Amendment_One.docx

N68335-15-R-0135

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The following have been added by full text:

POINT OF CONATCT

1. This will be a five-year, Fixed-Price, Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) type contract for the procurement of Pneumatic Cabin Pressure Leakage Testers.

2. A Single-Award contract is intended to be issued for this requirement.

3. This procurement is a 100% Small Business set-aside.

4. The guaranteed minimum for the contract is five (5) Pneumatic Cabin Pressure Leakage Testers Pilot Production Units (CLIN 0001) and associated Ordering Period 1 technical and logistics data (CLINs 0002-0063). The guaranteed minimum will be met on Delivery Order 0001 upon award of the basic contract.

5. Delivery Orders may be placed as follows:

Ordering Period 1 CLINs 0001-0064, 0068: at contract award through 365 days after contract award.

Ordering Period 2 Production Units Year 1 CLIN 0065: from date of contract award through 365 days after Government Release for Production.

Ordering Period 3 Production Units Year 2 CLIN 0066: from 366 days after Government Release for Production through 731 days after Government release for production.

Ordering Period 4 Production Units Year 3 CLIN 0067: from 732 days after Government Release for Production through 1,096 days after Government release for production.

6. The completion of Contractor Pilot Production Testing/Inspection, Release for Production, and the issuance of delivery orders are separate events. Release for Production must be granted in writing by the Contracting Officer before production may commence. In no case will release for production be granted prior to successful completion of Contractor Pilot Production Testing/Inspection.

7. For clarification purposes, the term Pilot Production is synonymous with First Article.

8. For clarification purposes, the term Unit, as used in Pilot Production Unit and Production Unit, consists of the parts and quantities listed in Attachment 1 Statement of Work Appendix A.

9. Accelerated deliveries will be authorized at no additional cost to the Government.

10. Proposal validity shall be for 180 days or longer as annotated by the offeror in Block 12 of the cover page of the SF33.

11. The Government point of contact is:

Dorri Petterson Contract Specialist Dorri.petterson@navy.mil

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0001

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

The Contractor shall manufacture and deliver four Pilot Production Pneumatic Cabin Pressure Leakage Testers in accordance with (IAW) the Engineering Performance Specification (PS), Engineering Statement of Work (SOW), and Acquisition Logistics Support Statement of Work (ALSSOW).

To:

The Contractor shall manufacture and deliver five Pilot Production Pneumatic Cabin Pressure Leakage Testers in accordance with (IAW) the Engineering Performance Specification (PS), Engineering Statement of Work (SOW), and Acquisition Logistics Support Statement of Work (ALSSOW)..

The pricing detail quantity has increased by 1.00 from 4.00 to 5.00.

CLIN 0020

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0021.

CLIN 0021

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0022.

CLIN 0022

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0023.

CLIN 0023

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0024.

CLIN 0024

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0025.

CLIN 0025

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0026.

CLIN 0026

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0027.

CLIN 0027

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0028.

CLIN 0028

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0029.

CLIN 0029

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0030.

CLIN 0030

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0031.

CLIN 0031

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0032.

CLIN 0032

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0033.

CLIN 0033

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0034.

CLIN 0034

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0035.

CLIN 0035

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0036.

CLIN 0036

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0037.

CLIN 0037

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0038.

CLIN 0038

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0039.

CLIN 0039

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0040.

CLIN 0040

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0041.

CLIN 0041

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0042.

CLIN 0042

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0043.

CLIN 0043

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0044.

CLIN 0044

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0045.

CLIN 0045

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0046.

CLIN 0046

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0047.

CLIN 0047

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0048.

CLIN 0048

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0049.

CLIN 0049

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0050.

CLIN 0050

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0051.

CLIN 0051

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0052.

CLIN 0052

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0053.

CLIN 0053

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0054.

CLIN 0054

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0055.

CLIN 0055

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0056.

CLIN 0056

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0057.

CLIN 0057

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0058.

CLIN 0058

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0059.

CLIN 0059

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0060.

CLIN 0060

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0061.

CLIN 0061

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0062.

CLIN 0062

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0064.

CLIN 0064

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0065.

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

The Contractor shall manufacture and deliver up to 87 PCPLT in accordance with (IAW) ENGINEERING PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION(PS), ENGINEERING STATEMENT OF WORK(SOW), AND ACQUISITION LOGISTICS SUPPORT STATEMENT OF WORK (ALSSOW)

To:

The Contractor shall manufacture and deliver up to 135 PCPLT in accordance with (IAW) ENGINEERING PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION(PS), ENGINEERING STATEMENT OF WORK(SOW), AND ACQUISITION LOGISTICS SUPPORT STATEMENT OF WORK (ALSSOW)Quantity Price1-4546-9091-135.

The pricing detail quantity has increased by 48.00 from 87.00 to 135.00.

The FOB has changed from Destination to Origin (Shipping Point).

CLIN 0065

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0066.

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

The Contractor shall manufacture and deliver up to 87 PCPLT in accordance with (IAW) ENGINEERING PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION(PS), ENGINEERING STATEMENT OF WORK(SOW), AND ACQUISITION LOGISTICS SUPPORT STATEMENT OF WORK (ALSSOW)

To:

The Contractor shall manufacture and deliver up to 135 PCPLT in accordance with (IAW) ENGINEERING PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION(PS), ENGINEERING STATEMENT OF WORK(SOW), AND ACQUISITION LOGISTICS SUPPORT STATEMENT OF WORK (ALSSOW)Quantity Price1-4546-9091-135.

CLIN 0066

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0067.

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

The Contractor shall manufacture and deliver up to 87 PCPLT in accordance with (IAW) ENGINEERING PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION(PS), ENGINEERING STATEMENT OF WORK(SOW), AND ACQUISITION LOGISTICS SUPPORT STATEMENT OF WORK (ALSSOW)

To:

The Contractor shall manufacture and deliver up to 135 PCPLT in accordance with (IAW) ENGINEERING PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION(PS), ENGINEERING STATEMENT OF WORK(SOW), AND ACQUISITION LOGISTICS SUPPORT STATEMENT OF WORK (ALSSOW)Quantity Price1-4546-9091-135.

CLIN 0067

This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0068.

The pricing detail quantity has increased by 1.00 from 4.00 to 5.00.

The FOB has changed from Destination to Origin (Shipping Point).

CLIN 0020 is added as follows:

3D Models

FFP

3D Models IAW CDRL A019 and SOW para 3.4.5.1 FOB: Destination

NET AMT

SECTION D - PACKAGING AND MARKING

The following have been modified:

[Units shall be packaged for shipment IAW MIL-STD-2073]

SECTION E - INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

The following Acceptance/Inspection Schedule was added for CLIN 0020:

The Acceptance/Inspection Schedule for CLIN 0068 has been changed from:

To:

SECTION F - DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

REQUIRED DELIVERY SCHEDULE

In accordance with (IAW) FAR 52.209-3

In accordance with the applicable Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), DD Form 1423

(Pilot Production units are separate from production units and will not be counted as production units.)

Patuxent River, MD

The Government will evaluate equally, as regards time of delivery, offers that propose delivery of each quantity within the applicable delivery period specified above. Offers that propose delivery that will not clearly fall within the applicable required delivery period specified above will be considered nonresponsive and rejected. The Government reserves the right to award under either the required delivery schedule or the proposed delivery schedule, when an offeror offers an earlier delivery schedule than required above. If the offeror proposes no other delivery schedule, the required delivery schedule above will apply.

OFFEROR'S PROPOSED DELIVERY SCHEDULE

(b) Attention is directed to the Contract Award provision of the solicitation that provides that a written award or acceptance of offer mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror, results in a binding contract. The Government will mail or otherwise furnish to the offeror an award not later than the day award is dated. Therefore, the offeror should compute the time available for performance beginning with the actual date of award, rather than the date the written notice of award is received from the Contracting Officer through the ordinary mails. However, the Government will evaluate an offer that proposes delivery based on the Contractor’s date of receipt of the contract or notice of award by adding (1) five calendar days for delivery of the award through the ordinary mails, or (2) one working day if the solicitation states that the contract or notice of award will be transmitted electronically. (The term “working day” excludes weekends and U.S. Federal holidays.) If, as so computed, the offered delivery date is later than the required delivery date, the offer will be considered nonresponsive and rejected.

The following have been deleted:

SECTION G - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA

(Contracting Officer: Insert applicable email addresses or "Not applicable.")

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been added by reference:

The following have been added by full text:

CONTRACTOR FURNISHED PROPERTY

H-1 Contractor-Furnished Property

(First Article (Pilot Production) Testing)

(a) The Contractor shall deliver to the Government, at the time and locations stated in this contract, the Contractor-furnished property described in Federal Acquisition Regulation 52.209-4, First Article Approval – Government Testing and the Statement of Work.

(b) Title to Contractor-furnished property shall remain in the Contractor. The Government shall use the Contractor-furnished property only in connection with this contract in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation 52.209-4, First Article Approval – Government Testing.

(c) Upon delivery of Contractor-furnished property to the Government, the Government assumes the risk and responsibility for its loss or damage, except –

(1) For reasonable wear and tear and

(2) As otherwise provided for by the provisions of this contract.

(d) In the event of loss or irreparable damage to the Contractor-furnished property, the maximum liability of the Government shall not exceed the price for the property as proposed by the Contractor in the solicitation.

(e) The Contractor is responsible for providing operating and maintenance instructions and repairing the first article during any first article test.

(f) Upon completion of First Article (Pilot Production) Testing, and approval, in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation 52.209-4, First Article Approval – Government Testing, title to the Contractor-furnished property will pass to and vest in the Government.

The following have been deleted:

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

BEST VALUE EVALUATION

M. BEST VALUE EVALUATION

PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.0 GENERAL

The Government expects to select one Offeror on the basis of its proposal providing the “best value” to the Government, all factors considered. "Best value" means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit(s) in response to the requirement. The Offeror is advised that the proposal meeting the solicitation requirements with the lowest price may not be selected for an award if award to a higher priced Offeror is determined to be more beneficial to the Government. However, the perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal must merit the additional price.

2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS

The Government intends to award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value after evaluation, in accordance with the solicitation. The Government reserves the right to hold discussions; however, award may be based upon the initial offer. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. All proposals will be evaluated for compliance with the terms, conditions, and requirements set forth in the solicitation. Failure to address each of the areas identified in Section L Part B Specific Information in the proposal may impact the resulting evaluation ratings and risk assessment.

Evaluation of an offeror’s proposal will be based on the information presented in the written proposal along with input obtained from outside sources relevant to past performance. Proposals which are unrealistic in terms of technical or schedule commitments may be deemed to be reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence or indicative of a failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the proposed work and may be grounds for rejection of the proposal. Significant deficiencies or lack of responses to factors or subfactors may be used as a basis for eliminating a proposal from further consideration. Additionally, the rating of any performance risk factor or subfactor as High Risk may also be used as a basis for eliminating a proposal from further consideration.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Proposals shall be evaluated using the factors of Technical, Past Performance, and Price, which are listed below in descending order of importance. Subfactors under Technical - Technical Approach (A), Logistics (B), and Management (C) are listed in descending order of importance. The elements listed under the subfactors of Technical Approach (A), Logistics (B), and Management (C) are not separately weighted or separately rated; however, all of the elements must be addressed under the subfactors of Technical Approach (A), Logistics (B), and Management (C) and will be evaluated as part of the subfactors. The elements under Past Performance are not separately weighted or separately rated. However, all of the elements must be addressed under the factor of Past Performance and will be evaluated as part of the factor.

The Technical and Past Performance factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Price, however, Price is an important factor and should not be ignored. As the ratings of proposals in relation to non-cost factors become more equal, Price will become more of a deciding factor in selecting the best value offer.

I. Technical

A. Technical Approach

* System Performance

* Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS)

* Testing

B. Logistics

* Supply Support

* Technical Manual

* Training

* Warranty

C. Management

* Manufacturing Capacity/Facilities/Personnel Resources

* Quality Assurance Program

* System Engineering Technical Reviews

* Small Business Utilization

II. Past Performance

III. Price

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

For all of the Technical factor(s)/subfactors, if applicable, a Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating will be assigned. The Technical Rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, and deficiencies of the proposal. The Technical Risk Rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement and is assessed by the identification of weakness(es). Assessment of technical risk considers potential for disruption of schedule, increase in costs, degradation of performance, the need to increase Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a technical factor/subfactor with an “Unacceptable” Technical Rating or a “High” Technical Risk Rating may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition. Offerors are also advised that a Marginal rating may make the proposal unawardable.

For the Past Performance factor, the Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated to determine how relevant prior efforts accomplished by the Offeror are to the solicitation requirements. A Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will then be assigned, which addresses the Government’s level of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to perform the required effort successfully based on the Offeror’s (including subcontractors’ and/or JV/SLE team members’) relevant past performance. 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. In the case of an Offeror without a record of past performance, without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror will receive a rating of “Unknown” which is considered a “Neutral” rating. Under Past Performance, the Government will evaluate how well an Offeror has performed similar work before. When proposals are received from contractor entities (e.g., teams, joint ventures) specifically formed to propose on a particular acquisition, the past performance evaluation will consider each individual team member.

PART B. SPECIFIC INFORMATION

1.0 TECHNICAL

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine the Offeror’s understanding of, approach to, and ability to meet the solicitation requirements. The Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical proposal with respect to its compliance with the solicitation requirements and the risk associated with the Offeror's approach.

I.A. Technical Approach (subfactor of Technical)

The evaluation of the Offeror’s Technical Approach subfactor will be based on the information presented in the Offeror’s written proposal and how it addresses its understanding and ability to meet the Request for Proposal’s (RFP) Statement of Work (SOW), System Specification (SS) requirements, and solicitation requirements. The proposals will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s methods and approach will meet the requirements.

The Offeror’s approach will be assessed to determine if it meets the technical requirements of the PCPLT Solicitation. The evaluation will include an assessment of the Offeror’s proposed approach and the details to support claims to meet the requirements of System Performance, COTS, and Testing.

I.B. Logistics (subfactor of Technical)

The evaluation of the Offeror’s Logistics subfactor will be based on the information presented in the Offeror’s written proposal and how it addresses its understanding and ability to meet the Request for Proposal’s (RFP) Statement of Work (SOW), and solicitation requirements. The proposals will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s methods and approach will meet the requirements.

The evaluation will include an assessment of the Offeror’s proposed approach and the details to support claims to meet the requirements of logistics supply support, technical manual, training, and warranty. The Government will assess the Offeror’s capability, capacity and approach to meet the logistics requirements of the Statement of Work (SOW)/CDRLs, including demonstrating an understanding of key logistics elements: maintenance planning, manpower & personnel, supply support, support equipment, technical data, training, computer resources, facilities, packaging, handling, storage & transportation (PHS&T) and design interface.

I.C. Management (subfactor of Technical)

The evaluation of the Offeror’s Management subfactor will be based on the information presented in the Offeror’s written proposal and how it addresses its understanding and ability to meet the Request for Proposal’s (RFP) System Specification (SS), Statement of Work (SOW), and solicitation requirements.

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed capability and understanding of the management required to successfully perform under this contract and its plan for meeting the requirements. The evaluation will include an assessment of the Offeror’s proposed approach and the details to support claims to meet the program schedule and all SOW requirements including meetings, CDRLs, major component procurement/manufacture, final assembly, testing and delivery of pilot production and production units as specified in the solicitation. The evaluation will include an assessment of the Offeror’s proposed production schedule, including the programs it uses to track program schedules and its processes for managing program risk, and an assessment of the Offeror’s Program Manager and critical personnel.

The evaluation will include an assessment of the Offeror’s proposed approach and the details to support claims to meet the requirements of Manufacturing Capacity/Facilities/Personnel Resources and its Quality Assurance Program.

The evaluation will include an assessment of the Offeror’s proposed approach and the details to support claims to meet the requirements of the Systems Engineering Technical Reviews as outlined in the SOW. The evaluation will assess the proposed technical, logistics and program management approach to ensure the Offeror’s methods and approach will result in meaningful reviews.

The Offeror’s strategy for utilizing Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business Concerns will be evaluated. Such evaluations will focus on the Offeror’s approach to identifying SB concerns, extent of participation of SB Concerns on this contract, the complexity and variety of work the SB Concerns are to perform, and processes which have been implemented to correct past inabilities to meet proposed goals.

2.0 PAST PERFORMANCE

The evaluation will include an assessment of the following elements as detailed under Past Performance:

* Contract Data

* Relevancy

* Past Performance Information

The elements under Past Performance are not separately weighted or separately rated. However, all of the elements must be addressed under the factor of Past Performance and will be evaluated as part of the factor.

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. First, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s and (if applicable) its principal subcontractors’ and critical team members’ past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort is to this instant effort. Similarity of the service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type and degree of subcontracting/teaming may all be considered in the relevancy determination. Secondly, the Government will perform a confidence assessment by evaluating the Offeror’s, demonstrated past performance in delivering quality products and services and in meeting technical price/cost, schedule requirements and the offeror’s management of the contracted effort and of their subcontractors.on products and services deemed relevant to the solicitation requirements. Problems not addressed by the Offeror will be considered to still exist. In the case of an Offeror without any relevant past performance or for whom the information on past performance is not available or is unknown, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably and will be assigned a rating of “neutral.”

3.0 PRICE

Any understatement or overstatement of prices/costs or inconsistencies between the Technical and Price/Cost proposals may reflect a lack of understanding of the work and could impact the technical rating and/or risk assessment. Therefore, any inconsistency between Offeror’s proposed performance and price/cost should be explained in the proposal. For example, if the intended use of new and innovative production techniques is the basis for an abnormally low estimate, the nature and risk of these techniques and it’s impact on price/cost should be explained.

Each Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to determine whether it is complete, reasonable, and consistent with the Offeror’s technical approach, reflects a clear understanding of the solicitation requirements, and contains balanced unit pricing. In its evaluation, the Government may use commercial published data, same or similar DoD contracts, Government estimates, industry standards, field pricing reports, or other information as deemed appropriate by the Government.

All CLINs will be included in the total evaluated price. For evaluation purposes, price shall be based on the following quantities:

Five (5) each pilot-production PCPLT units (CLIN 0001) One (1) lot for each of the CLINs for the required training, testing, logistics and technical data and other associated CLINs as required (CLINs 0002-0064 and 0068) Five (5) each Refurbishment of pilot production PCPLT units (CLIN 0068) 40 each production PCPLT units for production year one (CLIN 0065) 43 each production PCPLT units for production year two (CLIN 0066)

NOTE: The unit pricing for the production units shall include the cost for the production acceptance testing. The evaluation will not bind the Government to purchase any of the items beyond the specified minimum quantity.

Normally, competition establishes price reasonableness. In limited situations, additional analysis will be required by the Government to determine reasonableness. If, after receipt of a proposal, the PCO determines that adequate price competition does not exist and a determination is made that none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1(b) apply, the Offeror may be required to provide certified cost and pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.403-4.

PART C RATING STANDARDS AND RISK DEFINITIONS

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

1.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION RATINGS

Technical Ratings: The technical rating assignments reflect the Government’s assessment of the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement.

Technical Ratings

2.0 TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

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

3.0 PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings: 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.

4.0 PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATINGS

Performance Confidence Assessment rating assignments reflect the Government’s confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements based on the Offeror’s relevant past performance and systemic improvement.

5.0 OTHER DEFINITIONS

Strengths: 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.

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

Significant Weakness: A flaw that appreciably increases…