Solicitation Amendment N0018926RW0160002 SF 30.pdf

R

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended. is not extended.

Offers 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 electronic communication 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 letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication 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 NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, 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.)

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

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

Previous edition unusable STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016) Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Section K - Representations, Certification, & Other Statements

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

The requirement for Annual Representation and Certifications at 52.204-8 applies at the basic multiple award contract (MAC) level for each Offeror. Offerors are not required to submit representation or certifications in response to this solicitation or its subsequent task order award, if any. All requests for representation or representation shall come from the MAC Contracting Officer in accordance with the terms of the basic contract. The Ordering Officer will consider offeror's size/socioeconomic status as defined within the SAM.gov portal at the following web address: https://sam.gov/

N0018926RW0160002

Section L - Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors or Quoters

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

Addendum to 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Products and Commercial Services

Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors--Commercial Products and Commercial Services

The Government intends to award a single Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP), task order contract resulting from this solicitation in accordance with FAR Subpart 16.5. Award will be made to that offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government under the selection criteria set forth in this solicitation. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract based on initial proposals. Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a non-price and price standpoint. However, the Government may contact any or all offerors with questions concerning their responses. The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offeror;

award a contract without exchanges; or award a contract after exchanges, whichever is in the best interest of the Government.

Offerors are hereby instructed that, regardless of any language that may be used in this solicitation, the Government is NOT conducting this procurement under FAR Part 15. This procurement is being conducted under FAR subpart 16.505.

QUESTIONS: Offerors may submit questions regarding clarification of solicitation requirements to Kelley Nevelsteen via e-mail at kelley.j.nevelsteen.civ@us.navy.mil. It is required that all questions shall be received by 1200 pm Eastern Time (ET), 04 May 2026, as time may not permit responses to questions received after that date to be prepared and issued prior to the receipt of proposals.

FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS:

(1) Proposals shall be submitted electronically no later than the due date of the solicitation via e-mail to Kelley Nevelsteen at kelley.j.nevelsteen.civ@us. navy.mil .

Offerors shall comply with the detailed instructions for the format and content of the proposals contained in the solicitation; proposals that do not comply may be considered unacceptable and may render the proposal ineligible for award. All electronic files and versions of offerors proposals shall be compatible with the current release of Microsoft Office Suite version 2016. The offeror shall be responsible for ensuring that their electronic proposals are virus-free.

(2) Submissions are page limited to the maximum number of pages as defined below. These page limitations are inclusive of the executive summary and any charts, diagrams, and /or other graphics. Graphics (including tables) in the proposal may use an alternative font with 8 point size type or larger. Each "page" is defined as one sheet, 8 1/2 " x 11", with at least one inch margins on all sides, using a font with a point size of 10 or greater (e. g., "Times New Roman" style with 10 point font). Lines shall, at a minimum, be single-spaced in Microsoft Word with Microsoft Word Normal character spacing. Pages shall be consecutively numbered. Multiple pages, double pages, two-sided pages, or foldouts will count as an equivalent number of 8 1/2" x 11" pages. Offerors are permitted to submit no more than one page for each of the following, which will not be included in the page count: a cover sheet, list of tables, list of acronyms, list of figures, tabs, and dividers. Tables of contents and any compliance matrices may exceed one page, which will not be included in the page count.

GENERAL:

Proposals shall include the following legend on each page:

Source Selection Information See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

PROPOSAL CONTENT:

The offer should contain the following items in addition to other information required by this solicitation: The cover page should indicate the following:

- Title of the proposal

- Volume Number (I or II)

- Proposal Category (Factor/Sub-factor)

- Request for Proposal Number

- Name and Address of Offeror, CAGE Code, SAM Unique Entity ID, and applicable Tax I.D. Number

- Point of Contact name, telephone number, and email

N0018926RW0160002

mailto:civ@us.navy.mil

- Proposal valid for 180 days after solicitation closing

Proposals shall be prepared in two (2) separate volumes as follows:

Volume I: Non-Price Proposal

- Factor I - Facilities Clearance

- Factor II - Technical Approach o Sub-factor I: Staffing Approach o Sub-factor II: Performance and Management Approach

- Factor III - Past Performance

Volume II: Price Proposal

- Factor IV - Price

Table of Contents: The table of contents should provide sufficient detail as to allow the important elements to be easily located.

