N66604-18-R-0881_Amendment_0001.pdf

1300427605

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

Revise Section M Paragraph 3.1.1; Update Attachment 03 List of PWS Citations and Reference; Update Attachment 12 Aw ard Fee Plan;

make various administrative changes to the ETIC Bidder's Library

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 10

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 01-May-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 N6660418R0881

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

19-Apr-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

01-May-2018

CODE

NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFARE CENTER

MICHAEL RUSSO, CODE 022

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:

N6660418R0881

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The following have been added by full text:

GENERAL INFORMATION

Amendment 0001

SECTION J - Attachment 03 “List of PWS Citations and Reference” has been updated to change OCD (20.2)-04-XX; Chemical Laboratory Operations from a “Draft” to Revision 00. The OCD has been uploaded to the ETIC Bidder’s Library.

SECTION J - The Attachment 12 Award Fee Plan has been updated and uploaded to fbo.gov and the ETIC Bidder’s Library.

SECTION M - Paragraph 3.1.1 has been updated from:

“3.1.1 Capabilities: The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine the Offeror’s approach and ability to perform the tasks in the areas of Enterprise Operations, Test Operations, and Base Operations. To determine if Offeror can perform all work tasked by the PWS, and addressed at the 3rd or 4th level of tasking, as noted by asterisk in Attachment 01, PWS, and identify efficiencies for performance.

To:

“3.1.1 Capabilities: The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine the Offeror’s approach and ability to perform the tasks in the areas of Enterprise Operations, Test Operations, and Base Operations. To determine if Offeror can perform all work tasked by the PWS, and identify efficiencies for performance.”

ETIC Bidder’s Library - The RFP “N66604-18-R-0881” has been uploaded to the ETIC Bidder’s

Library folder titled “RFP Documentation”.

ETIC Bidder’s Libray - The AUTEC PLAN I4; Fire Protection Plan has been removed from the folder titled “PWS Citations”. Per the Attachment 03 “List of PWS Citations and Reference”, the Fire Protection Plan will be posted after RFP release and prior to proposal submissions.

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The following have been modified:

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

SECTION J LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Exhibit Title Date Pages

A DD Form 1423, Contract Data Requirements List 31‐Mar‐18 33

Attachment Title Date Page

1 Performance Work Statement (PWS) 31‐Mar‐18 81

2 Reserved

3 List of PWS Citations and Reference 30 ‐Apr‐18 Spreadsheet

4a GFP GT$5K plus all ADPE 31‐Mar‐18 Spreadsheet

4b GFP with Initial Acq Value LT $5K 31‐Mar‐18 Spreadsheet

4c PPH Available for Contractor Use 31‐Mar‐18 1

4d iNFADS 31‐Mar‐18 Spreadsheet

5 AUTEC Configuration Item List 31‐Mar‐18 10

6a Bahamas‐AUTEC Agreement 31‐Mar‐18 16

6b U.S. ‐ Bahamas Treaty Annex 31‐Mar‐18 16

6c 2017 Signed AUTEC Lease Extension 31‐Mar‐18 2

7a Andros Island Pay and Benefits Study Report (pertains to solicitation only)

31‐Mar‐18 6

7b Andros Island Pay and Benefits Study Data (pertains to solicitation only)

31‐Mar‐18 Spreadsheet

7c Bahamian Nationals Projected 2018 Wage Rates (pertains to solicitation only)

31‐Mar‐18 1

7d Labor Category Hours by Year (pertains to solicitation only) 31‐Mar‐18 Spreadsheet

8 DD Form 254, Contract Security Classification Specification 31‐Mar‐18 8

9 Workload Factors 31‐Mar‐18 Spreadsheet

10 AUTEC Work Breakdown Structure 31‐Mar‐18 Spreadsheet

11 Cost Analysis Spreadsheet (pertains to solicitation only) 31‐Mar‐18 Spreadsheet

12 Award Fee Plan 30‐ Apr‐18 16

13 Key Personnel Requirements 31‐Mar‐18 5

14 Recruitment and Retention Plan (to be provided by offerors) 31‐Mar‐18 TBD

15 Electronic Technical Information Center (ETIC) Bidder's Library Access Instructions (pertains to solicitation only)

2‐Aug‐17 2

16 Offeror Question Submittal Form (pertains to solicitation only) 17‐Apr‐18 1

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

UW M-2-0001 EVALUATION FACTORS

1.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

1.1 General Information

(a) The Government intends to make a single award as a result of this RFP. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror meeting all Pass/Fail requirements of the solicitation and whose proposal contains the combination of those factors offering the best overall value to the Government. The best overall value to the Government will be determined by comparing the difference in value of technical (non-cost/price) features of proposals with the difference in the cost/price to the Government.

(b) The Government intends to award a contract without discussions (except for clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)), as permitted by FAR 15.306(a)(3) and FAR 52.215-1. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions to permit Offerors to revise their proposals.

1.2 Relative Importance

The following table indicates all factors and subfactors that will be considered for award.

