N6660418R0049U0001.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 A0001 is to:

1. Page 2, Section A: Added note regarding 100% Small Business Set-Aside.

2. Page 44, Section L: Added Proposal Formatting instructions.

3. Pages 51/52, Section M: Deleted the Small Business Participation Ratings.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 12

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 23-Jan-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 N6660418R0049

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

08-Jan-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 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

23-Jan-2018

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:

N6660418R0049

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The following have been modified:

GENERAL INFORMATION

Distribution: FILE, KR, NUWC 01, *DCM: , *DFAS: ,*TPOC: , *PI: , *WAWF ACCEPTOR: ,*TDAA:

*To Be Determined (TBD) upon Award

NUWCDIVNPT Control Number: 180049

NUWCDIVNPT Requisition Number(s): 1300619477

NUWCDIVNPT POC: Laina J. Ouellette (Phone: (401) 832-1642; Fax: (401) 832-4820; Email:

laina.ouellette@navy.mil )

This solicitation is being issued as a 100% Small Business Set-Aside (SBSA) for NAICS 334511. The Small

Business size standard is 1,250 employees.

Drawing #8482092 is a classified appendix; therefore will be mailed out upon request. Offerors are advised the Government will require a Security Point of Contact (POC) and mailing address to process this request.

NOTES TO OFFERORS:

1. In order to receive the drawings/specifications/technical data package (TDP)/Government

Furnished Information (GFI), the company must be registered in the DOD Joint Certification

Program (JCP). Once approved for the JCP the company will have access to the drawings through

FBO. Registered users are required to log in to their FBO account and have an active registration with JCP to view and download copies of the material. You must be certified under the United

States/Canada Joint Certification Program (JCP) (https://www.dlis.dla.mil/jcp/) to be granted access to the technical documentation, via FBO (www.fbo.gov).

2. A classified appendix forms part of this request for proposal. In order to receive the classified appendix offerors must have a Confidential Clearance and be registered with the JCP. Requests must be emailed to laina.ouellette@navy.mil with the following information:

Company Name

Address

Point of Contact

Telephone

Email

Cage Code

Joint Certification Program (JCP) Number

JCP Registration Expiration Date mailto:laina.ouellette@navy.mil http://www.dlis.dla.mil/jcp/) http://www.fbo.gov/ mailto:laina.ouellette@navy.mil

3. The Order minimum quantity is 100.

4. The Government will establish the contract ceiling and populate the Section B pricing structure for the stepladder production units as follows upon award:

a. The dollar value ceiling will be established using the same calculation as is applied to arrive at the total evaluated price. See provision UW M-2-0001.

b. The maximum quantity of production units established will be calculated by dividing the dollar value ceiling by the unit price from the highest quantity range.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

UW L-2-0001 Instructions to Offerors

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

PASS/FAIL REQUIREMENTS

The Offeror shall submit the following information with its proposal which will be evaluated as a Pass or Fail in relation to the solicitation requirements.

(1) Proof of a Facility Clearance at the CONFIDENTIAL level. Offerors must provide a CAGE code and a statement of its current active Facilities Clearance (FCL) level. FCL is an administrative determination that, from a national security standpoint, a facility is eligible for access to classified information at the same or lower classification category as the clearance being granted. The FCL applicable to this requirement is at the Confidential level. The information provided in this section is excluded from the page count limit identified in (b) (1) and (2).

(2) A plan for obtaining security clearances, within 30 days of contract award, for personnel that do not already hold clearances but will be working on the classified aspects of the resulting contract (as specified in the DD254). The plan shall:

a) include confirmation of existing clearances,

b) detail the Offeror’s process for obtaining clearances, and

c) outline the schedule for obtaining any required new clearances for personnel supporting this contract within 30 days of contract award.