1. Requirements for Style: Each offeror shall submit a proposal that clearly and concisely describes and defines the contractor's response to the requirements contained in the RFP. Unnecessary elaboration or other presentations beyond that sufficient to present a complete and effective proposal are not desired and may be construed as an indication of the offeror's lack of understanding of cost consciousness. The proposal shall contain all the pertinent information in sufficient detail in the one area of the proposal where it contributes most critically to the discussion of the same information. When necessary, the offeror shall refer to the initial discussion and identify its location within the submitted proposal. PDF documents are acceptable.

2. Proposal Page Limitations

Volume I - Non-Price Proposal - The following page limitations are established:

Title

Page Limit*

Factor I - Facilities Clearance

No Limit

Factor II - Sub-Factor I: Staffing Approach

15 Pages

Factor II - Sub-Factor II: Performance and Management Approach

Factor III - Past Performance

Pages submitted in excess of the page limitations described above will not be evaluated.

The Facilities Clearance is not page-limited; however, the Facilities Clearance is to be strictly limited to a copy of the verification. Price Proposal information in the Services Price Worksheet shall be submitted in Microsoft Excel format.

* Page limits represent the maximum pages the Government will evaluate and are not construed as de facto standards for the amount of material expected in the proposal.

Volume II - Price Proposal - is not page limited; however, the Price Proposal is to be strictly limited to price information and completed solicitation documents as described in the General Section at the beginning of this text.

Title

Page Limit*

Factor IV - Price

No limit

IMPORTANT NOTES:

(1) Offerors shall respond to all requirements of the solicitation document. Offerors are cautioned not to alter the solicitation. Hand-carried proposals are not authorized and will not be accepted.

(2) In the event any person who is not a bona fide employee of the offeror participated in the creation, formulation, or writing of any portion of the proposal, a certificate to this effect shall be included in the proposal which shall be signed by an officer of the offeror. Such certificate shall identify the name of the person who is not a bona fide employee, that person's employment capacity, the name of the person's firm, the relationship of that firm to the offeror, and the portion of the proposal in which the person participated.

Volume I: Non-Price Proposal

Factor I - Facilities Clearance:

The offeror shall provide verification that it possesses an active Facility Clearance (FCL) at the Top-Secret level at the time of proposal submission as identified in the PWS. The verification shall be provided via the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency's (DCSA) National Industrial Security System (NISS) and obtained no earlier than 30 days prior to the issuance of the solicitation. The Verification request shall include the following: Cage Code, Facility Name, Physical Location, Facility Clearance Status/Level, Status Date/Issue Date, Safeguarding Level, Authorized Access to FCL Limitation, Facility Security Officer, Facility Security Officer Phone Number, DCSA Field Office, and DSCA Officer Phone Number.

***Include as an attachment to the solicitation. There is no page limitation***

Factor II - Technical Approach:

Sub-factor I - Staffing Approach:

The offeror shall provide a staffing approach that demonstrates the offeror's ability to provide the required support services and hire and retain the appropriate mix of personnel resources with the skill set levels necessary as identified in the PWS. Specifically, offerors shall address the following:

- A proposed methodology for recruitment of personnel meeting the position-dependent experience, certifications, and qualifications delineated in

PWS Section 6; the offeror shall detail utilization of the offeror's personnel resources and demonstrated understanding of the skill sets and labor mix required to successfully accomplish the tasks/requirements of the PWS. The offeror shall provide a staffing approach that places a fully qualified workforce available on the period of performance start date, 16 May 2026.

- An approach to ensure personnel qualifications remain current.

- Methodology for identifying, recruiting, preparing, training, and retention of qualified personnel for performance that demonstrates the offeror's plan to minimize staff turnover. The offeror should provide historical data to substantiate achievements in past recruiting efforts and sustained retention of employees/low employee turnover rates.

- Risks associated with its staffing approach and any risks associated with implementation of its approach to staffing; including a description of any techniques and actions to mitigate such risks and an explanation of whether the techniques and actions identified for risk mitigation have been successfully used by the offeror.