FACTORS SUBFACTORS

Technical Capabilities

Management Approach

Personnel

Hypothetical Approaches

Small Business Participation

Past Performance None

Cost/Price None

Pass/Fail Requirements None

The relative importance of factors is as follows: Technical is more important than Past Performance.

The relative importance of the subfactors of the Technical factor is as follows: Capabilities, Management Approach and Personnel are of equal importance and each is greater than Hypothetical Approaches which is greater than Small Business Participation.

All evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price. As competing proposals approach equality in the Non-Cost/Price factors, Cost/Price will increase in importance.

Offerors must receive a Pass rating under each Pass/Fail requirement to be eligible for award.

2.0 PASS/FAIL REQUIREMENTS

The Government will evaluate offers based on a Pass/Fail rating as follows:

(1) Clearances: The Government will evaluate the feasibility of the Offeror’s plan for obtaining clearances by the time of award, as specified in the DD254.

(2) Organizational Conflict of Interest: The Government will evaluate whether or not any conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest exist and whether the Offeror’s mitigation plan sufficiently addresses any conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest identified.

Offerors must receive a Pass rating under each Pass/Fail requirement to be eligible for award. A Fail rating in any of the above requirements may result in no further consideration for award.

3.0 NON-COST/PRICE FACTORS

The Government will evaluate offers and assign one of the adjectival ratings indicated in paragraph 5.0 of this provision for each of the following non-cost factors.

3.1 Factor 1 - Technical. Technical consists of the following five (5) subfactors:

3.1.1 Capabilities: The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine the Offeror’s approach and ability to perform the tasks in the areas of Enterprise Operations, Test Operations, and Base Operations. To determine if Offeror can perform all work tasked by the PWS and identify efficiencies for performance.

3.1.2 Management Approach

3.1.2.1 Management Approach Focus Areas: The Government will evaluate the proposed management approach for each of the following areas in the context of how well each individual element requested in Section L3.1.2.1 was addressed by the offeror:

(a) Organizational Structure

(b) Affordability/Total Ownership Cost

(c) Quality Performance

(d) Safety and Environmental

(e) Communications (Intra-Organizational and with Government)

(f) Recruitment and Retention

(g) Tactical and Strategic Planning

(h) Relationship with host nation

(i) Configuration Management

(j) Integration of multiple work locations

(k) Subcontractor Management

(l) Involvement of Universities or Other Educational Institutions

(m) Transition Plan

In addition, the Offeror shall provide a matrix designating subcontractor assignments.

3.1.2.2 Recruitment and Retention Plan – The Plan has clearly defined strategies for attracting and retaining qualified personnel in a remote and isolated location. Retention strategies identified will enhance the overall morale and welfare of the contractor workforce on Andros Island. Strategies identified are realistic and can be implemented by the end of the 60 day transition and for the duration of the contract. The Plan identifies any and all required GFP to implement recruitment and retention strategies. The Plan is compliant with all U.S. laws, regulations, FAR Part 31 Cost principles and Navy Instructions.

3.1.3 Personnel: The Government will evaluate the labor mix for contractor and persistent contractor personnel, including the Offeror’s rationale, to determine the adequacy of the workforce to effectively perform the tasks in the PWS. The Government will evaluate the experience level of the workforce presented to determine if it is sufficient to consistently deliver timely and accurate business and technical products. The Government will assess the competency and merits of the key personnel and ability to lead the organization with both technical and business acumen. The Government will assess the information provided to determine if the Offeror provides the minimal skill mix required to consistently meet mission objectives. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s discussion of risk/opportunities and associated mitigations related to its ability to meet mission success with the labor mix presented. The Government will assess the presentation of methods of cross utilization and its effectiveness to provide adequate backup to the primary workforce. The Government will assess the proposed location of personnel and the ability to conduct the tasks and communicate with the Government during the performance of the contract.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's understanding of the challenges in managing an indigenous workforce.

The Government will assess the approach for employing Bahamians who are suitably qualified to the maximum extent feasible. The Government will assess the strategies related to transportation options for Bahamians to the AUTEC site.

The qualifications listed in each individual proposed Key Personnel resume, not the specific individual, are the materially relevant aspects of the proposed Key Personnel partially forming the basis of award under 5252.237- 9106, Substitution of Personnel (SEP 1990). Therefore, even if a proposed Key individual becomes unavailable to the offeror between proposal submission and award, the Government will evaluate and make its award decision based on the qualifications listed on the proposed resume(s). When the Government awards a contract under those circumstances, the Government will require the awardee to use the qualifications listed on the relevant proposed Key Personnel resume as the basis for replacing that individual under 5252.237-9106(b) during contract performance.

3.1.4 Hypothetical Approaches: The Government will evaluate the responses to each hypothetical task to assess the Offeror’s understanding of the issue(s), requirement(s) and personnel required. The Government will evaluate the concept for each hypothetical task response to ensure it is feasible and appropriately defines and communicates risks.

3.1.5 Small Business Participation

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

(a) 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.

