N00421-17-R-0071-0002.pdf

SEE SCHEDULE

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:

1. Revise the instructions tab in Attachment P2

2. Revise Section M, Part B, Section 1, Paragraph (B)(1)(b)(2).

All other terms and conditions of this solicitation remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 9

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 04-Oct-2018

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 N0042117R0071

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

27-Sep-2018

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

04-Oct-2018

CODE

NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER AD

CODE 2.5.1.11

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:

N0042117R0071

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The Table of Contents has changed from:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Exhibit A CDRLs

Attachment 1 SOW

Attachment 1a Labor Categories

Attachment 1b Sample Travel Request

Attachment 1c GOP Guidance

Attachment 2 DD254

Attachment 3 RESERVED

Attachment 4 DPAP GFP Form

Attachment 5 WD - Patuxent River, MD

Attachment 6 WD - China Lake, CA

Attachment 7 WD - Point Mugu, CA

Attachment P1 CPAQ

Attachment P2 Past Performance

Contract Data - 27Sep18

Attachment P3 Cost Summary

Spreadsheet

Attachment P4 Subcontractor Cost

Summary

Attachment P5 Labor Hour Matrix to:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Exhibit A CDRLs

Attachment 1 SOW

Attachment 1a Labor Categories

Attachment 1b Sample Travel Request

Attachment 1c GOP Guidance

Attachment 2 DD254

Attachment 3 RESERVED

Attachment 4 DPAP GFP Form

Attachment 5 WD - Patuxent River, MD

Attachment 6 WD - China Lake, CA

Attachment 7 WD - Point Mugu, CA

Attachment P1 CPAQ

Attachment P2 Past Performance

Contract Data - 04Oct18

Attachment P3 Cost Summary

Spreadsheet

Attachment P4 Subcontractor Cost

Summary

Attachment P5 Labor Hour Matrix

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

M - (1) EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD (SERVICES) (2 August 2018)

PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION

1 GENERAL

The Government expects to select one Offeror whose proposal offers the “best value” to the Government, using the trade-off method. "Best value" means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit(s) in response to the requirement. The Offeror is advised that the lowest priced proposal meeting the solicitation requirements 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.

2 EVALUATION PROCESS

The Government intends to evaluate each proposal and award a contract without discussions to the responsible

Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, provides the greatest overall benefit to the Government, all factors considered. Therefore, Offerors are cautioned that their initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical, past performance, and cost/price standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and request proposal revisions if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

When 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. The

Government may use information other than that provided by the Offeror in its evaluation, including past performance information and the results of questionnaires or site surveys.

All proposals will be evaluated for compliance with the terms, conditions, and requirements set forth in the solicitation, as well as for the risk associated with the Offeror’s approach. The Government may consider any exception or deviation to any term or condition of the solicitation that is not expressly authorized by the solicitation to be a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001. Additionally, any approach that relies on Government resources or operations (e.g. Government Furnished Property, Government Furnished Equipment, Government personnel/actions, Government Concept of Operation changes, etc.) in order to comply with a requirement, unless otherwise allowed, may be considered a deficiency. A proposal assessed with a deficiency will make the offer ineligible for award.

3 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Proposals will be evaluated using the factors listed below.

Past Performance Technical

Cost/Price

Past Performance is equal to Technical and each of those factors are more important than Cost/Price.

All evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price.

The proposal must demonstrate to the Government’s satisfaction that the Offeror will provide personnel that will ensure the successful accomplishment of the solicitation requirements and overall program objectives. Proposal information provided for one factor may be used to assess other factors if the Government deems it appropriate. In addition, the Offeror’s technical proposal will be reviewed to determine if it is consistent with the cost/price proposal where applicable, and reflects a clear understanding of the scope of work necessary to meet the solicitation requirements.

PART B: SPECIFIC INFORMATION

1 PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s (proposed Prime only) and (if applicable) the JV and JV team member’s demonstrated past performance in delivering quality products and services similar to the solicitation requirements.

