20R0092 Amendment 4.docx

N6893620R0092

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The following have been modified:

FOR YOUR INFORMATION:

The following addresses and points of contact are provided:

Email address: beth.steude@navy.mil

U.S. Postal Service Mailing Address:

Direct Delivery Address (UPS, FedEx, etc.):

Email address: christopher.bigelow@navy.mil

U.S. Postal Service Mailing Address:

Direct Delivery Address (UPS, FedEx, etc.):

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

L-1 CONTENT OF PROPOSALS

L – 1 CONTENT OF PROPOSALS (May 2020)

PART A GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

1.0 GENERAL

Questions: Offerors may submit questions requesting clarification of solicitation requirements by emailing the contract specialist at beth.steude@navy.mil. It is required that all questions be received by 03 Sept 2020.

2.0 ELECTRONIC PROPOSAL FORMAT

This section is intended to provide information to the Offeror on the electronic format and application software to be used for submitting proposals. Do not submit hardcopy proposals for this solicitation. Use of the software and procedures described in this section will reduce the amount of time and effort needed to receive and upload proposals and will ensure the proposals received are suitable for reading electronically during evaluation.

Proposals must be formatted using a Times New Roman 12 pt Normal font (no reduction permitted), single-spaced with 1-inch margins all around, and formatted for standard 8.5 x 11 inch paper. All pages should be numbered with section and page numbers. Graphs and tables shall be presented in no smaller than a 10 pt font and should contain a grid, which allows values to be read directly from the graph. Graphs and Tables that fit on an 8.5” X 14” printed page will be counted as one page. Drawings may be of any size and will count as one page. Graphic resolution, including such data as tables or charts, should be consistent with the purpose of the data presented.

The offeror shall submit all volumes of its proposal electronically via DoD Safe (https://safe.apps.mil/). All proposal documents must be compatible with the Microsoft Office 2016 and/or the latest Adobe Acrobat Reader Portable Document Format (PDF), where applicable. An email shall be submitted to beth.steude@navy.mil no later than 11:59 AM Pacific Time on 05 Nov 2020 requesting a “Drop-Off Request Code.” The “Drop-Off Request Code” email must specify a point of contact name and email address for the Prime contractor and for each individual Subcontractor. The Prime and Subcontractor(s) will each be provided a unique “Drop-Off Request Code” which will allow them to submit proposal documents to the Government independently as needed. The Prime and Subcontractor points of contact will receive an email that contains their unique “Drop-Off Request Code” no less than 3 days prior to the proposal due date. This code authorizes access to submit proposal documents securely via DoD SAFE.

The Offeror is responsible for ensuring electronic proposals are virus free. Offerors may use hyperlinks within and among proposal volumes that do not include price information. However, there shall be no links from any other volume into the Price Volume or into any other portion of the proposal that contains price information. In order to reduce file sizes, the Offeror shall not embed sound or video (e.g., MPEG) files within the proposal submission. The Offeror is encouraged to simplify the color palette used in creating figures; and minimize size of graphics files; and avoid scanned images.

3.0 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND VOLUMES

(excluding Vol 1. Annex 1, Subcontracting Plan, if required)

(excluding Vol 2. Annex. 1, Statements of Work/Performance Work Statements)

(Annex 1, Stepladder Pricing Schedule)

Each volume shall contain the following information:

The Offeror shall submit a Cross Reference Matrix (CRM) for the Technical Volume, similar to the example below, to help ensure that all solicitation requirements are addressed and to facilitate the evaluators’ review of the Offeror’s proposal. The CRM should be a single integrated matrix and cross-reference the proposal volumes and paragraphs to specific RFP requirements, as well as other parts of the proposal that contain relevant information. The Offeror’s CRM may be identical to the example below or revised such as to add columns to indicate the page number on which information may be found, identify where other relevant information in the proposal is located, or provide other comments. The CRM does not count against any of the proposal page limitations.

EXAMPLE OF A CROSS REFERENCE MATRIX (CRM)

Volume 1 Technical Example: Para 3.1 Note: This column shall address all paragraphs in Sections xx and xy of the SOW/PWS.

Volume 1 Technical

Volume 1 Technical

4.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION:

Naval Air Systems Command Code: D243000 1 Administration Circle, Stop 1303 China Lake CA 93555-6108 Solicitation Number: N68936-20-R-0092 Attn: Beth Steude

Hand carried proposals may be delivered to the address above, no later than the date and time specified in Block 9 of the SF 33; attention Beth Steude.