- The offeror shall discuss their methodology of retaining qualified candidates and reducing turnover, and shall provide their historical attrition rates for the past three (3) years for similar work.

- Offerors shall propose a labor mix that demonstrates the ability to successfully execute the full scope of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) within the annual maximum hours specified in the Services Price Worksheet.

NOTE: The above bullets provide guidance for what should be addressed in the staffing approach and are not considered to be sub-factors nor should this be considered an all-inclusive list.

Sub-factor II - Performance and Management Approach:

The offeror shall provide a performance and management approach that demonstrates an understanding of, familiarity with, and ability to perform the specific technical requirements and tasks in PWS Sections 5 2,3, 4, and , to establish that the offeror is capable of fully providing these services at the level of quality required. The offeror's approach shall provide a plan that clearly describes the management controls, techniques, and procedures that will be used to ensure required work is performed in a timely, responsive, professional, and efficient manner and clearly detail how this effort will be managed within the offeror's corporate organizational structure.

Offerors are not limited to any specific performance and management approach as long as the approach taken meets PWS requirements.

***The Technical submission is limited to 30 pages (15 pages for Staffing Approach and 15 pages for Performance and Management Approach)***

Factor III - Past Performance:

To demonstrate its past performance, the offeror shall identify up to three (3) of its most relevant contracts performed within five (5) years of the solicitation issuance date. Those contracts must also reflect one (1) year of completed performance by the issuance date of the solicitation. Offerors shall provide a detailed explanation demonstrating the relevance of the contracts to the requirements of the solicitation.

For purposes of this solicitation, a contract is defined as a single contract or a single task order placed under an IDIQ contract, a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA), or a Federal Supply Schedule. Offerors shall not submit the IDIQ contract, FSS contract, or BPA itself as a reference. Offerors may submit a combination of no more than three (3) delivery orders (DOs), task orders (TOs), technical direction letters (TDLs), and/or technical area tasks (TATs) placed under an IDIQ or BPA as one of the three examples of past performance. Such a combination must also meet the requirements stated above: each individual example in the combination must have been performed within five (5) years of the solicitation issuance date and demonstrate at least one (1) year of completed performance by the issuance date of the solicitation. If a combination of DOs, TOs, TDLs and/or TATs are used as a past performance example, the offeror shall state the specific experience claimed, period of performance, and dollar value of each. A Past Performance example that does not provide the level of detail required may not be evaluated. No more than one combination of DOs, TOs, TDLs and or TATs is permitted in the past performance submittal.

If a proposed subcontractor's past performance is provided as part of the three (3) of its most relevant contracts or efforts, the percentage and type of work to be done by the subcontractor on the solicitation requirement must be stated. The offeror's submittal shall also detail clearly the aspects of the work in the solicitation that the subcontractor is proposed to perform. A Past Performance example which does not detail clearly the aspects of the work in the solicitation that the subcontractor is proposed to perform may not be evaluated.

If the prime offeror or intended subcontractor/partner submits a past performance example in which it served as a subcontractor, the prime/sub/partner shall detail clearly the work that it performed and the magnitude (dollar value) of that subcontracted work only. A Past Performance example that does not differentiate between the overall contract effort and the subcontractor effort may not be evaluated.

The past performance of subcontractors who will be performing major or critical aspects of the solicitation will be considered as highly as a prime contractor's past performance.

Failure of offerors to provide the required information and level of specificity may result in the contract reference not being evaluated.

With respect to joint ventures, the procuring activity will consider work done individually by each member of the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself previously. Joint venture references must meet the temporal requirements described herein (within five years and a year of completed performance). Additionally, if a joint venture member submits a past performance reference, the joint venture member shall detail clearly the work that it performed in that effort and the magnitude (dollar value) of that work.

A reference that does not differentiate between the overall contract effort and the joint venture member's effort for that reference may not be evaluated. The past performance of a joint venture member who will be performing major or critical aspects of the solicitation will be considered as highly as the joint venture's past performance.

The offeror shall complete a "Past Performance Information Form" for each reference submitted. The form is an attachment to the solicitation.