The past performance evaluation will be based on customer feedback of contracts in the performance areas of

Technical, Schedule, Cost, and Management. The recency and relevancy of the contract and past performance information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance will be considered. It is the applicability of the customer feedback finding, as well as its associated likelihood of occurrence and consequence, that will be used in determining the Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. However, only performance on recent and relevant contracts will be considered in the evaluation. Problems not addressed by the Offeror will be considered to still exist. However, consideration for discounting problems may be given when those problems are addressed through demonstrated systemic improvement. The degree to which the Offeror can demonstrate that it has successfully applied systemic improvement to resolve past performance problems will be evaluated.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality.

A) The first aspect of the past performance is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance being evaluated. Past performance will be considered recent for the part of the contract/order that has been performed within five years of the solicitation release date. Past Performance that is not recent will not be considered in the evaluation.

B) The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate the relevancy of the contract as defined below:

1) Relevant (R) – A present/past performance contract reference involving similar scope, complexity, and magnitude of effort this solicitation requires. Specifically:

In order for a submitted present/past performance contract reference to merit a relevancy rating of Relevant, the effort must demonstrate scope, magnitude, complexity, place of performance and recency in accordance with paragraphs a, b, c, d and e below:

a) Similar Scope from at least five (5) of the following Scope areas:

(1) Overall Engineering Support (any one of the following paragraphs: SOW 3.3.1.1 - 3.3.1.8., or

Instrumentation Technical Support (SOW 3.3.2), or Instrumentation Design (SOW 3.3.3.1)).

(2) Fabrication, testing, troubleshooting and repair of Wiring Harnesses, Circuit Boards and Fiber

Optics (any one of the following paragraphs: SOW 3.3.7, 3.3.8, 3.3.9, 3.3.10)

(3) Supporting Flight Test, before, during and after flight operations (any one of the following paragraphs: SOW 3.3.11, 3.3.11.1, 3.3.11.2, 3.3.11.3

(4) Supporting day to day operations to include shipping/receiving, warehouse management and

Hangar Support (any one of the following paragraphs: SOW 3.3.16.1 – 3.3.16.4.6)

(5) Mechanical Engineering Support (any one of the following paragraphs: SOW 3.3.17, 3.3.17.1.1 –

3.3.17.1.6)

(6) Drafting Support (any one of the following paragraphs: SOW 3.3.18.1.1 – 3.3.18.2.5)

(7) Mechanical Modifications (Sheet Metal Support) (any one of the following paragraphs: SOW

3.3.19.1 – 3.3.19.4)

(8) Administrative and Facilities Support (any one of the following paragraphs: SOW 3.3.20, 3.3.20.2, 3.3.20.3, 3.3.20.5, 3.3.20.8.1 – 3.3.20.8.8, 3.3.20.8.10)

(9) Project Documentation, Configuration Management and Technical Writing Support (any one of the following paragraphs: SOW 3.3.22.1, 3.3.22.2.1 – 3.3.22.2.9, 3.3.22.3, 3.3.22.3.1, 3.3.22.3.2)

b) Similar Complexity from at least 2 of the following Complexity areas:

(1) Providing contract support services in accordance with the Service Contract Act and Executive

Order 13495, “Non-displacement of Qualified Workers Under Service Contracts (Section I

(52.222-17))

(2) The referenced contract contains the Ground and Flight Risk clause (DFARS 252.228-7001).

(SOW 3.1.8) For contracts administered prior to June 2010, the referenced contract must contain either the Ground Flight Risk Clause (DFARS 252.228-7001) or the Aircraft Flight Risk Clause

(DFARS 252.228-7002)

(3) The majority of personnel supporting the contract are required to have at least a Secret Security

Clearance (SOW 3.1.9.4, 3.2.2, 3.4.1.5)

c) Magnitude dollar value: $30,000,000 or greater over a five-year period or $6,000,000 or greater in any one year.

d) Place of Performance: Contracts from an entity that is the Prime contractor whose CAGE code is identified in Block 15A on the Standard Form (SF) 33, Solicitation, Offer, and Award.

e) Recency: Contracts, or those portions of contracts, whose performance is within five (5) years from the solicitation release dates. (If only a portion of a contract is within five (5) years, then only that portion is relevant for reasons of recency.

2) Not Relevant (NR) – A present/past performance contract reference involving little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires (i.e., does not meet the above definitions of Relevant); or contracts or the portion of those contracts submitted by the Offeror that meet any of the relevancy conditions of the relevancy definitions above.

C) The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate the overall quality of the Offeror’s recent relevant, past performance. The Government will evaluate the Offeror and JV team members’ performance in the areas of Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, and Management.

A Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will be assigned based on an integrated assessment of all performance areas. This assessment will address the Government’s level of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the required effort based on the Offeror’s relevant past performance and systemic improvement. In the case of an Offeror without a record of past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror will receive a rating of “Unknown” which is considered a “Neutral” rating.

Under Past Performance, the Government will evaluate how well an Offeror has performed similar work before. As such, the term “performance record” in the Performance Confidence Assessment Rating definition is referring to the records that indicate how well the Offeror has performed on recent/relevant work (e.g., CPARs and questionnaires).

When proposals are received from contractor entities specifically formed to propose on a particular acquisition (i.e., joint ventures), the past performance evaluation will also consider each individual team member’s relevant performance record.

2 TECHNICAL

The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine the Offeror’s understanding of, approach to, and ability to meet the solicitation requirements.

The Government will assess the Technical Proposal for Phase-In Transition Plan and Management Approach elements with respect to its compliance with the solicitation requirements. For this solicitation there is no benefit to the Government of exceeding a requirement or by providing merit that enhances performance or operations.

Therefore, no strengths will be assigned and only the Technical Rating definitions of Acceptable and Unacceptable will be used to relate the results of the evaluation, where a deficiency in either the Phase-In Transition Plan or the

Management Approach elements will result in an Unacceptable Rating.

The Government will assess the Technical Proposal for Phase-In Transition Plan, Management Approach, Workforce Management Experience, and Ground Operating Procedures (GOPs) Development Capability elements with respect to the risk.

For Workforce Management Experience, the corporate experience of the proposed prime and if applicable the JV and JV Team Members will be evaluated. Experience gained any time within the five-year recency window as defined under the Past Performance factor will be considered acceptable without any risk due to recency.

Experience that took place outside that five-year window will not be considered for this assessment. Also experience by individual employees will not be considered. Only relevant contracts as defined in the Past

Performance factor will be considered in the assessment as long as the contract has been performed for more than one year. The learning increases for this element as the amount of contract performance increases until the learning curve plateaus at three years. Therefore, the amount of experience will be considered in the evaluation to be increasing between one and three years, where the offeror will be considered fully proficient once three years of experience is reached. The amount of experience considered will be based on the collective period of performance of all applicable relevant contracts. Lack of a record of experience similar to that required for this solicitation may be considered a significant weakness.

For GOPs Development Capability, a Tool Control GOP from any contract performed within the five year recency window will be evaluated. The provided Tool Control GOP must be signed by the GGFR or the Ground Flight

Representative (GFR) that satisfies NAVAIRINST 3710.1G paragraph 5.3 or equivalent DoD instruction (DCMA

INST 8210.1, AFI 10-220, AR 95-20, or COMDTINST M13020.3) in order to adequately demonstrate that the

Offeror has the capability to create a tool control GOP. For offerors without a recent contract with the responsibility for developing a Tool Control GOP, the Government will assess the degree to which the proposed GOP Template mitigates the risk of not having this experience.

The Technical Risk Rating considers the risk associated with the approach and/or experience in meeting the requirement. Assessment of technical risk considers potential for disruption of schedule, increase in costs, degradation of performance, the need to increase Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The Technical Risk Ratings of Low, Moderate, High, and Unacceptable will be used to relate the results of the evaluation. Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a technical factor with an

“Unacceptable” Technical Rating or an “Unacceptable” Technical Risk Rating may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition. The Risk Rating will be determined based on an integrated assessment of the four elements. However, while a significant weakness in any one element may result in a high risk rating, if there is no experience in performing as the Prime on relevant contracts in the Workforce

Management Experience element, then the Risk Rating will not be rated better than High Risk.

3 COST/PRICE

Cost Reimbursement CLINs:

Except for otherwise unacceptable proposals when awarding on initial proposals, the Government will perform a cost realism analysis to determine the most probable cost (MPC) for each applicable Offeror’s proposal. In conducting its cost realism evaluation, the Government may review the Offeror’s proposed direct labor rates and compare the proposed rates to payroll verification, Letters of Intent, historical average direct rates for current SCA labor categories (Section L, Part B, Table 4), other similar rates within the same geographic zone where the work is to be performed, or other substantiated data. Pertinent cost information, including but not limited to DCAA-recommended rates for such costs as direct labor, escalation, overhead, G&A, etc., as necessary and appropriate, will be used to arrive at the Government determination of the MPC for the performance of this contract. The MPC is an

Offeror’s total cost, including fee, and any additional adjustments to the rates that the Government has determined necessary to make the proposed cost realistic for all periods. The Government will use the results of its cost realism analysis to determine the MPC of performance for each Offeror. The MPC may differ from the proposed cost. The

MPC, in addition to the calculated value of the six-month period associated with the Option to Extend Services clause described below, will result in the Offeror’s total evaluated cost which will be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the best value. Contract awarded value, however, will be based upon the successful Offeror’s proposed costs.

Total Professional Employee Compensation Plan:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Total Compensation Plan in accordance with FAR 52.222-46.

Fully Burdened Rate Tripwire:

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, the Government will identify all instances where a proposed fully burdened labor cost exceeds $300K annually per employee. This also applies to a fully burdened subcontractor employee labor cost, inclusive of the prime contractor’s pass-through burden. An exceeded tripwire may ultimately be determined unreasonable absent justification.

Overall Summary Level for all CLINs

Normally, adequate price competition establishes price reasonableness. In limited situations, additional analysis will be required by the Government to determine reasonableness. If, after receipt of a proposal, the PCO determines that adequate price competition does not exist and a determination is made that none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-

1(b) apply, the Offeror may be required to provide certified cost and pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.403-4.

As this is a small business set-aside competition, the contractor’s compliance with FAR Clauses 52.219-14

“Limitation on Subcontracting”, will be assessed as an element of responsibility. An Offeror’s proposal that fails to meet the limitation on subcontracting during each period of performance shall not be considered for award.

Prospective Offerors are forewarned that if there are discrepancies between Section B, Attachment (P3), and

Volume 3 Narrative, Section B prevails.

4 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS

Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, is incorporated in the solicitation. Total evaluated cost/price will also include the six month performance period permitted under the clause, to account for a situation where invoking of the clause, in whole or part, becomes necessary. Specifically, the evaluated cost/price of this six-month period will be calculated by dividing the Government’s evaluated cost of the final option period (CLINS 4001 - 4009) by twelve to establish an estimated monthly amount. The monthly amount will then be multiplied by six to establish the estimated cost for the six-month option to extend services.

PART C: EVALUATION RATING AND RISK ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS

The definitions below will be used by the Government when assessing solicitation compliance and the expected results of the Offeror's proposed approach.

1 TECHNICAL EVALUATION RATINGS

Technical Ratings: The technical rating assignments reflect the Government’s assessment of the quality of the

Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement.

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

2 TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Technical Risk Ratings: The risk rating assignments reflect the Government’s assessment of potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance associated with the Offeror’s technical approach.

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have 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 Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may 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 Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which 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.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

3 PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATINGS

The Government will employ the Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method described in the table below. In the case of an Offeror without a record of recent relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown or neutral past performance.

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating: Performance Confidence Assessment rating assignments reflect the

Government’s confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements based on the

Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance record.

Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

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.

4 OTHER DEFINITIONS

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: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (FAR15.001)

Significant Weakness: A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (FAR

15.001)

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

15.001)

Recency: as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant. As it pertains to past performance, the time period for this solicitation is performance that is within five (5) years from the solicitation release date; and within that five-year time period the more recent past performance is a better predictor of future performance.

Relevancy: as it pertains to past performance information, is 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 past performance examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance. See Part B, paragraph 2.0 above for specific relevancy definitions related to this solicitation.

(End of Summary of Changes)