5.0 PROPOSAL PACKAGING:

6.0 CLASSIFIED DATA

All proposals must be UNCLASSIFIED.

7.0 SOLICITATION CHANGES

For notice of any changes and additional information provided by the Government for the solicitation, please go to https://beta.sam.gov/.

PART B SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS

Pricing information shall only appear in the Price volume.

1.0 VOLUME 1: TECHNICAL

The offeror shall provide all information and data required to conduct a thorough and complete technical evaluation. The offeror shall address the following elements in the technical proposal, which will not be separately rated:

1.1 Understanding of the Work

1.1.1 Performance Based Statement of Work (PBSOW) Approach – First Article and Production (CLINS 0001 - 0002) The subject Millimeter Wave Power Modules (MMPMs) produced are integrated with other countermeasures or emitter modules to complete required system configurations. These MMPMs are installed in systems that are used to evaluate U.S. weapons systems and train Fleet operators. These systems are used throughout a weapons systems life cycle, from rack units to use in laboratories and hardware in the loop facilities during development, to airborne pods for use on manned aircraft, or ground based applications, for testing and Fleet training. These MMPMs can also be installed as part of systems mounted in and on unmanned aerial targets or ground based systems for live fire developmental testing (DT) and operational testing (OT) of weapon systems. The proposal shall specifically address how the proposed design will be fabricated, tested and delivered under the premises of ANSI/ISO/ASQ(E) Q9001-2015 or equivalent Quality System Model.

The proposal shall describe how the MMPMs will be fabricated in accordance with the Performance Based Statement of Work (PBSOW) paragraphs 3.1, 3.2, and 4.0.

1.1.1.1 RF Design: The MMPMs required under this procurement are state-of-the-art, high power, airborne units utilized to provide final amplification for various electronic countermeasures systems. Offerors shall describe, in detail, how his proposed design will fulfill the electronic requirements specified in specifications 1611AS12205. Describe, in detail, how the design will meet the requirements for output power, gain (both small signal and at rated power), spectral purity, harmonic and spurious emissions and broadband thermal noise together with any problem areas. A description of the gain and power allocation shall be included in this discussion.

1.1.1.2 Prime Power Requirements: The maximum power allocation specified in 1611AS12205 is +28+/-3 Volts Direct Current (VDC) at a maximum current of 15 Amperes. This power will be in accordance with MIL-STD-704 with the inherent problems described therein. Please describe, in detail, how the design will meet the performance specification with the available input power, with specific attention toward the amplifier efficiency. This description shall include a discussion of how the negative power effects described in MIL-STD-704 will be dealt with, directing specific attention toward the spectral purity requirements.

1.1.1.3 Mechanical Design Requirements: The physical configuration of the MMPMs are illustrated in drawing 1611AS12205. The drawings and specifications illustrate the stringent size and weight constraints the MMPM must meet together with the required provisions for multiple mounting methods. Offerors shall describe the approach in packaging the performance requirements of this procurement within the mechanical constraints.

1.1.1.4 Cooling: The MMPM under this procurement is air cooled. Please describe how the proposed cooling approach will meet the performance requirements throughout the specified temperature/altitude envelope.

1.1.1.5 High Voltage Design: The MMPMs will be required to operate at altitudes up to 50,000 feet. Please provide the expected voltages for the MMPMs and describe previous design and manufacturing experience with these voltages at altitudes from sea level to 50,000 feet. Please include a description of any specialized techniques or processes that are proposed.

1.1.2 Performance Based Statement of Work Approach - Teardown and Evaluations, Repair Services, and Hardware Modifications (CLINS 0003 - 0005).

Offerors shall provide a description of their Engineering, Repair, and Modification capabilities in respect to their proposed product. Provide a written narrative of the Offeror’s understanding and proposed capability to perform the services and modifications required by PBSOW paragraphs 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, and 4.0.

1.2 Quality Assurance

Offerors shall describe the quality assurance (QA) program proposed for this procurement. The proposed QA program shall satisfy the program objectives and meet the requirements of ANSI/ISO/ASQ(E) Q9001-2015 or equivalent quality system model (Note that MIL-I-45208 or MIL-Q-9858, if proposed by the offeror, are acceptable). Offerors shall describe how the proposed quality system will control the quality of the program in the design, qualification and production phases. The QA program shall address material and parts selection, process control, workmanship, inspection and configuration management for both development and production.