In addition to the information requested above, offerors shall contact their past performance references and request that each reference complete the Past Performance Report Form and e-mail the completed survey form directly to Kelley Nevelsteen at kelley.j.nevelsteen.civ@us.navy.mil by the DUE DATE OF PROPOSALS. CPARS may not be submitted in lieu of the Past Performance Report Form. The Government reserves the right to consider past performance report forms received after the due date of the solicitation and to contact references for verification or additional information.

***The Past Performance submission is limited to 15 pages.***

Volume II - Price Proposal

Factor IV - Price

In addition to the items required in the General Section above, Volume II shall include the following:

- Completed solicitation documents to include signed copies of all amendments, if applicable.

- For the purpose of preparing a price proposal, the offeror shall assume that the period of performance consists of a base year plus five option years. Offerors shall use the periods established in the Schedule.

- Unless completed in SAM, "Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors" completed by the offeror.

- Complete and detailed price breakdown with all supporting documentation.

- This volume shall also include a completed Services Price Worksheet, submitted in accordance with the following instructions.

o Separate price information shall be submitted for each year of service, as well as a total summary for the five- year period, as shown in the Services Price Worksheet. The price for the services shown in this spreadsheet shall include all fully burdened labor required to provide services. The firm-fixed-price annual rates proposed in the pricing spreadsheet will be incorporated into the resultant contract and subsequent task orders.

- Offerors shall propose the Government-provided not-to-exceed travel amounts in their price proposals and the Services Price Worksheet. Offerors shall insert the Government estimated travel plug numbers provided in the chart below in their proposed price, in addition to any applicable General and Administrative (G&A) and/or

Overhead (OH) rate in accordance with FAR Part 31 in their accounting system. Only G&A and/or OH indirect costs are allowable if an offeror's accounting system automatically applies it, no profit or fee shall be included in the travel costs.

NOTE: If no G&A and/or OH are proposed, it will be determined that the offeror does not intend to apply any applicable indirect cost to any travel required.

All price and price-supporting information shall be contained in the price proposal. No price information shall be included in any other Volume including cover letters. The offeror is responsible for submitting sufficient information to enable the Government to fully evaluate its price proposal

***The price submission is not page limited, but is strictly limited to price information.***

In order to be eligible for award, the Offeror shall be a Small Business, under NAICS 541330 exception 2 Engineering Services- Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons.

The completion and submission of the above items will constitute an offer (proposal) and will indicate the offeror's unconditional assent to the terms and conditions of this RFP and any attachments hereto. Alternate proposals are not authorized. Objections to any terms and conditions of the RFP will constitute deficiency, which may make the offer un-awardable.

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

Addendum to Evaluation - Commercial Product and Commercial Services Addendum to 52.212-2, Evaluation--Commercial Products and Commercial Services

The Government intends to award a single Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP), task order as a result of this solicitation in accordance with FAR Subpart 16.5, Award will be made to that offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government under the selection criteria set forth in this solicitation. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract based on initial proposals. Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a non-price and price standpoint. However, the Government may contact any or all offerors with questions concerning their responses. The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offeror; award a contract without exchanges; or award a contract after exchanges, whichever is in the best interest of the Government.

The Government intends to award a FFP task order to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the factors in the solicitation by utilizing the Trade-off Source Selection process. The Offeror's proposal shall be in the form prescribed by and shall contain a response to each of the areas identified in the addendum to FAR 52.212-1 of the solicitation.

The selection of an offeror for award will be conducted in two (2) phases. Phase I will consist of evaluation of Factor I - Facilities Clearance. Offers receiving an "Acceptable" rating in Phase I shall move on to Phase II. Offerors receiving a rating of "Unacceptable" for Factor I - Facilities Clearance are considered un-awardable and will not be further evaluated.

Phase II will consist of evaluation of Factor II - Technical Approach; its sub-factors: Sub-factor I - Staffing Approach and Sub-factor II - Performance and Management Approach, Factor III - Past Performance and Factor IV - Price. The evaluation of proposals that move on to Phase II will consider the Non-Price Proposal to be significantly more important than the Price Proposal. Within Phase II, Factor III is more important than Factor II. Within Factor II, the two (2) sub-factors are weighed equally.

