NNG16598592R_Amendment_No._2.pdf

RFP NNG16598592R

Amendment No. 2

The following subsection under Section M.3 Limited Tradeoff (LTO) Proposal Evaluation of the RFP is hereby amended as follows:

A. Technical Acceptability

The proposal shall be evaluated for an adequate response to the provision L.19 “Technical

Acceptability”. Technical acceptability will be rated as either “Acceptable”, “Potentially Acceptable”, or

“Unacceptable.” ALL Technical Acceptability criteria must be passed to be rated “Acceptable” to be eligible for contract award. A proposal is rated “Potentially Acceptable” when after the initial evaluation, the evaluator anticipates additional information could be provided by an Offeror during discussions, if utilized that may result in a proposal rating of acceptable. The Offeror may need to revise or further explain its proposal. If, upon review of the new or revised information, the proposal does not meet the government‘s requirements, an “Unacceptable” rating may be warranted. Although an Offeror may receive a rating of “Potentially Acceptable” upon initial evaluations, it does not guarantee that discussions will be held or that the Offeror will automatically be included in the competitive range if discussions are held. Award will only be made to an Offeror with an “Acceptable” rating, either upon initial proposal evaluations or after competitive range and discussions. At initial evaluations, an

“Acceptable” rating will be considered as more favorable than a “Potentially Acceptable” rating.

Notwithstanding, any rating of potentially acceptable, the Government reserves the right to award on initial proposals rated acceptable.

The Offerors Technical Approach acceptability will be further evaluated as follows:

The Offeror's brief narrative to acknowledge its understanding and commitment to comply with the following Statement of Work (SOW) areas will be evaluated for compliance:

Section 1.3 Required Quantities

Section 2.0 Schedule

For the SOW 2.0 response, the Offeror’s top-level project schedule will be evaluated for compliance with all SOW requirements.

The Offeror’s Mission Assurance Attachment D including compliance and/or differences in its processes and standards from the requirement in the Restore-L Mission Assurance Requirements (MAR) document, will be evaluated for its level of “Full Compliance” and the potential individual and cumulative risk associated with those areas identified as ”Full Compliance, with Exception”, based on the adequacy of the Offeror’s rationale supporting the exception and its ability to meet the intent of the

MAR. The offeror must show an ability to meet the intent of the MAR at a minimum of 85% to be identified as “Full Compliance, with Exception”. “Partial Compliance” and “Non-Compliance” may not be used for the proposal and will be evaluated as “Unacceptable”. If the evaluation results in a determination of significant performance risk in an Offeror’s rationale supporting “Full Compliance, with

Exception”, this determination will result in an “Unacceptable” or “Potentially Acceptable” Technical

Approach rating.