NNG16598592R_Amendment_No._3.pdf

RFP NNG16598592R

Amendment No. 3

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

M.3 LIMITED TRADEOFF (LTO) PROPOSAL EVALUATION

An initial review of proposals will be conducted to determine acceptability of the proposals in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals. All unacceptable proposals will be eliminated from further evaluation.

The remaining proposals will be evaluated against the Technical Acceptability requirements. All

Technically Acceptable and Marginally Acceptable Offerors will be evaluated against past performance, predefined value characteristics, and price criteria. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) is responsible for making the source selection decision. For those Offerors who are determined to be Technically

Acceptable, tradeoffs will be made between predefined value characteristics, past performance, and price. The combined value of the predefined value characteristics are more important than past performance. The predefined value characteristics A-C are considered approximately equal value to one another and are each weighted more heavily than value characteristic D in the overall evaluation and tradeoff. For selection, of those Technically “Acceptable” proposals, Past performance and predefined value characteristics, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

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”, “Marginally Acceptable”, or

“Unacceptable.” ALL technical requirements specified in Attachments A and B must be passed to be rated “Acceptable” to be eligible for contract award. Proposals will be rated as “Marginally Acceptable” if the Offeror can meet 85-99% of the technical requirements specified in Attachments A and B. The

Offeror shall discuss potential problems preventing them from meeting 100% of the requirements and present possible solutions in their proposal. Additional information or proposal revisions may be requested during discussions if it is believed that the additional information or proposal revisions may result in a revised proposal rating of “Acceptable”. Although an Offeror may receive a rating of

“Marginally 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. The

Offeror will receive a rating of “Unacceptable” if the proposal fails to meet a minimum of 85% of the technical requirements. Award will only be made to an Offeror with an “Acceptable” or “Marginally

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 “Marginally

Acceptable” rating. Notwithstanding, any rating of “Marginally 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

RFP NNG16598592R

Amendment No. 3

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. “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 “Marginally Acceptable” Technical Approach rating.