Offerors receiving a rating of "Unacceptable" for Factor II, or any of its sub-factors, are considered un-awardable and will not be further evaluated.

Initially, proposals shall be ranked according to price (from lowest to highest), inclusive of all option pricing. An Offeror's proposed pricing will be determined by adding all extended amounts for the CLINs in RFP Section B.

If the lowest priced Offeror is evaluated to have a Factor I rated as "Acceptable", a Factor II rated as "Outstanding", and a Factor III rated as "Substantial Confidence", that Offeror represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that Offeror without further consideration of any other proposals. However, if the lowest priced Offeror is not evaluated to have a Factor I rated as "Acceptable", a Factor II rated as "Outstanding", and a Factor III rated as "Substantial Confidence", the next-lowest priced Offeror will be evaluated. The evaluation process will continue (in order of price from lowest to highest) until a proposal is evaluated to have a Factor I rated as "Acceptable", a Factor II rated as "Outstanding", and a Factor III rated as "Substantial Confidence". The Government shall then make an integrated best-value award decision between that proposal rated with a Factor I rated as "Acceptable", a Factor II rated as "Outstanding", and a Factor III rated as "Substantial Confidence" and all lower priced awardable proposals If no proposals are evaluated with a Factor I rated as "Acceptable", a Factor II rated as "Outstanding", and a Factor III rated as "Substantial Confidence", the Contracting Officer shall make an integrated assessment best-value award decision from among Offerors rated "Acceptable" and "Neutral Confidence" or better.

Although price is not the most important evaluation factor, it has the potential to become more significant during the evaluation process. The degree of importance of price will increase with the degree of equality of the proposals in relation to the other factors on which selection is to be based. The importance of price will also increase when a proposal's price is so significantly high as to diminish the value to the Government that might be gained under the other aspects of the proposal. If, at any stage of the evaluation, all offerors are determined to have submitted equal, or virtually equal, non- price proposals, price could become the factor in determining which Offeror shall receive the award.

The Government intends to award the contract without exchanges. Accordingly, each Offeror should submit its most favorable terms from a price and non-price standpoint.

However, the Government reserves the right to establish a competitive range and conduct exchanges if later determined by the PCO to be necessary.

All proposals will be reviewed for timeliness. If the proposal is received after the closing date and does not meet the criteria for "late proposals" in the solicitation, the proposal will not be opened. Timely proposals will be reviewed for compliance to the solicitation. If the proposal is not compliant to the solicitation, it will not be evaluated and the Offeror will be notified that the proposal is non-responsive.

Volume I: Non-Price Proposal Evaluation Criteria Phase I Factor I - Facilities Clearance:

Factor I will be evaluated during Phase I and will receive a rating of "Acceptable/Unacceptable" based on its submission of the verification of its Top- Secret Facilities Clearance Level meeting the requirements as detailed in the addendum to FAR 52.212-1 of the solicitation. This will be evaluated during Phase I on an "Acceptable/Unacceptable" basis utilizing the "Acceptable/Unacceptable" rating Table below. Offerors receiving an "Acceptable" rating in Phase I will move on to Phase II. Offerors receiving an "Unacceptable" rating will be considered un-awardable and will not be further evaluated.

Phase II Factor II - Technical Approach:

The purpose of the technical factor and sub-factors is to assess the offeror's proposed approach to satisfy the Government's requirements. The evaluation of risk is related to the assessment of the offeror's proposed technical submittal. 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 involves risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Risk will be considered in the evaluation of the technical factor and sub-factors.

The Technical Approach factor consists of Sub-factor I, Staffing Approach and Sub-factor II, Performance and Management Approach. Sub-factors are weighted equally and will result in one Technical Approach rating detailed in the rating table identified as "Combined Technical/Risk Table 2" . Offerors simply providing general statements or paraphrasing/ parroting the PWS in whole or in any part may receive a rating of unacceptable.

Note: A rating of "Marginal" for any factor or sub-factor means that the offeror's proposal is not awardable without a change or changes to the offeror's proposal. A proposal which includes a "Marginal" rating is not eligible for award if award is made on initial offers and will not be further evaluated unless exchanges are in the best interest of the Government.