Offerors shall provide terms and conditions of their product warranty. If no warranty is available, offerors shall notate this in their proposal.

1.3 Management Approach

Offerors shall address the following:

a) Adequacy of corporate management and resources to support the technical requirements of the solicitation.

b) Proposed management roles of the Offeror’s proposed workforce and the lines of responsibility, authority, and communication through which the tasks will be managed for this requirement to include an outline of the organizational structure, functional relationships, communication and responsibilities among the organizational elements that will participate in the effort.

c) Procedures to be taken to ensure quality.

d) Plan for early identification and resolution of problems.

e) Identification of potential performance risks related to manpower/personnel management strategies and proposed risk mitigation strategies.

f) Subcontract management detailing how each subcontractor will be integrated and managed to ensure cohesive integration into the overall management approach.

1.4 Small Business (SB) Subcontracting Plan

THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO OFFERORS CLASSIFIED AS A SMALL BUSINESS FOR THIS PROCUREMENT. The Large Business Offeror shall provide its SB Subcontracting Plan conforming to the requirements of FAR 19.7 and DFARS 219.7 as Vol 1. Annex 1, unless there is an already approved comprehensive SB Subcontracting Plan. The SB Subcontracting Plan of the successful Offeror(s) will be reviewed and approved by the PCO prior to contract award. See FAR 19.702(a) (1) Statutory Requirements, regarding failure of the apparent successful Offeror to negotiate and submit a SB Subcontracting Plan acceptable to the Contracting Officer. The successful Offeror’s approved SB Subcontracting Plan will be incorporated into the resultant contract.

2.0 VOLUME 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

2.1 General

Sources of past performance evaluation information include information provided by the Offeror in response to the solicitation, information obtained from questionnaires, and 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 Systems, Electronic Subcontract Reporting System, or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials.

The Offeror shall complete the Past Performance Information Form, Attachment P1, for each past performance reference performed within three years of the solicitation release date. The Offeror shall submit no more than three Past Performance Information Forms as the Prime Contractor, no more than two forms for each principal subcontractor, and/or no more than two forms for each JV team member. The Offeror shall submit written consent from its principal subcontractor(s) and JV team member(s) that will allow the Government to coordinate any past performance issues directly with the Offeror. If the Offeror does not submit the written consent, the Government will address any past performance issues directly with the principal subcontractor or JV Team member and the Offeror will forfeit the opportunity to participate in any related discussions. Consequently, for any principal subcontractor and JV team member that does not provide the written consent, the Offeror shall provide the name, address, phone number, and email address with whom the Government may address any past performance issues.

The Offeror shall provide a narrative on each Past Performance Information form in the “Contract Effort Description” area that clearly describes how each contract reference has relevant work effort that matches the relevancy definitions specified in Section M of the solicitation. Additionally, the Offeror shall provide one electronic copy of the Statement of Work/Performance Work Statement for each contract reference as Vol. 2 Annex 1 to this Past Performance Volume.

The primary source of past performance information will be PPIRS. If a Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) exists for multiple years for the same contract/order, all periods of performance within the recency period specified above, for that contract/order, will be used for evaluation. In the event a CPAR does not exist for a past performance reference, the Offeror shall submit a Contractor Performance Assessment Questionnaire (CPAQ), Attachment P2, to the Program Manager who is the Assessing Official. The Offeror shall include instructions for the Program Manager to send completed questionnaires within two weeks of its receipt via e-mail to Beth Steude, Contract Specialist, at Email beth.steude@navy.mil, thereby allowing the customer approximately two weeks to complete their response. All CPAQs shall be received by the Government no later than the date and time specified in Block 9 of the SF 33.

3.0 VOLUME 3: PRICE PROPOSAL

3.1 Volume Content:

a) This Volume shall contain the Contract Compliance information specified as follows:

i. Offeror Summary Table: The Offeror shall complete the table below. The Offeror shall include all subcontractors and JV team members who will be involved with the performance of the contract and list all sites where the work will be performed. If a JV teaming or subcontracting arrangement is proposed, identify the work share, distribution elements, and ratios that each contractor will perform using the table below. Also provide a definition of the legal relationship between the entities if it is other than a Prime/subcontractor relationship.

Contractor Name (Indicate Prime, JV Team Member, or Sub)

ii. Signed SF33 or SF1449 for basic solicitation and acknowledgment of each amendment, including completion of any RFP clause or provision that requires a fill-in or response.

iii. Signed Representations, Certifications, and Acknowledgements and/or System for Award Management (SAM).

iv. Guarantee the length of proposal validity (for at least 180 days after proposal submission).

b) This Volume shall also contain a copy of Section B with the Contract Line Item (CLIN) Unit Prices and, for evaluation purposes, the Total Prices filled in using the estimated quantities value in the solicitation and the instructions below. Section B prices shall be provided separately in one digital data copy in MS Office 2010 Excel format on CD-ROM media. Within all Excel spreadsheets, the Offeror shall use formulas and functions to the maximum extent possible and avoid using output type “value only” cells. If links are utilized, supply those referenced files. Spreadsheets shall not be protected.

c) All price and price supporting information shall be contained in Section B and the price proposal. No price or pricing information shall be included in any other technical volume including cover letters. Offeror are responsible for submitting sufficient information to enable the Government to fully evaluate their price/cost proposal.

d) CLIN 0001 (FFP First Article & Testing): The offeror shall propose a unit price for this CLIN in Section B.

e) CLIN 0002 (FFP Production Units): The offeror shall propose stepladder unit pricing for this CLIN in Section B. The average price per unit for Qty 2-4 over the 5 year period multiplied by the estimated number of units shall be utilized to calculate the maximum price for CLIN2 in Section B.

f) CLIN 0003 (FFP Teardown & Evaluation): The offeror shall propose stepladder unit pricing for this CLIN in Section B. The average price per unit over the 5 year period multiplied by the estimated number of units shall be utilized to calculate the maximum price for CLIN 0003 in Section B.

g) CLIN 0004 (FFP Repairs): The offeror shall utilize the Government’s provided FFP CLIN maximum estimate in paragraph 3.4 of Part B in Section L-1 for CLIN 0004.

h) CLIN 0005 (FFP Hardware Modifications): The offeror shall utilize the Government’s provided CLIN maximum estimate in paragraph 3.5. of Part B in Section L-1 for CLIN 0005.

3.2 Ground Rules and Assumptions:

3.3 Government Furnished Information

3.3.1 Government Estimates for CLINs 0004 & 0005

CLIN 0004: The Government’s estimate for CLIN 0004 is $1,145,579.26. The offeror shall propose the price estimate for repairs. The repairs will be firm fixed priced at the delivery order level.

CLIN 0005: The Government’s estimate for CLIN 0005 is $1,144,112.46. The offeror shall propose the price estimate for modifications. The hardware modifications will be firm fixed priced at the delivery order level.

3.3.2 Incumbent Information

The incumbent contractor is:

L3 Harris Electron Devices 1025 W Nasa Blvd Melbourne, FL 32919

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-1 EVALUATION FACTORS

M – 1 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD (May 2020)

PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.0 GENERAL

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

2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS

For the Technical factor, a combined Technical/Risk rating will be assigned. This method reflects whether the proposal meets or does not meet the minimum requirements along with an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposal to determine the combined Technical/Risk rating. The benefit to the Government associated with assessed strengths along with technical risk will be considered in determining whether the Offeror’s proposal rises to a level of being thorough or exceptional. 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 with an “Unacceptable” Technical/Risk Rating may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition.

Under Past Performance, the Government will evaluate recent performance to determine how well an Offeror has performed work similar to the work required by the solicitation. When proposals are received from joint ventures, specifically formed by the Offeror to propose on a particular acquisition, the past performance evaluation will consider each individual JV team member’s relevant past performance. After evaluation the Offeror’s past performance information, a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will be assigned. More relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the Performance Confident Assessment Rating than past performance of lesser relevance. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance, the Offeror will receive a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating of “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)” which is considered a “Neutral” rating.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Proposals shall be evaluated using the factors listed below, in descending order of importance. Technical is significantly more important than past performance. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

TECHNICAL

PAST PERFORMANCE

PRICE

PART B: SPECIFIC INFORMATION

1.0 TECHNICAL

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine its ability to meet the requirements of the Performance Specification, Performance Based Statement of Work and any other requirement of this solicitation. An Offeror’s technical proposal will be evaluated as to whether it clearly demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to meet all of the requirements set forth in the solicitation. The evaluation will also include an assessment of the following elements which will not be rated separately.

1.1 Understanding of the Work:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the work based on the information provided as required by Section L of this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed capability to meet contract requirements based upon the information provided in response to the instructions provided in Section L.

1.2 Quality Assurance:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Quality Assurance program based on the information provided as required by Section L of this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed capability to meet contract requirements based upon the information provided in response to the instructions provided in Section L.

1.3 Management Approach:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed management approach based on the information required by Section L of this solicitation. The management approach will be evaluated to assess the Offeror’s ability to plan, manage, staff, and execute the contract and the extent to which any proposed processes and procedures ensure successful accomplishment of the tasks described in the PBSOW.

1.4 Small Business (SB) Subcontracting Plan:

THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO OFFERORS CLASSIFIED AS A SMALL BUSINESS FOR THIS PROCUREMENT. SB Subcontracting Plans submitted in response to this solicitation will be evaluated for acceptability in accordance with the requirements of FAR 19.7 and DFARS 219.7 as Vol 1. Annex 1, unless there is an already approved comprehensive SB Subcontracting Plan. The SB Subcontracting Plan of the successful Offeror(s) will be reviewed and approved by the PCO prior to contract award. See FAR 19.702(a) (1) Statutory Requirements, regarding failure of the apparent successful Offeror to negotiate and submit a SB Subcontracting Plan acceptable to the Contracting Officer. The successful Offeror’s approved SB Subcontracting Plan will be incorporated into the resultant contract.

2.0 PAST PERFORMANCE

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality. The first aspect of the past performance is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance being evaluated. Past performance will be considered recent if the contract/order has been performed within three years of the solicitation release date. Past Performance that is not recent will not be considered in the evaluation.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate how relevant the Past Performance being evaluated is to the requirements of this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s current and past contracts for similar scope, magnitude and complexity that this solicitation requires, including the following 1) fabrication, testing, and delivery of hardware similar to MMPMs 2) teardown and evaluation of hardware similar to MMPMs; 3) repair services for hardware similar to MMPMs; 4) modification of hardware similar to MMPMs.

The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate the overall quality of the Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance. The Government will evaluate the Offeror, principal subcontractors, and JV team member’s performance and focus its evaluation on the following areas: 1) meeting technical requirements, i.e., the quality of technical performance; 2) meeting schedule requirements, i.e., on time or late delivery; 3) controlling contract cost; 4) managing the contracted effort; 5) utilization of small business; 6) regulatory compliance, and 7) the demonstrated systemic improvement actions taken to resolve past problems. A separate quality rating will not be assigned, rather the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of past performance taking into account the recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

3.0 PRICE

Firm Fixed Price CLINs:

Each Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to determine whether it is complete, reasonable, and whether it contains balanced unit pricing. In its evaluation, the Government will perform a price analysis to assess if the Offeror’s proposed price is fair and reasonable. The Government may use various price analysis techniques such as a comparison of the Offeror’s proposed price to competing Offeror’s prices in response to this solicitation, comparison to historical pricing for same or similar DoD contracts; comparison to the Government’s independent price estimate, comparison to commercial and/or industry standards, among other techniques to perform the price analysis. The total evaluated price will be the sum of the total price of all CLINs.

In addition, with the exception of those costs to the Government that are equal to all Offerors, adjustments to the total proposed price will be made for Government costs required to accomplish the Offeror’s proposed approach (e.g., additional Government-Furnished Property/Government-Furnished Information required by the Offeror to implement its approach).

Overall Summary Level for all CLINs 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.

Prospective Offerors are forewarned that if there are discrepancies between Section B, Attachment P3, and Volume 3 Narrative, Section B prevails.

PART C: EVALUATION RATING AND RISK ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS

1.0 EVALUATION RATING AND RISK ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS

The definitions below will be used by the Government when assessing solicitation compliance and the expected results of the offeror's proposed approach. The appropriate adjectival rating will be assigned to each factor and subfactor, as required. The Government will utilize a combined technical/risk rating for this effort.

2.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION RATINGS

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings: The combined technical/risk assignments are provided in the table below.

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATING

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 PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATINGS

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

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

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 the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (FAR 15.001)

Deficiency: a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. (FAR 15.001) Recency: as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant.

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.

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 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.

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf