Amendment_0001_N6660415R1556.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:

1. Extend the closing date and time to solicit on an unrestricted basis in the interest of competition.

2. Add Clause HQ L-2-0009

3. Revise Clauses L31X and M32X to include a small business participation requirement.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 13

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 19-Apr-2016

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 N66604-15-R-1556

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

12-Feb-2016

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

20-Apr-2016

CODE

NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFARE CENTER

LAINA J. OUELLETTE, CODE 0223

CONTRACTS DEPARTMENT

1176 HOWELL STREET, BLDG. 1258

NEWPORT RI 02841

N66604 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N66604-15-R-1556

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 25-Mar-2016 02:00 PM to 19-May-2016 02:00 PM.

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been added by reference:

52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan OCT 2015

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been added by full text:

HQ L-2-0009 SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN (NAVSEA)

(JUN 1999)

Offeror shall submit as part of its proposal a written proposed subcontracting plan in accordance with the clause entitled "SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN" (FAR 52.219-9). The plan shall include the Congressionally mandated five percent (5%) goal for small disadvantaged business concerns or a detailed explanation as to why the goal cannot be included in the plan.

The following have been modified:

L31X

L31X TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

(a) Organization. In the Technical Proposal, the Offeror shall provide information and documentation to clearly and concisely identify the Offeror’s overall ability to meet the requirements of the solicitation. The Technical Proposal shall be self –contained (i.e. if the outline requires data or an analysis, simply referring to another document with that information will not satisfy the requirement). The Offeror shall divide the Technical Proposal into the following factors and subfactors in the order listed:

Factor 1: Technical Capability Subfactor 1: TR-364A Projector Design Approach, Performance, and Manufacturing Subfactor 2: Program Management of the Resulting TR-364A Contract Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Small Businss Participation Factor 4: Price

(b) TECHNICAL CAPABILITY (limited to 20 pages)

The proposal shall present the Offeror’s design approach so that it demonstrates that the design approach will achieve the performance requirements of the Critical Item Performance Specification (CIPS) and Statement of Work (SOW). Proposing a legacy design approach based on Government Furnished Information (GFI) in the form of technical drawings, or other knowledge of previous designs, does not obviate the need for thorough discussions of all aspects of the design approach (i.e., a build-to-print technical approach will not constitute an acceptable response). For example, the Government will consider simply stating that the proposed design approach will meet acoustic element input impedance requirements because the previous TR-364A projectors met acoustic element input impedance testing a non-responsive discussion of the proposed design approach and the proposal will receive a deficiency in this area. The Offeror shall format the proposal using the following outline numbering:

1 TR-364A Projector Design Approach, Performance and Manufacturing (15 pages)

1.1 TR-364A Projector Design Approach Overview

The Offeror shall present an overview of the proposed TR-364A projector design approach which includes an illustration of the design showing, at a minimum, the components of the proposed TR-364A projector design approach required to meet the CIPS requirements.

1.2 TR-364A Projector Design Requirements Table

The Offeror shall complete the table that follows. The Offeror shall provide a concise discussion as to how specific aspects of the proposed projector design are critical in meeting each listed requirement. It is acceptable to reference proposal paragraphs that appear later in the proposal (i.e. it is acceptable to reference detailed discussions in section 1.3.x) and for the table to be a fold out page in the proposal.

CIPS

Paragraph CIPS Paragraph

Title Requirement Summary Critical Design

Features or Processes

3.3.5 Acoustic Element

Input Impedance Measured in-air complex impedance across the operating frequency band (3.3.4), shall be smooth and free of spurious resonances. The variation of frequency of maximum impedance and the variation of frequency of minimum impedance from their respective mean values shall be within ± 3%.

<list a design feature or process which is critical to meeting requirement and/or refer to a proposal section which provides greater detail.>

3.3.6 Transmitting

Voltage Response

(TVR)

TVR measured in water when driven in a pulsed mode with a constant voltage over the operating frequency band shall fall within the limits shown in the CIPS.

<list a design feature or process which is critical to meeting requirement and/or refer to a proposal section which provides greater detail.>

3.3.9 Total Harmonic

Distortion

Measured total harmonic distortion, measured up to the 5th harmonic, including sub-harmonics, shall not exceed 3 percent.

<list a design feature or process which is critical to meeting requirement and/or refer to a proposal section which provides greater detail.>

3.3.10 Horizontal Beam

Pattern and Ripple

Measured horizontal beam pattern, the -3 dB beamwidth of the transducer shall be a minimum of 160o at Flc and a minimum of 155o at Fhc, for a 0o D/E steering angle. The backlobe, which is defined as

<list a design feature or process which is critical to meeting requirement and/or refer to a proposal section which

CIPS

Paragraph

CIPS Paragraph Title

Requirement Summary Critical Design Features or Processes any lobe at an angle greater than ± 165o from the Maximum Response Axis (MRA), shall be at least 20 dB down from the level measured on the MRA.

provides greater detail.>

3.3.11 Vertical Beam

Pattern

Measured vertical beam pattern, the -3 dB beamwidth of the transducer, without shading, shall be 4.2o ± 0.5o at Flc and 3.1o ± 0.5o at Fhc, for all D/E steering angles specified in Appendix A. All side lobes shall be down at least 12 dB. The MRA shall coincide within ± 0.5° of the “X” axis. The backlobe, which is defined as any lobe at an angle greater than ± 165o from the MRA, shall be at least 20 dB down from the level measured on the MRA.

<list a design feature or process which is critical to meeting requirement and/or refer to a proposal section which provides greater detail.>

3.3.12 Linearity The TVR (Error! Reference source not

found.Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found.) shall not vary by more than 1 dB over the operating frequency band (3.3.4) when driven at any voltage between 1 Vrms to 600 Vrms.

<list a design feature or process which is critical to meeting requirement and/or refer to a proposal section which provides greater detail.>

3.5.5 Maintainability The in-service maintenance philosophy

is replacement. To facilitate restoration at the depot level, the transducer shall be designed to provide accessibility to the inside of the housing, including the PRS and acoustic element. Access shall be accomplished without damage (such as cutting, grinding, breaking, etc.) to any portion of the transducer utilizing standard tools.

<list a design feature or process which is critical to meeting requirement and/or refer to a proposal section which provides greater detail.>

3.5.7 Life 15-year service in any combination or

storage or operational use

<list a design feature or process which is critical to meeting requirement and/or refer to a proposal section which provides greater detail.>

1.3 TR-364A Projector Performance and Analysis of Proposed Design Approach

The Offeror shall describe the predicted performance of the proposed TR-364A projector design approach which includes discussing critical aspects of the proposed design that pertain to CIPS requirements listed in the table of proposal section 1.2.

1.3.1 Details to supplement Design Requirements Table

The Offeror shall create sub-sections as needed (1.3.1.1, 1.3.1.2, 1.3.1.3, etc.) to provide details of the projector design as they relate to performance requirements.

1.3.2 Basis for Predictions

The Offeror shall identify whether performance predictions are based upon measured data, analysis, or both. The offer shall present the measured data or the modeling data. Note that simply regurgitating text book formulas is not the intent of this requirement. If the Offeror is basing its design on a model, it should describe the basis of the model and present the model output data.

1.3.3 Performance Variations

The Offeror shall describe TR-364A projector performance variations with temperature and pressure.

1.3.4 Reliability

The Offeror shall discuss aspects of the design that contribute to projector reliability. Discussion shall include watertight integrity for the required service life as specified in the CIPS.

1.3.5 Environmental Extremes

The Offeror shall discuss pertinent features of the proposed design that will enable it to withstand each of the following environmental extremes as defined in CIPS:

1.3.5.1 Radiated noise

1.3.5.2 Temperature and pressure

1.3.5.3 Thermal shock

1.3.5.4 Vibration

1.3.5.5 Explosive shock

1.3.6 Producibility

The Offeror shall demonstrate a working knowledge of key manufacturing processes required to produce a consistent product. The discussion shall include:

1.3.6.1 Critical Materials –The Offeror shall discuss the critical materials of its TR- 364A design.

1.3.6.2 Critical Processes - the Offeror shall discuss the critical processes necessary to consistently meet the TR-364A projector performance requirements.

1.3.6.3 Manufacturing Controls - the Offeror shall discuss manufacturing controls required to ensure reproducibility of the First Article projector performance characteristics. The Offeror shall also discuss manufacturing controls required to ensure that production projectors consistently meet production acceptance tests.

1.3.7 Throughput/Production Rate

The Offeror shall demonstrate its manufacturing capacity to support a production rate of two (2) projectors per year on a non-interfering basis with any other of its contractual obligations.

1.4 Facilities Required.

The Offeror shall list and describe all existing and planned facilities which are required for the design, fabrication and manufacturing, testing, and delivery of the TR-364A projector as set forth in the CIPS and SOW. That description shall include:

a. Incoming inspection

b. In-process testing and inspection

c. Special test equipment and tooling

d. Calibration equipment and techniques

e. Final inspection (including hydrostatic pressure testing)

f. Packaging and shipping

g. Documentation control

h. Secure storage for government-furnished information

i. Acoustic test facilities (the Offeror shall demonstrate that its acoustic test facilities are large enough to make direct, free-field measurements)

If the Offeror does not own the test facilities, the Offeror shall provide acceptable evidence for the availability of the facility in accordance with FAR 9.104-3 which states that acceptable evidence normally consists of a commitment or explicit arrangement that will be in existence at the time of contract award, to rent, purchase, or otherwise acquire the needed facilities, equipment, other resources, or personnel.

1.5 Technical Risk Assessment

Every projector design, fabrication and manufacturing effort involves risk. The Offeror shall identify potential risks and provide a mitigation approach for each identified risk within the following areas:

1.5.1 Sub-Contractors and/or Vendors (if applicable). Use of sub-contractors for critical processes or critical subassemblies, and/or sole source vendors for critical or long-lead parts (e.g. connectors, cable, ceramic, etc.)

1.5.2 Meeting all performance requirements in the CIPS and how it affects the first article plan and schedule

1.5.3 Meeting all performance requirements in the CIPS and how risk and mitigation approach affects the production plan and schedule

2 Program Management of the Resulting TR-364A Contract (5 pages)

2.1 Schedule/Milestones

The Offeror shall present a summary schedule to design, fabricate, and test the proposed projectors. The Offeror shall provide both First Article and the First Year Production schedules. For the first production year, the Offeror shall assume, solely for the purposes of this proposal, that it has a production projector order for four (4) projectors.

2.2 Configuration Management Plan

The Offeror shall discuss its Configuration Management (CM) plans and procedures and how it will execute CM relative to the production of TR-364A projector. The Offeror shall include a specific discussion in managing the configuration of engineering drawings and documents pertinent to the TR-364A projector production program.

2.3 Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) Management

The Offeror shall discuss the CDRL submittal process and CDRL management in terms of how it collects, distributes and maintains data and the data deliverables required during the execution of the contract.

2.4 Staffing Plan

The Offeror shall provide a chart identifying the personnel assigned to the various tasks of the resulting contract in terms of personnel type (e.g. engineer, program manager, technician, etc.). The Offeror shall indicate personnel who are performing multiple discipline tasks, if applicable.

(c) SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

The offeror shall provide sufficient detail to permit a complete evaluation. This factor applies to every offeror (U.S. and non-U.S.), regardless of size status or locations of working facilities or headquarters. Small Business Participation shall include the following:

(a) All offerors shall provide the names and CAGE codes of small business concerns (including the offeror if a small business concern) who would participate in accomplishing the proposed contract; the small business classification of each U.S. small business concern (i.e. SB, SDB, WOSB, HUBZone SB, VOSB, and SDVOSB); and a short description of the specific supplies or services to be provided by each small business concern. If a small business does not have a CAGE code, insert the word "None." List all SB classifications that apply to each concern. Note that during the evaluation, the Government may request that the offeror submit a letter from the small business affirming the information provided in your proposal.

(b) All offerors, including offerors who are themselves U.S. small business concerns based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and size standard applicable to this procurement, are to identify the extent to which U.S. small business concerns will be utilized as first-tier subcontractors in the performance of this proposed contract. U.S. small business concerns are defined (1) in FAR 19.001 and (2) by the criteria and size standards in FAR 19.102 for the applicable NAICS code.

(c) Propose a percentage for this contract. A small business offeror shall indicate the percentage of work performed by themselves, as well as by any Small Business subcontractors. Proposals submitted by Large Business Concerns shall indicate the percentage of work performed by Small Business Subcontractors. The Small Business Participation percentage shall be calculated as follows:

Participation % = Total Small Business Contract + Subcontract Dollars

Total Contract Value

(d) The Government’s estimated minimum Small Business Participation percentage for this contract is: 5%. The offeror is encouraged to propose a Small Business Participation objective percentage as high as practicable, as long as the percentage is supported by the related Small Business participation approach outlined in paragraph (e) below. The Offeror’s proposed Small Business Participation percentage for this contract shall be incorporated into the contract upon award.

(e) Provide an approach for how the Offeror intends to meet the proposed Small Business participation percentage. The Offeror shall provide rationale that demonstrates the tasks assigned to the selected Small Businesses are meaningful to the overall success of this contract. A Small Business Offeror shall include work performed as the prime contractor as well as any work performed by Small Business subcontractors. In addition, the Offeror shall describe their management approach for enhancing service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business subcontractors’ technical capability. The Offeror shall explain the reason for and advantages of selecting particular Small Business subcontractors.

(d) PAST PERFORMANCE

1. The Offeror shall provide a minimum of three (3) and maximum of five (5) past performance references that reflect recent relevant experience performed within the last three (3) years of the closing date of the solicitation that demonstrate the ability to handle the scope and breadth of the tasking in the Statement of Work. If an offeror does not have the minimum number of past past performance references that are recent and relevant to submit the proposal shall state so. Failure to do so may result in a proposal being deemed unawardable. The Offeror shall include a discussion on how the references provided are relevant to the work being proposed. Include contract/task order number, contract/task order type, program name, total contract/task order cost, short description of work performed, and names and valid telephone numbers for the Procuring Contract Officer (PCO), Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR), and Program Manager (PM).

2. Each past performance reference shall not exceed two (2) pages, for a total of six (6) pages.

3. Subcontractors proposed to perform more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the total price of the contract shall also submit three (3) past performance references, if available, that reflect recent relevant experience performed within the last three (3) years and demonstrate the ability to handle the scope and breadth of the tasking in the Statement of Work. Each past performance reference shall not exceed two (2) pages, for a total of six (6) pages per subcontractor.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

M32X AND M34X

M32X EVALUATION for AWARD

(a) Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal contains the combination of those criteria offering the best overall value to the Government. This will be determined by comparing the difference in value of technical (non-cost) features of proposals with the difference in the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) to the Government. Offers will be evaluated using three evaluation factors:

(1) TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

a. Sub-Factor 1, TR-364A Projector Design Approach, Performance and Manufacturing

b. Sub-Factor 2, Program Management of the Resulting TR-364A Contract

(2) PAST PERFORMANCE

(3) SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

(4) TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE (Factor 3, see Clause M34X below).

(b) Technical Capability and Past Performance are of equal importance and together are significantly more important than the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Technical Capability, Past Performance and TEP, when combined are significantly more important than Small Business Participation. Within the Technical Capability factor the sub-factors are listed in descending order of importance. Although TEP is the less important evaluation factor, it is important and will be seriously considered. The degree of its importance will increase with the degree of equality of the proposals in relation to Technical Capability and Past Performance, or when it is so significantly high as to diminish the value of any technical superiority to the Government.

(c) The Government will evaluate proposals to assess each Offeror's ability to accomplish the requirements of the current solicitation. The Government will rate each factor.

(d) The Government will evaluate the Small Business Participation in the following areas:

(1) The extent of first-tier small business participation which the Offeror credibly proposes to subcontract with U.S. small business (SB) concerns throughout the performance of this contract.

For the purpose of this evaluation, the extent of Offeror (or joint venture partner/teaming arrangement) participation in proposed contract performance, where the Offeror is a U.S. small business concern for the applicable NAICS code and size standard for this procurement will also be considered small business participation.

(2) The extent for which the proposal identified challenging goals for participation by U.S. small business concerns and the adequacy of the rationale that supports those goals. The extent of participation of such concerns will be evaluated in terms of the percentage of the Offeror’s total contract value.

(3) As assessment of the feasibility and adequacy of the approach proposed to the proposed Small Business participation percentage.

(e) The past performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an Offeror's ability to supply products and services that meet users' needs based on a demonstrated record of performance. The Government may consider past performance information contained in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). The Government may also contact all or some of each Offeror's customers to obtain past performance information. The Government reserves the right to limit or expand the number of references it decides to contact, and contact references other than those provided by the Offeror. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

M34X TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE (TEP)

The Government will evaluate price as follows:

Contract line item numbers (CLINs) with a single quantity:

For those CLINs with a single quantity range, the Government will multiply quantity by the unit price to derive the total line amount. The following is an example:

CLIN SUPPLIES/SERVICES QTY UNIT U/PRICE AMOUNT

0001 “First Article” TR-364A High Frequency

Sail Array (HFSA) Projector

2 EA $8,000.00 $16,000.00

0002 TR-364A HFSA Projector Product Drawings and Associated Lists in accordance with Exhibit “A”

1 EA $1,000.00 $1,000.00

0003 TR-364A HFSA Projector Technical Repair Standard (TRS) in accordance with Exhibit “A”

1 EA $2,000.00 $2,000.00

0004 DATA in accordance with Exhibit “A”, Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), DD Form 1423

1 EA $4,000.00 $4,000.00

CLINs with multiple quantity ranges:

For those CLINs with multiple quantity ranges, the Government will multiply the unit price by the maximum quantity for each range to derive the extended price for each range.

Next, the Government will add the extended prices for all ranges of the production year CLIN and divide by the sum of the maximum quantity of all ranges of that CLIN to find the average unit price.

The Government will multiply the average unit price by the maximum number of units of the highest range of the production year to arrive at a total evaluated price for the production year. The following is an example:

PRODUCTION, First Year

STEPLADDER PRICING

CLIN or

SLIN

Description FROM

QUANTITY

TO

QUANTITY

UNIT

PRICE

EXTENDED

PRICE

0005 TR-364A Projector 1.00 10.00 $6000 $60,000

11.00 25.00 $5000 $125,000

26.00 50.00 $4000 $200,000

85.00 $385,000

The total line item amount for CLIN 0005 is $385,000.00.

Average unit price = $385,000/85 = $4,529.41 Total evaluated price for first production year = $4,529.41* 50.00 = $226,470.50

The Government will repeat the above for all production years.

TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE:

The Government will add up all single quantity CLIN amounts and all the multiple quantity range CLIN amounts to arrive at the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for the contract.

In evaluating offers, the Contracting Officer will review the prices of the Offeror's proposal to determine that they are fair and reasonable. See FAR 15.404.

* The above prices are examples only and it does not obligate the Government to purchase these quantities.

M40 ADJECTVAL RATINGS (SEP 2011) – Methodology #1 (FEB 2012)

The Government will perform an evaluation of the Technical Capability and Past Performance evaluation factors and Technical Capability subfactors based on the Offeror’s proposal. This evaluation focuses on strengths and weaknesses of the Offeror’s proposal, resulting in the assignment of an adjectival rating for each factor and subfactor. Cost/Price will not be assigned an adjectival rating.

Note: The following adjectival ratings/definitions shall be used for the Technical Capability evaluation factor and subfactors:

Ratings: Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

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

Proposal is unawardable.

Definitions:

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

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

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

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. (For firm-fixed-price contracts, the reference to increased cost may be removed from the risk definition.)

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

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.

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. The criteria to establish what is recent and relevant shall be unique to each source selection and shall be stated in the solicitation. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of an Offeror's contract history that would give the greatest ability to measure whether the Offeror will satisfy the current procurement. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity;

dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontracting.

There are four levels of relevancy as shown below. When source selections require a greater level of discrimination within the past performance evaluation, the source selection team shall use all four of the relevancy ratings identified below. However, for those source selections requiring less discrimination in the past performance evaluation, the team may use, as a minimum, "Relevant" and "Not Relevant" past performance ratings. The solicitation, and if required the SSP, shall clearly identify the treatment of relevancy within past performance evaluation. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

The following adjectival ratings/definitions shall be used for the Past Performance evaluation subfactor:

Rating Description 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.

Definitions:

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.

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.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror's past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. Requirements for considering history of small business utilization are outlined at FAR 15.304(c)(3)(ii) and DFARS 215.305(a)(2).

Sources of Past Performance Information for Evaluation are as follows:

Past performance information may be provided by the Offeror, as solicited.

Past performance information may be obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition. Past performance information shall be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

The evaluation team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

Performance Confidence Assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in shown below. (Reference FAR 15.305(2) for information on assigning an unknown/neutral confidence rating.)

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 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.

(End of Summary of Changes)