Offerors that receive a "Marginal" rating are considered to be susceptible to correction if the Contracting Officer determines that an exchange is appropriate and said exchange is conducted.

Note: Offerors receiving a rating of "Unacceptable" for any factor or sub-factor will not be considered for an award and will not be further evaluated.

- Staffing Approach:Sub-factor I The offeror's overall staffing approach will be evaluated on its feasibility, comprehensiveness, and the degree to which the offeror demonstrates its understanding of, and capability to successfully accomplish, the staffing approach requirements listed above in the technical subfactor I in the addendum to FAR 52.212-1 of the solicitation.

Performance and Management Approach:Sub-factor II - The offeror's proposed performance and management approach will be evaluated on feasibility, its comprehensiveness, and the degree to which the offeror demonstrates its understanding of, and capability to successfully accomplish, the performance and management approach requirements listed above in the technical sub-factor II in the addendum to FAR 52.212-1 of the solicitation.

- Past Performance:Factor III The past performance evaluation factor assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror's ability to meet the contract's requirements based on the quality of a demonstrated record of recent and relevant performance. There are three (3) aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality. These are combined to establish a single performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

Past Performance Recency: Recency is the first aspect of the past performance evaluation and is the time period during which past performance references are considered relevant. Recency is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. For purposes of this solicitation, recent past performance is performance that has taken place within five (5) years as of the issuance date of this solicitation. Performance outside of this stated period will not be considered for evaluation purposes.

Past Performance Relevancy: Regarding relevancy, each past performance reference under each offeror's Past Performance submission will be evaluated to determine its scope and magnitude relative to the instant requirement. The following definitions will apply to this evaluation:

- Scope: Experience in the areas described in PWS Sections 2,3, 4 and 5 (including all sub-sections within PWS Sections 2, 3, 4 & 5).

- Magnitude: The similarity of the dollar value of actually performed work that exists between the PWS and the offeror's referenced contracts during the stated five-year period established by the solicitation.

The relevancy rating assigned to each past performance reference will be considered in determining the weight to be given to that reference in the overall Past Performance Confidence Assessment. References determined to be "Not Relevant" will not be further considered. Similarly, the quality of performance under a past performance reference that has no relevance to the instant requirement will not be considered in the overall assessment of past performance confidence. In determining the rating for the past performance factor, past performance of greater relevancy will have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevancy.

Past Performance Quality: The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror's past performance. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror's performance, including general trends and usefulness of the information, and will incorporate this into the performance confidence assessment.

Past Performance Confidence Assessment: The overall assigned rating for past performance will be the Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating, defined in the table below.

The assignment of this rating will be based on the overall quality of the recent and relevant past performance and will also consider the source of the information, the context of the data, and general trends in the offeror's performance. The quality of performance under a past performance reference that has no relevance to the instant requirement will not be considered in the overall assessment of past performance confidence. Evaluation will focus only on work already performed. Work yet-to-be performed and work not reflecting one year of completed performance by the solicitation issuance date will not be considered.

If the offeror's past performance is determined to be "Not Relevant" as defined in the solicitation, then the quality of the offeror's past performance will not be evaluated through a confidence assessment, and the past performance factor will be rated as "Neutral Confidence." If an offeror's past performance is determined to be relevant, then each past performance reference under the offeror's past performance submission that contributed to the determination of relevance (i.e., each reference that is rated at least somewhat relevant) will be evaluated to determine the quality of the offeror's performance under that reference. The quality of performance on contract references that are rated "Not Relevant" is not evaluated even when the overall past performance is found to be "Relevant."

In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the past performance factor. In this case, the offeror's past performance is "Unknown" and assigned a performance confidence rating of "Neutral Confidence." Although an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance may not be rated favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the Government may determine that a "Substantial Confidence" or "Satisfactory Confidence" past performance rating provides better value to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" past performance rating.

In order to evaluate Past Performance, the Government may also utilize existing data sources, including the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), the System of Award Management (SAM), the Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS) or other databases; communication with points of contact in the offeror's customer's organization, which could include private sector requirements and contracts personnel, Administrative Contracting Officers, Defense Contract Performance and Management Agency (DCMA) personnel, Procuring Contracting Officers, Contracting Officer's Representatives, and other Government activity requirements personnel. The Government may verify past performance information. The Government may contact some or all of the references provided, as appropriate, and may collect information through questionnaires, telephone interviews, and existing data sources. The Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any and all sources, including sources outside of the Government. This information will be used for the evaluation of past performance.

The past performance factor evaluation and past performance confidence assessment rating is separate and distinct from the contracting officer's responsibility determination. The assessment of the offeror's past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the relative capability of the offeror and other competitors to successfully meet the requirements of the solicitation.

NOTE: A rating of "Limited Confidence" for the past performance factor means that the offeror's proposal is not awardable without a change or changes to the offeror's proposal. A proposal that includes a "Limited Confidence" rating is considered to be susceptible to correction if the contracting officer determines that an exchange (pursuant to FAR 15.306) is appropriate and said exchange is conducted. A rating of "No Confidence" for the past performance factor means that the offeror's proposal is not awardable, is not susceptible to correction, and will not be further evaluated.

Price Proposal Evaluation CriteriaVolume II:

- Price Proposal:Factor IV

Price proposals will be evaluated on the basis of price reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price in the Services Price Worksheet for the ordering period and FAR 52.217-8 option period.

Although Price is considered in a manner that makes it less important than the Non-Price factor, it has the potential to become more significant during the evaluation process. The degree of importance of the price will increase with the degree of equality of the proposals in relation to the other factors on which selection is to be based. The importance of price will also increase when a proposal's price is so significantly high as to diminish the value to the Government that might be gained under the other aspects of the offer. If, at any stage of the evaluation, all offerors are determined to have submitted equal, or virtually equal, or generally equivalent, non-price proposals, price could become the factor in determining which offeror receives the award. The contracting officer may evaluate any and all information submitted by the vendor to support the reasonableness of prices proposed.

The method of evaluation used by the contracting officer is solely within the discretion of the contracting officer.

Options, to include FAR 52.217-8, will be evaluated pursuant to solicitation provision FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

Evaluation of Travel The requirement does include travel pricing. The dollar values provided in the addendum to FAR 52.212-1, under Volume II: Factor IV - Price Proposal, in regards to Travel have been predetermined by the acquiring command, and shall be utilized for evaluation purposes in determining the total price for the contract.

Offerors responding to this solicitation are advised that, prior to award, the government may request Offerors to submit information/data to support price reasonableness such as copies of paid invoices for the same or similar items, sales history for the same or similar items, price list with effective date and/or copies of catalog pages along with any applicable discounts. Failure to submit the requested information may result in disqualification of the submitted proposal.

A written notice of award or acceptance of a proposal e-mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful Offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the proposal shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party.

Rating Tables Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Table 1 These ratings will be used in the evaluation of Phase I, Factor I - Facilities Clearance.

Rating

Description

Acceptable

Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation

Unacceptable

Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation

Combined Technical/Risk Table 2 These ratings will be used in the evaluation of Phase II, Factor II - Technical Approach.

Adjecti val

Outstan ding

Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and /or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acce ptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Margi nal

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unac cept able

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is un-awardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

DEFINITIONS:

Strength - an aspect of an offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Significant Strength - an aspect of an offeror's proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Weakness - a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness - a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency - 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.

Risk - (as it pertains to source selection) 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 sub-factor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Uncertainty - aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake)

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Table 3 These ratings will be used in the evaluation of Phase II, Factor III - Past Performance.

Rating Description

Very Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort this solicitation requires.

Relevant

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

Somewhat Relevant

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

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort this solicitation requires.

Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings Table 4 These ratings will be used in the evaluation of Phase II, Factor III - Past Performance.

Substa n t i a l C o n f i dence

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfa c t o r y C o n f idence

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutra l Confi dence

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.

Limite d Conf

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 Conf

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.

ATTENTION CODE 301, 1968 GILBERT STREET SUITE 600

NORFOLK, VA 23511-3392

UNITED STATES

Kelley Nevelsteen, Email: kelley.j.nevelsteen.civ@us.navy.mil Telephone: 771-229-3520 AdminBy:

SCD: PAS: