N00421-15-0034_Amendment_0006.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to change the CLIN type of CLINs 0019, 0119, 0219, 0319 and 0419 from "Cost" to "Cost Plus Fixed Fee".

Additionally, this amendment updates the Section M Tripw ire Chart to reflect a change in tripw ire rates that became effective 14 April 2015.

All other terms and conditions of the RFP remain unchanged to include the closing date for receipt of proposals w hich remains at 2:00 P.M.

on 23 April 2015.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 15

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 15-Apr-2015

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X N00421-15-R-0034

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

13-Mar-2015

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE

RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

15-Apr-2015

CODE

NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER AD-PAX ANNEX 1

CODE 2.5.1.10

21983 BUNDY ROAD

BLDG 441

PATUXENT RIVER MD 20670

N00421 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N00421-15-R-0034

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The following have been modified:

GENERAL INFORMATION

Amendment 0006

The purpose of this Amendment is to:

The purpose of this amendment is to change CLINs 0019, 0119, 0219, 0319 and 0419 from CLIN Type "Cost" to

"Cost Plus Fixed Fee". Additionally, this amendment updates the Section M Tripwire Chart to reflect tripwire rates that became effective 14 April 2015. All other terms and conditions of the RFP remain unchanged.

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0012

The contract type has changed from CPFF to COST.

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0012 Lot Reserved

COST

Reserved

FOB: Destination

ESTIMATED COST

CLIN 0018

0018 Lot Reserved

COST

CLIN 0019

The contract type has changed from COST to CPFF.

0019 Lot

Increased Capacity Labor Base Period

CPFF

10% Increased Capacity, Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee; (Fund

Type- Other) (Fund Type- OTHER)

FIXED FEE

TOTAL EST COST + FEE

CLIN 0119

0119 Lot

OPTION

Increased Capacity Labor Option Period I

CPFF

10% Increased Capacity, Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee; (Fund

CLIN 0219

0219 Lot

OPTION

Increased Capacity Labor Opt Period II

CPFF

10% Increased Capacity, Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee; (Fund

CLIN 0319

0319 Lot

OPTION

Increased Capacity Labor Opt Period III

CPFF

10% Increased Capacity, Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee; (Fund

CLIN 0407

0407 Lot OPTION Reserved

COST

CLIN 0413

0413 Lot OPTION Reserved

COST

CLIN 0419

0419 Lot

OPTION

Increased Capacity Labor Opt Period IV

CPFF

10% Increased Capacity, Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee; (Fund

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M PMA299

Section M:

SECTION M-1

1.0 GENERAL

Award of the Contract resulting from this solicitation will be made to the offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, offers the best value to the Government in terms of technical, past performance and price rather than to the proposal offering the lowest price. "Best value" means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. Offerors are advised that the proposal meeting the solicitation requirements with the lowest price may not be selected for an award if award to a higher priced offeror is determined to be more beneficial to the Government. However, the perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal must merit the additional price. Best value tradeoff analysis will not be performed for any offeror who receives an unacceptable rating for any factor or subfactor, and award will not be made to any offeror whose proposal is deemed unacceptable in any factor or subfactor. Furthermore, since the resulting Contract will require the delivery of data, the responsiveness and quality of organization and writing reflected in the proposal (both cost and non-cost portions) will be considered to be an indication of the Offeror’s quality control processes that would be applied to deliverable data. Subjective judgment on the part of the Government evaluators is implicit in the entire process.

1.1 EVALUATION PROCESS

The Government intends to evaluate each proposal and award a contract to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, provides the greatest overall benefit to the Government, all factors considered. The Government reserves the right to contact any or all or a limited number of awardees with questions concerning their responses as permitted under FAR Part 15; however, award may be based upon initial offers. Therefore, offerors are cautioned that their initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical, past performance and price standpoint. If a competitive range is established, the

Government may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

Evaluation of an offeror's proposal will be based on the information presented in the written proposal along with any input obtained from outside sources relevant to past performance. Proposals that are unrealistic in terms of technical or schedule commitments, or unreasonably high or unrealistically low in terms of cost, may be deemed to be reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence, or indicative of a failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the proposed work.

All proposals will be evaluated for compliance with the terms, conditions, and requirements set forth in the solicitation. Failure to address each of the areas identified in Section L may impact the resulting evaluation ratings and a deficiency or lack of responses to factors and/or subfactors may be used as a basis for eliminating a proposal from further consideration.

1.2 EVALUATION FACTORS

(1) Technical

(a) Understanding and Approach (sample tasks)

(b) Transition Plan

(c) Staffing and Personnel

(2) Past Performance

(3) Cost/Price

Technical and Past Performance, when combined, are more important than Cost/Price.

Technical is more important than Past Performance.

Technical subfactors are of equal importance.

Cost/Price is not the most important evaluation factor, but its degree of importance will increase commensurably with the degree of equality among different offerors’ Technical and Past Performance proposals.

2.0 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

2.1 Understanding and Approach to the Sample Tasks: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding and approach based on the responses required by Section L of this solicitation. The

Government will evaluate for clarity, completeness, and realism of the responses to the sample tasks and the extent to which the proposed approach will ensure successful accomplishment of the tasks described in the SOW.

2.2 Transition Plan:

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed transition plan based on the responses or presentations required by Section L of this solicitation. The Government will evaluate for clarity, completeness, and realism of the responses.

2.3 Staffing and Personnel

Key personnel resumes will be evaluated to determine if they meet the minimum qualification requirements in Section C to include education, experience and security clearance requirements.

Attachment P1 will be evaluated to determine if the proposed non-key personnel meet the minimum labor qualifications including education, experience, and security clearance requirements. The Workforce

Matrix (Attachment P2) will be evaluated to determine how well the proposed individual is suited to perform the tasks they are proposed for under the SOW. .

3.0 - Past Performance

Each offeror will be evaluated on its team’s past performance based on contracts or subcontracts currently ongoing or completed within the last five (5) years for similar efforts. The Government will focus on information that demonstrates quality of performance relative to size and complexity of the procurement under consideration and relevance of the performance to the requirements of the SOO/SOW in Section C of the solicitation. Sources other than those identified by the offeror may be contacted by the

Government. Past performance will be evaluated in two pieces, the first being the relevance of the past performance and the second, how well the offeror performed on relevant efforts. In the case of an offeror that does not have past performance information or for which information on past contract performance is not available, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance and a neutral rating will apply. The past performance evaluation is separate from the responsibility determination required by FAR Subpart 9.1.

4.0 – Cost/Price

4.1 Cost Realism Analysis. In evaluating the cost portion of each offer, realism of the offeror's estimated cost will be evaluated. Cost realism is a review of the cost portion of an offeror's proposal to determine if the overall costs proposed are realistic for the work to be performed, if the costs reflect the offeror's understanding of the requirements, and/or if the costs are consistent with the various elements of the technical proposal. The evaluation may be based on an analysis of the realism and completeness of the cost data and the traceability of the cost to the offeror's capability. Based on such analysis, an evaluated cost for the offeror will be calculated to reflect the Government's estimate of the offeror's most probable cost. Evaluated cost to the Government is an offeror's total cost, including profit/fee, and any additional adjustments the Government has determined necessary to make the proposed cost realistic for all periods.

This evaluated cost will be used in making an award recommendation. Therefore, any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between promised performance and cost should be explained in the supporting cost/price data volume. Cost realism analysis will be conducted to ascertain the following:

4.1.1 The Government will verify that the offeror has proposed in precise accordance with the labor categories and hours detailed in Section L-3. Any deviation between the hours listed in Section L-3 and the hours proposed may render the proposal unawardable.

4.1.2 Pertinent cost information, including but not limited to, payroll verification, contingent offer letters, and DCAA recommended rates indirect rates, as necessary and appropriate, will be used to arrive at the Government determination of the most probable cost to be incurred in the performance of this

Contract. The Government will ascertain the degree to which the proposed direct labor costs are based on named employees. The Government will attribute a higher level of confidence to the proposal’s realism in relation to the higher proportion of named employees. The Government may review the offeror’s proposed rates and compare the proposed rates to rates proposed by other offerors, rates in industry, or other rates, as deemed appropriate. The Government may review the costs proposed for various labor categories and compare those to the qualifications of personnel proposed; the Government reserves the right to evaluate the costs at a higher rate to match the caliber of personnel proposed.

4.1.3 When no substantiating data is available, the Government may accept the unsupported proposed rates for individual cost elements for the purpose of calculating a total evaluated cost/price because the

Government lacks any information to quantify a numerical adjustment. Nevertheless, even without making a numerical adjustment, the Government may still find that the unsupported rates indicate an offeror’s lack of understanding of the requirements, increased risk of performance, or lack of credibility on the part of the offeror. Offerors are advised that the Government may request technical assistance in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(e).

4.1.4 The Government will calculate the total evaluated price for each offeror by adding the

Government’s most probable cost for the base period and all option periods, to the price proposed in the base period and all option periods for the cost-plus-fixed-fee and cost reimbursable portion of the effort.

Evaluation of the options will not obligate the Government to exercise the options.

4.1.5 The Government will adjust the Contractor’s total proposed cost/price to reflect the incorporation of FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. The added cost for the potential extension up to 6 months, pursuant to FAR 52.217-8, will be based upon the Contractor’s proposed cost and fee, adjusted for realism, for the last Contract option year extended by six months.

4.1.6 Because in a competitive environment an offeror is incentivized to propose the lowest possible price, downward cost realism adjustments will generally not be made. However, when cost realism analysis indicates that a proposed cost is unrealistically low, an upward adjustment may be made based on the Government’s best estimate of the cost the offeror will incur for that cost element.

4.1.7 Unrealistically low costs or inconsistencies between the technical and cost proposals may be assessed as proposal risk and could be considered weaknesses under the technical factor.

4.1.8 Cost adjustments are for evaluation purposes only and award will be made at the proposed costs and fees of the successful offeror.

4.2 Price Analysis. Price analysis will be conducted on the total proposed price, inclusive of options, as follows:

4.2.1 Reserved.

4.2.2 Each offeror’s total price shall be evaluated to ensure that it is fair and reasonable. The

Government intends to make a determination of fair and reasonable pricing on the basis of adequate competition. However, in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, the Government may use any of the analytical techniques in that section either single or in combination with each other to determine that the final price is fair and reasonable. Award will not be made to an offeror whose price is determined to be other than fair and reasonable.

4.2.3 In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2), various price analysis techniques and procedures will be employed to ensure the prices being proposed for this requirement are fair and reasonable. To assist in the overall determination of price reasonableness; NAVAIR has established fully burdened labor rates

(otherwise referred to as tripwires by functional labor areas) applicable to all instances of procuring services. The tripwires for these functional areas are identified as follows:

Functional

Labor Area

Solicitation

Labor Category

Fully Burdened

Labor Rate Per

Hour Tripwire

($/HR)

Program

Management

Program Analyst, Jr.

$135.00

Program Analyst

Program Analyst, Sr.

Acquisition

Specialist, Jr.

Business Financial Analyst $105.00

Engineer Engineer IV $140.00

Engineer III

Other Administrative

Assistant $75.00

4.2.3.1 As part of its evaluation, be advised the Government will be identifying all instances during the base and options periods whereby proposed "Fully Burdened Annualized Labor Rates" exceed the established tripwires. A "Fully Burdened Annualized Labor Rate" for the prime contractor is calculated by taking the prime contractor's fully burdened labor rate per hour (inclusive of fee), and multiplying that figure by 1,920 hours. The fully burdened labor cost for any proposed subcontractor labor will be calculated in a similar manner and will also be inclusive of all pass-through costs being applied by the prime. Any calculated fully burdened annualized labor rate exceeding NAVAIR's Functional Area tripwires may require additional review. Executive level approval from the requirements office for labor rates exceeding the established triggers will have to be secured prior to execution of the Contract award.

Absent such approval the proposal will be considered un-awardable. Should the Government elect to establish a competitive range and initiate discussions, specific instances of excessive and unreasonably high labor rates will be addressed with individual offerors.

4.2.3.2 Specific instances of fully burdened labor rates that exceed the noted functional area tripwires may be addressed with individual offerors as deemed necessary by the Government.

4.3 In accordance with DFARS 215.371-1, if only one offeror is received, cost analysis will be performed and will be the basis for negotiations. However, if adequate price competition is received, the

Government will only perform cost analysis to the extent that it is required to conduct cost realism analysis, in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(c)(1).

4.4 The Offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to ensure compliance with the contractually specified maximum escalation, pass-through, and fixed fee limitations with respect to the Federal Acuisition

Regulations.

4.5 As this is a set-aside competition, the Contractor’s compliance with FAR Clauses 52.219-29

Limitation on Subcontracting, 8(m) Economically Disadvantaged Woman Owned Small Business set-aside, will be evaluated. Contractors’ proposals which fail to meet the limitation on subcontracting during each period of performance may not be considered for award.

4.6 Prospective Offerors are forewarned that if there are discrepancies between Section B, Attachment P6 and Volume 4 Narrative, Section B prevails. The discrepancies may impact the realism and reasonableness assessment of the offeror or its eligibility for award.

5.0 Ratings

5.1 Evaluations in support of this award shall employ an adjectival rating method for rating contractor proposals against evaluation factors and subfactors identified within Section M of this solicitation. The appropriate adjectival rating will be assigned to each factor and subfactors, as required, subsequent to and consistent with the narrative evaluation, which will indicate a proposal’s strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks. The Government will assign a separate Technical and Risk rating.

5.2 Technica and Risk Rating Methodology and Adjectival Ratings: The technical and risk evaluations will utilize the technical and risk ratings listed in Tables 1 and 2 below. A Technical rating will be assessed based on how well the offeror meets the requirements of Section C. The Risk rating assignments will reflect the Government’s assessment of the potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Table 1

Technical Adjectival Ratings

Rating Description

Blue Outstanding

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

Purple

Good

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

Yellow Marginal

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

Table 2

Technical Risk Rating

Rating Description

Low

Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

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

5.3.1 There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontracting/teaming.

5.3.2 For purposes of this solicitation, there are only three levels of relevancy, as shown in Table 3.

References that are deemed “Not Relevant” will not be considered in assigning the Performance

Confidence Assessment rating.

Table 3

Past Performance Relevancy Rating

Rating Definition

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

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

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

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

5.3.3 The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts.

5..4 Performance Confidence Assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in Table 4.

Table 4

Performance Confidence Assessment

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence

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

Limited Confidence

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

No Confidence

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

5.5 Definitions:

Potential Strength An aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that may be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Strength An aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Potential Risk Reducer An aspect of an offeror's proposal that reduces risk in a way that may be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Risk Reducer An aspect of an offeror's proposal that reduces risk in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness (FAR 15.001) "...a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance."

Significant Weakness (FAR 15.001)

"...a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance."

Uncertainty An aspect of the proposal that affects the Government's ability to determine if a requirement will be met.

Deficiency (FAR 15.001) 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.

Recency A measure of the time that has elapsed since the performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which performance references are considered relevant.

Relevancy A measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of performance examples and the solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the performance is an indicator of future performance.

Reasonableness (excerpt from FAR 31.201-3)

A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. What is reasonable depends upon a variety of considerations and circumstances, including:

1. Whether it is the type of cost generally

2. The contractor's responsibilities to the Government.

Cost Realism (FAR 2.101) The costs in an Offeror's proposal -

1. Are realistic for the work to be performed;

2. Reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and,

3. Are consistent with the various elements of the Offeror's technical proposal.

Completeness The adequacy of the cost proposal, in relation to the SOW, considering whether all costs are included or accounted for. All SOW requirements must be included.

6.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

6.1 Award of the Contract resulting from this solicitation will be made to the offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, offers the best value to the Government in terms of Technical, Past

Performance, Cost/Price and other factors considered, rather than to the proposal offering the lowest price.

6.2 The Government intends to award the resultant Contract on the basis of initial offers received.

Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror's best terms from a cost/price and technical standpoint. However, if considered necessary by the Contracting Officer, during the evaluation of proposals the Government may establish a competitive range and conduct discussions with all or a limited number of awardees with questions concerning their responses as permitted under FAR Part 15.

6.3 FAR Part 9.103(a) states that purchases shall be made from, and contracts shall be awarded to, responsible contractors only. FAR Part 9.103(b) stipulates that no purchase or award shall be made unless the contracting officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. In making a responsibility determination, the standards at FAR 9.104-1 will be considered. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to request adequate evidence of responsibility on the part of the Offeror or any proposed subcontractor; communications with offerors regarding responsibility issues may take place at any time during the proposal evaluation process.

6.4 If an offeror identifies a conflict of interest, mitigation plans shall be submitted and will be evaluated by the Government. If the proposed mitigation plans are ultimately deemed unacceptable, the offeror will be ineligible for award.

(End of Summary of Changes)