(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. The Offeror shall divide the Technical Proposal into the following factors listed:

Factor 1: Technical Capability

Subfactor 1: Producibility and Facilities

Subfactor 2: Administrative Aspects of the Resulting DT-100 Staves Production Contract

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Total Evaluated Price

Proposal Formatting. The narrative material in the proposal shall be prepared in no smaller than 10 point font, single-spaced with no less than a one inch margin on all sides. In the event photo reduction is used for tables, charts, and drawings, their presentation must be clear and legible. No fold outs, pictures or hyperlinks are allowed. Adobe

.pdf or Microsoft Office compatible files are required. Page limits are identified in section (b) TECHNICAL

CAPABILITY and (c) PAST PERFORMANCE. (Note: the Pass/Fail Requirements are excluded from these page counts).

(b) TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

This procurement reflects a build-to-print approach. The contractor shall manufacture, test, package, and deliver

DT-100 Staves which meet the requirements of the DT-100 Staves drawing packages provided as GFI. The proposal shall discuss the critical stave materials and processes, and describe the Offeror’s existing and planned facilities, to demonstrate the ability to the manufacture and test staves which will comply with the requirements of the GFI drawings and Statement of Work (SOW). The Offeror shall format the proposal using the following outline numbering:

1 Producibility and Facilities (limited to 8 pages)

Critical Materials –The Offeror shall discuss their approach to utilization and handling of the critical materials specified in the DT-100 Staves GFI drawings.

Critical Processes - The Offeror shall discuss the critical processes necessary to consistently meet the DT-100 Staves

GFI drawing requirements.

Throughput and Production Rate - The Offeror shall demonstrate its total manufacturing capacity and ability to support a production rate of 80 staves per month.

Facilities Required - The Offeror shall list and describe all existing and planned facilities and equipment which are required for the fabrication, manufacturing, inspection, testing, and delivery of the DT-100 Staves as set forth in the GFI drawings and SOW. That description shall include:

a. Incoming inspection

b. In-process testing and inspection

c. Special test equipment and tooling

d. Special manufacturing equipment

e. Calibration equipment and techniques

f. Final inspection

g. Packaging and shipping

h. Documentation control

i. Secure storage for government-furnished information

Technical Risk Assessment

Every 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:

Use of sub-contractors and/or sole source vendors for critical or long-lead parts.

Critical processes associated with the manufacture of the DT-100 Staves.

2 Administrative Aspects of the Resulting DT-100 Staves Contract (limited to 5 pages)

Schedule/Milestones

The Offeror shall present a schedule, which includes critical tasks and major milestones required to manufacture, inspect and test DT-100 Staves. The Offeror shall provide the First Year Production schedule.

For the first production year, the Offeror shall assume, solely for the purposes of this proposal, that a production order for 600 DT-100 Staves has been issued.

Configuration Management Plan

The Offeror shall discuss its Configuration Management (CM) plan and procedures and how it will execute

CM relative to the production of DT-100 Staves. The Offeror shall include a specific discussion in managing the configuration of engineering drawings and documents pertinent to the production program.

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.

Personnel Assignments

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) PAST PERFORMANCE

1. The Offeror shall provide three (3) past performance references, if available, 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. 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 Contracting 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 evaluated 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.

(d) PRICE

The offeror shall fill in the Stepladder Pricing schedule in Section B with proposed Firm Fixed Prices (FFP).

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

UW M-2-0001 EVALUATION FACTORS

A. EVALUATION FOR AWARD

PASS/FAIL REQUIREMENTS

REQUIREMENT PASS FAIL

Facility Clearance The Government will perform a Facility

Verification with the

Defense Security Service

(DSS) Industrial Security

Facilities Database (ISFD) of the provided CAGE code.

Companies that are confirmed in the ISFD as having a FCL at at least the

Confidential level will receive a PASS.

The Offeror does not provide a CAGE code for

Government verification.

OR

Offeror provides a CAGE code for Government verification, and company is

NOT confirmed in the ISFD as having a FCL at at least the Confidential level will receive a FAIL.

Personnel Clearance(s)/Plan to Obtain

Offeror provides a plan for obtaining security clearances, which:

a) includes confirmation of existing clearances,

b) details the Offeror’s process for obtaining clearances, and

c) outlines the schedule for obtaining any required new clearances for personnel supporting this contract within 30 days of contract award.

Offeror does not provide a plan for obtaining security clearances.

OR

Offeror does provide a plan for obtaining security clearances, but the plan:

a) does not include confirmation of existing clearances, and/or

b) does not detail the

Offeror’s process for obtaining clearances, and/or

c) does not outline the schedule for obtaining any required new clearances for personnel supporting this contract within 30 days of contract award.

(1) 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 and subfactor. 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-price) features of proposals with the difference in the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) to the Government. The Government intends to award a contract without discussions (except for clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)), as permitted by FAR 15.305(a) (3) and FAR 52.215-1. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions to permit Offerors to revise their proposals.

(2) Non-Price Factors. Offerors proposals will be evaluated and assigned one of the adjectival ratings included in this solicitation (see ADJECTIVAL RATINGS below) for each of the following non-price factors.

Factor 1: Technical Capability

(1) Sub-factor 1: Producibility and Facilities:

The Government will evaluate each proposal to assess the Offeror’s understanding of using the critical stave materials specified in the drawings, and will assess the critical processes proposed to consistently meet the throughput and production rate requirement. The Government will evaluate each proposal for the Offeror’s understanding of the facilities required for the fabrication, manufacturing, inspection, testing, and delivery of the

DT-100 Staves, and will evaluate each proposal for the approach to managing:

a) Incoming inspection

b) In-process testing and inspection

c) Special test equipment and tooling

d) Special manufacturing equipment

e) Calibration equipment and techniques

f) Final inspection

g) Packaging and shipping

h) Documentation control

i) Secure storage for Government-Furnished Information

Technical Risk Assessment

Every 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:

Use of sub-contractors and/or sole source vendors for critical or long-lead parts.

Critical processes associated with the manufacture of the DT-100 Staves.

(2) Sub-factor 2: Administrative Aspects of the Resulting DT-100 Staves Production Contract:

The Government will evaluate each proposal to assess the Offeror’s approach to scheduling for the DT-100 Staves production, including an assessment of all critical tasks and major milestones required to manufacture, inspect and test DT-100 Staves. The Government will evaluate each proposal to assess the Offeror’s First Year Production schedule.

The Government will evaluate each proposal to assess the Offeror’s understanding and approach to Configuration

Management (CM), and will assess the proposed plan and procedures of how the Offeror will execute CM relative to the production of DT-100 Staves. The Government will evaluate each proposal to assess the Offeror’s understanding and approach to managing the configuration of engineering drawings and documents pertinent to the production program.

The Government will evaluate each proposal to assess the Offeror’s understanding and approach to the CDRL submittal process and the Offeror’s proposed plan to CDRL management in terms of collection, distribution and maintenance of data.

The Government will evaluate each proposal to assess the Offeror’s understanding and resource allocation of the personnel assigned to the various tasks.

Factor 2: Past Performance

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.

(3) Price Factor. Total Evaluated Price (Factor 3; see B. TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE below).

Relative Importance- The following table establishes all significant factors and significant sub-factors that will be considered in awarding the contract:

Factors Sub-factors

Technical Capability

a. Sub-factor 1: Producibility and Facilities

b. Sub-factor 2: Administrative Aspects of the

Resulting DT-100 Staves Production Contract

Past Performance N/A

Total Evaluated Price N/A

Technical Capability and Past Performance are of equal importance and together are significantly more important than the Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

The Subfactors under Technical Capability 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.

B. TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE (TEP)

The Government will evaluate price as follows:

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 Widgets 1.00 10.00 $6000 $60,000

11.00 25.00 $5000 $125,000

26.00 50.00 $4000 $200,000

TOTALS 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 Ordering Periods, as indicated in the Section B Table.

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 do not obligate the Government to purchase these quantities.

A. ADJECTIVAL RATINGS

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

Adjectival

Rating

Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

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

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

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.)

Adjectival 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.

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.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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.

(End of Summary of Changes)