NOTE: If no G&A and/or OH are proposed, it will be determined that the offeror does not intend on applying any applicable indirect cost to provided ODCs, Materials, and Travel. The ODCs, Materials, and Travel plug numbers are included in Performance Work Statement below.

Performance Period Travel ODCs Materials

Base $35,400.00 $4,622,723.00 $4,890,962.00

Option 1 $36,462.00 $4,761,404.69 $5,037,690.86

Option 2 $37,555.86 $4,904,246.83 $5,188,821.59

Option 3 $38,682.54 $5,051,374.24 $5,344,486.23

Option 4 $39,843.01 $5,202,915.46 $5,504,820.82

FAR Clause 52.217-8 $19,921.51 $2,601,457.73 $2,752,410.41

5. Fixed Fee: Provide the percentage and dollar amount proposed for the fee.

6. Facilities Capital Cost of Money: If Contract Facilities Capital Cost of Money is proposed, a completed Contract Facilities Capital Cost of Money (FCCM) (DD Form 1861) is required.

7. Supporting Information: Supporting data including labor rates and hours, burden rates, material lists and costs, travel charges, and "other direct costs" used in developing the cost/price breakdown shall be furnished. The supporting data for "other direct costs" shall include an itemization of those costs and an explanation and justification for each cost so itemized.

8. DCAA/DCMA Audit: If the Offeror has been or is currently being audited by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) or Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), the offeror shall provide the name and location of the assigned DCAA/DCMA office with the proposal.

9. ESTIMATED LEVEL OF EFFORT: An offeror's cost proposal shall use the duties and personnel qualifications defined in the Performance Work Statement and Level of Effort clause within Section 1B to develop pricing for the labor categories included in the O-Level Barge Maintenance Pricing Spreadsheet. Offerors shall use the level of effort included in the Pricing Spreadsheet and deviations from that will render the proposal non-responsive.

All cost/price and cost/price supporting information shall be contained in the price proposal. No cost/price information shall be included in any other volume including cover letters. The offeror is responsible for submitting sufficient information to enable the Government to fully evaluate its' cost/price proposal.

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 hereto. Alternate proposals are not authorized. Objections to any terms and conditions of the RFP will constitute deficiency, (See FAR 15.001), which may make the offer unacceptable. An offeror may correct a deficiency only through exchanges (see FAR 15.306(d) and 15.307).

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

SECTION M: EVALUATION CRITERIA

The Government intends to award a CPFF Task Order to the responsible offeror whose proposal represents the best value after the evaluation in accordance with the factors in the solicitation. The evaluation will consist of four factors: Factor I: Facilities Security Clearance, Factor II: Technical Approach, Factor III: Past Performance, and Factor IV: Cost/Price, and will be conducted in two phases. Phase I will evaluate Factor I (Facilities Security Clearance), and Phase II will evaluate the remaining factors. Offers receiving a rating of 'Unacceptable' for Factor I -Facilities Security Clearance are considered un-awardable and will not be further evaluated.

Factor II - Technical Approach will consist of two subfactors: Subfactor I - Performance Approach, and Subfactor II - Staffing & Management Approach. The evaluation of proposals will consider the Non-Cost/Price Proposal to be significantly more important than the Cost/Price Proposal. Within the Non-Cost/Price Proposal, Factor II - Technical is more important than Factor III - Past Performance. Within the Technical factor, the two subfactors are weighted equally.

Offerors simply providing general statements or paraphrasing/parroting the PWS in whole or in any part may result in a rating of unacceptable. Offerors should be aware that a complete understanding as to technical, cost/price, and all terms and conditions of the proposed task order 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 exchange, 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.

All proposals will be reviewed for timeliness. Timely proposals will also be reviewed for compliance to the solicitation. If the proposal is not compliant with the material terms of the solicitation, it may not be evaluated and the offeror will be notified that the proposal is non-responsive.

Non-Cost/Price Proposal Evaluation Criteria

Factor I: Facilities Security Clearance

Factor I will be evaluated during Phase I and the offeror will receive a rating of Acceptable/Unacceptable based on its submission of the verification of its Facilities Clearance Level meeting the requirements as detailed in Section L. This will be evaluated Secret during Phase I on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis utilizing the "Acceptable/Unacceptable" rating Table below. Offerors receiving an 'Acceptable' rating in Phase I will move on to Phase II. Offerors receiving an 'Unacceptable' rating will be considered un-awardable and will not be further evaluated.

Factor II: Technical Approach: Factor II is comprised of the below subfactors:

Subfactor I - Performance Approach: The offeror's proposed performance approach will be evaluated on feasibility, comprehensiveness, and the degree to which the offeror demonstrates its understanding of, and capability to successfully accomplish, the performance approach requirements listed above in the technical subfactor I in Section L: Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors to the solicitation.

Subfactor II - :Staffing & Management Approach The offeror's overall staffing and management approach will be evaluated on its feasibility, comprehensiveness, and the degree to which the offeror demonstrates its understanding of, and capability to successfully accomplish the staffing and management approach requirements listed above in the technical subfactor II in Section L: Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors to the solicitation.

The purpose of the technical factor is to assess the offeror's proposed approach to satisfy the Government's requirements. The risk associated with the offeror's technical approach will also be assessed. Risk, as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful task order performance. Risk assesses the degree to which an offeror's proposed technical approach to the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful task order performance.

The technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical/risk evaluations will utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in the Technical Ratings Table (Table 2) and the risk descriptions in the Risk Descriptions Table below. The overall assigned technical factor and subfactor ratings will be from Table 2. Note that a separate and distinct rating for risk will not be assigned. The risk descriptions are provided in the Risk Descriptions Table below in order to define the risk terms that are utilized in the combined technical/risk rating table (Table 2) and to describe the level of risk assessed when establishing the combined technical risk/rating.

NOTE: A rating of "Marginal" for any Technical factor or subfactor means that the vendor's proposal is not awardable without a change or changes to the vendor's proposal. A proposal which includes a "Marginal" rating is not eligible for award if award is made on initial offers. Offerors that receive a "Marginal" rating are considered to be susceptible to correction if the Contracting Officer determines that an exchange is appropriate and said exchange is conducted and as such, a vendor that receives a rating of "Marginal" in the technical factor (or subfactor) is not awardable and will not be further evaluated unless discussions are conducted. Offerors receiving a rating of "Unacceptable" for any Technical factor or subfactor will not be considered for an award and will not be further evaluated.

Factor III - 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 Recency: Recency is the first aspect of the past performance evaluation and is the time period during which past performance references are considered relevant. Recency is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. For purposes of this solicitation, recent past performance is performance that has taken place within five (5) years as of the closing date of this solicitation Performance outside of this stated period will not be considered for evaluation purposes..

Past Performance Relevancy: Regarding relevancy, each past performance reference under each offeror's Past Performance submission will be evaluated to determine its scope and magnitude relative to the instant requirement, and assigned a relevancy rating as detailed in table 4 below. The following definitions will apply to this evaluation:

- Scope: Experience in the areas defined in the PWS.

- 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.

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.

The relevancy rating assigned to each past performance reference will be considered in determining the weight to be given to that reference in the overall Past Performance Confidence Assessment. References determined to be "Not

Relevant" will not be further considered. Similarly, the quality of performance under a past performance reference that has no relevance to the instant requirement will not be considered in the overall assessment of past performance confidence. 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 relevance.

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 5 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 prior the last five (5) years as of the closing date of this solicitation 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 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 determine the quality of performance, the Government may utilize existing data sources, including the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), 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 an exchange (pursuant to FAR 15.306) is appropriate and said exchange 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.

Cost/Price Proposal Evaluation Criteria

Factor IV - Cost/Price

Evaluation: Cost proposals and price proposals will be evaluated on the basis of cost realism and price reasonableness, respectively, in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. Cost realism pertains to the offeror's ability to project costs which are realistic and reasonable and which indicate that the offeror understands the nature and scope of work to be performed. Labor will be evaluated on the basis of 100% straight time. Uncompensated overtime and uncompensated overtime rates will not be used in the evaluation. The Governments' probable cost resulting from the cost realism analysis of each offeror's proposal will be used to determine best value. Downward cost realism adjustments will generally not be made.

Although cost is considered in a manner that makes it less important than the Non-Cost/Price factor, it has the potential to become more significant during the evaluation process. The degree of importance of the cost 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 cost will also increase when a proposal's cost is so significantly high as to diminish the value to the Government that might be gained under the other aspects of the offer. If, at any stage of the evaluation, all offerors are determined to have submitted equal, or virtually equal, or generally equivalent, Non-Cost /Price proposals, cost could become the factor in determining which offeror receives the award. The contracting officer may evaluate any and all information submitted by the vendor to support the reasonableness of costs proposed. The method of evaluation used by the contracting officer is solely within the discretion of the contracting officer. For Purpose of preparing a cost proposal, the contractor shall assume that the basic period of performance will be one 12-month base period with four 12-month options and one 6-month option, in accordance with FAR clause 52.212-8.

All CLINs, inclusive of Option CLINs, shall be priced. Options to include FAR Clause 52.217-8, will be evaluated pursuant to solicitation provision FAR 52.217-5, evaluations of Options. The government will evaluate offers for award purposed by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced.

Evaluation of options shall not obligate the government to exercise the option(s). Cost proposal will be evaluated on the basis of cost realism and reasonableness.

Options will be evaluated pursuant to solicitation provision FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total cost for all options to the total cost for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option costs are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

Written Notice

A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer e-mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding task order 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 exchanges after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

5. Ratings Tables

TABLE 1: Factor I, Facilities Security Clearance

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

TABLE 2: Ratings Table for Factor II, Subfactor I, Performance Approach, and Subfactor II, Staffing and Management Approach, and for the Overall Factor II Rating

Ratin g

Description

Outst andin 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.

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.

Acce ptable

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

Margi nal

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

Unac cepta 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.

TABLE 3: Factor II, Risk Description Table

T yp e o f Description

Ri sk

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 od 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.

Hi gh

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 na cc ep ta bl e

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

TABLE 4: Factor III, Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Table

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.

TABLE 5: Factor III, Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings Table

Rating

Description

Substa ntial C onfiden ce

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 C onfiden ce

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 Confid ence

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 Confi dence

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 Con fidence

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.

Definitions:

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.

Significant Strength is 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.

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

Weakness…