(b) The extent for which the proposal identified goals for participation by U.S. small business concerns and the adequacy of the rationale that supports those goals. The Offeror’s proposal meets the Government’s minimum Small Business Participation as a percentage of total contract value.

(c) An assessment of the feasibility and adequacy of the approach proposed to the proposed Small Business participation percentage. The tasks assigned to the Small Business are meaningful to the overall success of this Contract.

3.2 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 PPIRS and 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.

4.0 COST/PRICE

The Government will perform an analysis of the cost realism for CLINs 0001- 0003 and options 0011 -0013, 0021- 0023, 0031- 0033, 0041- 0043, 0051- 0053 and 0100-0109 in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d) to include completeness of the cost data, the traceability of the cost to the Offeror's capability data, the proposed allocation of man-hours and labor mix, and the proposed costs' reflection of the Offeror’s understanding of the complexity and risk of the requirements. For CLINs 0002, 0003, 0012, 0013, 0022, 0023, 0032, 0033, 0042, 0043, 0052, 0053, the Government’s cost realism analysis will be limited to evaluating the realism of all burdens applied to, the Government’s direct cost estimates provided in Section L paragraph 4.1(d) and (e). The Government will evaluate proposed costs for CLIN 0007 and options 0017, 0027, 0037, 0047 and 0057 by performing a price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b). The Government will not perform cost or price realism analysis on CLINs 0007, 0017, 0027, 0037, 0047, and 0057. The Government may also perform cost or price analysis in accordance with the methods authorized under FAR 15.404-1.

For the cost realism analysis, pertinent cost information, including but not limited to DCAA and/or DCMA recommended rates for such costs as direct labor, overhead, G&A, etc., as necessary and appropriate, will be used to arrive at the Government's determination of the probable cost to be incurred in the performance of this contract. If proposed costs are considered to be unrealistic, including unrealistic labor and/or indirect rates, the Offeror's proposed costs will be adjusted upward to reflect more realistic costs. For CPAF CLINs, In Section L 4.2, of this solicitation, the Government defines minor subcontractors; considering the small potential cost impact of variations in minor subcontractor costs, the Navy will not conduct a detailed cost realism analysis of any Offeror's minor subcontractor costs. Nevertheless, the Navy will review these proposed costs and hours for consistency with the rest of the Offeror's proposal and may adjust minor subcontractor cost or hours for lack of consistency with the rest of the Offeror's proposal. Based on such analysis, an evaluated cost for the Offeror will be calculated to reflect the Government's estimate of the Offeror's most probable costs.

Evaluation of the options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option. The Offeror’s Total Evaluated Cost will be the sum of the evaluated costs for : CLINs 0001-0003 0011 -0013, 0021- 0023, 0031- 0033, 0041- 0043, 0051- 0053and 0100-0109). Plus the proposed prices for the FFP CLINs (0007, 0017, 0027, 0037, 0047, and 0057).

This evaluated cost will be used in making an award determination. Therefore, any inconsistencies between proposed technical performance and cost, whether real or apparent, should be explained in the supporting cost data section. The burden of proof for cost credibility rests with the Offeror. Offerors are cautioned that to the extent proposed costs appear unrealistic; the Government may infer either a lack of understanding of the requirements, increased risk of performance, or lack of credibility on the part of the Offeror. In addition, proposals which are unrealistic in terms of technical or schedule commitments or unrealistically high or low in cost may be deemed reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence, or indicative of a failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the proposed work.

NOTE: The Navy reserves the right to consider reasonable and realistic substantiating data from any other sources.

Such sources include, but are not limited to, historical performance data from NAVSEA contracts, information from DCAA, and information from DCMA. If Offerors are aware of any contradictory cost data, particularly recent audits or performance data that indicate higher costs than their proposed costs, Offerors should explain why the substantiating data they provide is a more realistic estimate of the costs they would incur during performance than the contradictory data. Again, Offeror’s are cautioned that the burden of cost credibility rests with them, so they must justify the realism of their proposed costs.

5.0 ADJECTIVAL RATINGS

The Government will perform an evaluation of the non-cost evaluation factors and 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.

5.1 Combined Technical/ Risk Ratings are used at the Technical evaluation factor level and associated subfactors 1-4 level only

Technical Factor/Subfactor Adjectival rating descriptions are as follows:

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.

The following definitions are included to clarify the risk descriptions:

Risk Description 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.

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 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.

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.

5.2 Small Business Evaluation

Small business participation will be evaluated as a subfactor under the technical factor utilizing all ratings shown below.

Small Business Participation Rating Description Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

5.3 Past Performance Evaluation

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror's probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one integrated performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

The first is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information.

The second is 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 prior performance 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 history of contract (or subcontract) performance that would provide the most context and give the greatest ability to measure whether the Offeror will successfully satisfy the current requirement. Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming.

There are four levels of relevancy as shown below. 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.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

Somewhat Relevant

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

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

The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance (see FAR 15.304(c)(2)). The past performance evaluation conducted 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. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

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

Performance Confidence Assessments 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)