W15QKN16R0049-0001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. Contract ID Code Page Of

2. Amendment/Modification No.

3. Effective Date

4. Requisition/Purchase Req No.

5. Project No. (If applicable)

6. Issued By Code 7. Administered By (If other than Item 6) Code

8. Name And Address Of Contractor (No., Street, City, County, State and Zip Code)

9A. Amendment Of Solicitation No.

9B. Dated (See Item 11)

10A. Modification Of Contract/Order No.

10B. Dated (See Item 13) Code Facility Code

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 amendments: (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram 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 telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter 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 ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS

It Modifies The Contract/Order No. As Described In Item 14.

A. This Change Order is Issued Pursuant To: The Changes Set Forth In Item 14 Are Made In

The Contract/Order No. 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 15C. Date Signed 16B. United States Of America 16C. Date Signed

By (Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

PREVIOUS EDITIONS UNUSABLE

30-105-02 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

SEE SCHEDULE

X

Firm Fixed Price

0001 2016JUN15

W15QKN

ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND - NJ

PICATINNY ARSENAL, NJ 07806-5000

GLORIA THOGULUVA

EMAIL: GLORIA.THOGULUVA.CIV@MAIL.MIL

W15QKN-16-R-0049

2016JUN13

X

X

/SIGNED/

2 signed

SEE SECOND PAGE FOR DESCRIPTION

1 9

CONTINUATION SHEET

Reference No. of Document Being Continued Page of

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION A - SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Buyer Name: GLORIA THOGULUVA

Buyer Office Symbol/Telephone Number: ACC-NJ-SW/(973)724-5366

Type of Contract 1: Firm Fixed Price

Kind of Contract: Supply Contracts and Priced Orders

*** End of Narrative A0000 ***

Amendment 0001 is being issued to clarify the response date and add a ratings table for one of the Technical Subfactors as follows:______________

1. Clarification: The response date for this Solicitation is on or before 3:00 pm on July 14, 2016.

2. Addition: Section M, subsection M.3.2.1 SUBFACTOR 1: Bid Sample has been revised to add the ratings table for Major Deviations, which was previously omitted.

3. All other terms and conditions remain the same and in effect.

*** END OF NARRATIVE A0002 ***

2 9

W15QKN-16-R-0049 0001

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 BASIS FOR AWARD

M.1.1 The Government intends to make a single award as a result of the RFP. The Government will select for award the proposal that is most advantageous and represent the best value to the Government, with the Source Selection Authority (SSA) giving the appropriate consideration to the four (4) evaluation Factors: Technical, Delivery Schedule, Price and Past Performance. The Government will weigh the relative benefits of each proposal and award will be made based on an integrated assessment of the results of the evaluation.

In making this assessment, the SSA will give due consideration to all of the Factors and Subfactors and their relative order of importance.

Relative Order of Importance of the Factors and Subfactors:

For evaluation purposes, the Technical Factor is significantly more important than the Price Factor, the Price Factor is more important than Delivery Schedule Factor and the Delivery Schedule Factor is more important than the Past Performance Factor. Price will be evaluated, but will not be rated with a color or adjectival rating.

The Government reserves the right to make an award to other than the lowest priced Offeror, or to other than the Offeror with the highest technical rating if the SSA determines that to do so would result in the best value to the Government. Offerors that receive a final rating of Red/Unacceptable at any Factor/Subfactor level are ineligible for award.

M.1.2 The Government intends to award a contract without discussions (except for clarification as described in FAR 15.306(a)), as permitted by FAR 15.306(a)(3) and FAR 52.215-1. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions to permit Offerors to revise their proposals.

M.1.3 Minimum Acceptability: If an Offeror takes exception to any of the terms and conditions of the solicitation, the offer may not be considered for contract award. All Offerors are urged to ensure that their initial proposals are submitted with the most favorable terms in order to reflect their best potential.

M.2 FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS TO BE EVALUATED:

M.2.1 The Government will weigh the relative benefits of each proposal and the SSA will assess the results of the following Factors, listed below in descending order of importance:

Factor 1: Technical

Factor 2: Price

Factor 3: Delivery Schedule

Factor 4: Past Performance

M.2.1.1 The Technical Factor has three Subfactors which are listed below:

Subfactor 1: Bid Sample

Subfactor 2: Manufacturing Plan

Subfactor 3: Management Plan

Of the three (3) Technical Subfactors, the Bid Sample is more important that the Manufacturing Plan and the Management Plan when combined. The Manufacturing Plan and the Management Plan are of equal importance.

M.2.1.2 The Price Factor does not have any Subfactors.

M.2.1.3 The Delivery Schedule Factor does not have any Subfactors.

M.2.1.4 The Past Performance Factor does not have any Subfactors.

M.2.2 The evaluators will use the following terms in support of the rating of all non-cost/price evaluation Factors except Past

Performance. The Adverse Past Performance term is to be used under the Past Performance Factor only:

a. 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.

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

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

d. Strength - An aspect of an Offerors proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

3 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

e. Significant Strength - An aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

f. Uncertainty - Any aspect of a non-cost/price Factor proposal for which the intent of the Offeror 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).

g. Adverse Past Performance Past Performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as PPIRS or FAPIIS.

M.3 EVALUATION APPROACH:

M.3.1 TECHNICAL EVALUATION APPROACH

Careful, full, and impartial consideration will be given to all proposals received pursuant to the RFP. A team of Government personnel will evaluate each proposal relative to the Factors and Subfactors. The result will be a determination of the overall merits of each proposal in terms of its potential to best satisfy the needs of the Government. In making the integrated assessment of the results of the evaluation of all Factors, the Government will give due consideration to the relative order of importance of such Factors and their merit ratings in relationship to price. The Government weighs any increase in merit rating against any additional cost to determine if the parity of the relationship warrants the paying of additional cost for additional merit.

M.3.2 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL

The Technical Factor and Subfactors will receive a color/adjectival rating in accordance with the chart below. Evaluation will consider the following:

| Color | Rating | Description |

| Blue | Outstanding | Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains |

| | | multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low. |

| Purple | Good | Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least |

| | | one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate. |

| Green | Acceptable | Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the require- |

| | | ments, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate. |

| Yellow | Marginal | Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or |

| | | risk of unsuccessful performance is high. |

| Red | Unacceptable | Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more |

| | | deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable. |

Within the Technical Factor, each Subfactor will be rated separately using the color code/adjectival ratings. Each Subfactor will be assessed for significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks, and uncertainties. Each

Subfactor will be assigned an adjectival rating based upon these collective findings. The compilation of these Subfactor adjectival ratings will form the basis of the Factor rating.

Offerors that receive a final rating of Red/Unacceptable at any Factor/Subfactor level are ineligible for award.

M.3.2.1 SUBFACTOR 1: Bid Sample

The following evaluation process will be applied to the technical testing of the bid samples, which will be conducted at Picatinny

Arsenal, NJ. If at any point during the evaluation the Government identifies a significant safety issue, the Government reserves the right to discontinue testing and eliminate the candidate from consideration for award. The Offeror shall provide two (2) bid samples, each consisting of the four (4) mandrels of the boresight kit listed in section 2.2.1 of the Statement of Work. The first bid sample shall include the set of four (4) mandrels before the wide slots are cut so the diameters in note 7 of the drawings can be measured. The second bid sample shall include the set of four (4) mandrels after the wide slots are cut and represent the finished product.

The bid samples will be evaluated by performing a 100% dimension check in accordance to the drawings. A deviation is defined as a discrepancy between the bid sample and the corresponding representation in the drawings.

The final bid sample evaluation will be based on the total combined evaluations of the two (2) bid samples submitted, each consisting of

4 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

the four (4) mandrels of the boresight kit listed in section 2.2.1 of the Statement of Work as described in the above paragraph. The amount and type of deviations will dictate the rating received. A major deviation is one that has the potential to affect the overall system accuracy. A minor deviation is a deviation from the TDP that will not affect the overall system accuracy.

The final rating will be derived from the below table using the total number of major and minor deviations found in the two (2) bid____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ samples submitted, each consisting of the four (4) mandrels of the boresight kit listed in section 2.2.1 of the Statement of Work. If_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ the number of deviations falls outside of the bound of the table the final rating will be unsatisfactory._________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ratings:________

O: Outstanding______________

G: Good_______

A: Acceptable_____________

M: Marginal___________

U: Unacceptable_______________

| Major Deviations |

| O | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |

| | 0 | O | O | 0 | O | G | G | G | G | A | A | A | A | M | U |

| | 1 | O | O | 0 | O | G | G | G | A | A | A | A | M | M | U |

| | 2 | O | O | O | O | G | G | G | A | A | A | A | M | M | U |

| | 3 | O | O | O | O | G | G | G | A | A | A | A | M | M | U |

| | 4 | O | O | O | G | G | G | A | A | A | A | M | M | M | U |

| | 5 | O | O | O | G | G | G | A | A | A | A | M | M | M | U |

| | 6 | O | O | O | G | G | G | A | A | A | A | M | M | M | U |

| M |-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|

| | 7 | O | O | G | G | G | A | A | A | A | M | M | M | M | U |

| I |-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|

| | 8 | O | O | G | G | G | A | A | A | A | M | M | M | M | U |

| N |-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|

| | 9 | O | O | G | G | G | A | A | A | A | M | M | M | M | U |

| O | 10 | O | G | G | G | A | A | A | A | M | M | M | M | M | U |

| | 11 | O | G | G | G | A | A | A | A | M | M | M | M | M | U |

| R |-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|

| | 12 | O | G | G | G | A | A | A | A | M | M | M | M | M | U |

| | 13 | G | G | G | A | A | A | A | M | M | M | M | M | U | U |

| | 14 | G | G | G | A | A | A | A | M | M | M | M | M | U | U |

| D |-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|

| | 15 | G | G | G | A | A | A | A | M | M | M | M | M | U | U |

| E |-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|

| | 16 | G | G | G | A | A | A | M | M | M | M | M | U | U | U |

| V |-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|

| | 17 | G | G | A | A | A | A | M | M | M | M | M | U | U | U |

| I |-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|

| | 18 | G | G | A | A | A | A | M | M | M | M | M | U | U | U |

| A |-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|

| | 19 | G | G | A | A | A | M | M | M | M | M | U | U | U | U |

| T |-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|

| | 20 | G | G | A | A | A | M | M | M | M | M | U | U | U | U |

| I |-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|

| | 21 | G | A | A | A | A | M | M | M | M | M | U | U | U | U |

| O |-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|

| | 22 | G | A | A | A | M | M | M | M | M | U | U | U | U | U |

5 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

| N |-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|

| | 23 | G | A | A | A | M | M | M | M | M | U | U | U | U | U |

| S |-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|

| | 24 | G | A | A | A | M | M | M | M | M | U | U | U | U | U |

| | 25 | A | A | A | M | M | M | M | M | U | U | U | U | U | U |

| | 26 | A | A | A | M | M | M | M | M | U | U | U | U | U | U |

| | 27 | A | A | A | M | M | M | M | M | U | U | U | U | U | U |

| | 28 | A | A | M | M | M | M | M | U | U | U | U | U | U | U |

| | 29 | A | A | M | M | M | M | M | U | U | U | U | U | U | U |

| | 30 | A | A | M | M | M | M | M | U | U | U | U | U | U | U |

| | 31 | A | M | M | M | M | M | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | U |

| | 32 | A | M | M | M | M | M | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | U |

| | 33 | A | M | M | M | M | M | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | U |

| | 34 | M | M | M | M | M | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | U |

| | 35 | M | M | M | M | M | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | U |

| | 36 | M | M | M | M | M | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | U |

| | 37 | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | U |

M.3.2.2 SUBFACTOR 2: Manufacturing Plan

The Government will evaluate the Offerors detailed Manufacturing Plan for producing and testing of the CROWS Boresight Kit to meet the requirements of the solicitation. The Government will assess the Offerors description for manufacturing the complete kit, including the four (4) mandrels. The Government will evaluate the description of the essential manufacturing facilities and equipment. The

Government will evaluate the Offerors Manufacturing Plan for realism and supportability. The Government will evaluate the following areas:

a. The adequacy and completeness of the flow diagram of the proposed assembly line, including test, inspection, and build.

b. The capability of the manufacturing and test facilities, equipment and tooling to meet the Government requirements and schedule.

This will include facilities and equipment that are not currently owned or leased by the Offeror and their plans for obtaining the facilities and equipment.

c. The proposed sub-contractors and their involvement in the manufacture of the CROWS Boresight kit.

M.3.2.3 SUBFACTOR 3: Management Plan

The Government will evaluate the Offerors Management Plan and the details on how the manufacturing of the CROWS Boresight Kit will meet solicitation requirements. The Government will evaluate the following areas:

a. The adequacy and completeness of the Integrated Master Schedule showing the schedule of events, inclusive of qualification and sequential environmental testing by statement of work tasks and significant milestones. The Government will assess the Offerors breakdown of the kit in substantial detail showing specific piece-parts, sub-assemblies and components required.

b. The adequacy and benefit of any Six Sigma, Lean Design, cost reduction, reliability improvement and continuous quality improvement efforts to be applied to this acquisition.

c. The adequacy of the Configuration Management System that would be used for the CROWS Boresight kit. The Government will assess the

Offerors description of how engineering changes, deviations and waivers to drawings and specifications are processed, reviewed, and acted upon. The Government will evaluate the Offerors Configuration Management Organization and the description of how configuration changes are accomplished and controlled at the subcontractor level.

6 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

d. The completeness of the organizational chart identifying key individuals and their skills and experience relevant to this acquisition.

M.3.3 FACTOR 2: PRICE

M.3.3.1 Prices proposed in Section B of the solicitation will be utilized to compute a total evaluated price. A price reasonableness determination will be made on the total evaluated price which will be used in the performance of a tradeoff analysis. If the Government determines that adequate price competition was not obtained and/or if the total evaluated price cannot be deemed fair and reasonable, the Government reserves the right to request cost or pricing data and to evaluate such data utilizing the proposal analysis techniques delineated in the FAR 15.404-1 as deemed appropriate.

M.3.3.2 If an Offeror proposes the use of Government property in its possession, the total evaluated price will be adjusted to include a rental equivalent factor for each item of such property calculated in accordance with FAR 52.245-9. This adjustment will apply for the use of Government property by the Offeror as well as any subcontractor thereto. The value of the proposed Government property will be evaluated for cost realism.

M.3.3.3 The total evaluated price will be computed by summing the weighted evaluated prices computed from the unit prices proposed in

Section B of the solicitation, and the value of Government property in the Offerors (and any subcontractors) possession adjusted for cost realism, when applicable.

The weighted evaluated prices will be calculated as follows:

a. Items with a Single Numeric Quantity: The evaluated quantity for items with a single numeric quantity will be the stated quantity.

The evaluated quantity will be multiplied by the proposed unit price to derive the evaluated amount. The evaluated amount will be multiplied by the weighted percent in order to derive the weighted evaluated price. The weighted evaluated price will be rounded to the nearest hundredth (two decimal places).

b. Items with Multiple Quantity Ranges: A weighted evaluated price will be calculated for each quantity range. The evaluated quantity for each quantity range will be the maximum quantity in the respective quantity range. The evaluated quantity in each range will be multiplied by the proposed unit price for that quantity range to derive the evaluated amount for each quantity range. The evaluated amount for each quantity range will be multiplied by the assigned weighted percentage to derive the weighted evaluated price for each quantity range. The weighted evaluated price will be rounded to the nearest hundredth (two decimal places).

M.3.3.4 Unbalanced Pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. In accordance with FAR

15.404-1(g), a proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the

Government.

M.3.4 FACTOR 3: DELIVERY SCHEDULE EVALUATION

M.3.4.1 The Government will evaluate the offerors capability to meet the delivery schedule requirements in the solicitation. The minimum required monthly production rate is 30 kits after FAT acceptance.

Offerors will be required to propose and will be evaluated on the following: (a) amount of time required to submit First Article Test

(FAT) samples after issuance of contract; (b) monthly production rate for the minimum ordering obligation of 35 boresight kits beginning after FAT acceptance; and (c) monthly production rate for the maximum quantity of 8,000 boresight kits beginning after FAT acceptance

The Delivery Schedule Factor will receive a color/adjectival rating in accordance with the chart below. Evaluation will consider the following:

| Color | Rating | Description |

| Blue | Outstanding | Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains |

| | | multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low. |

| Purple | Good | Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least |

| | | one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate. |

| Green | Acceptable | Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the require- |

| | | ments, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate. |

| Yellow | Marginal | Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or |

| | | risk of unsuccessful performance is high. |

7 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

| Red | Unacceptable | Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more |

| | | deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable. |

Offerors that receive a final rating of Red/Unacceptable at any Factor/Subfactor level are ineligible for award.

M.3.5 FACTOR 4: PAST PERFORMANCE

M.3.5.1 The Offeror and its major/key subcontractors will be evaluated on the quality of their relevant and recent past performance, as it relates to the probability of success on this contract. Both independent data and data provided by Offerors in their proposals may be used to evaluate the Offerors past performance. A single confidence rating will be established.

M.3.5.2 For the purpose of evaluating proposals, recent is defined as occurring within the following time standards: 1) occurring within the past three (3) years, or 2) awarded earlier than three (3) years ago, but for which deliveries/performance occurred or were scheduled to occur within the past three (3) years. However, the Government may evaluate any performance in the period subsequent from the closing date, but prior to the date of award. Relevant is defined as contracts demonstrating technical/management capabilities the same as or similar to those required to perform on this item. Major/key subcontractors are defined as those that will be providing any of the mandrels or whose subcontract is for more than 25% of the total proposed price.

M.3.5.3 This evaluation will encompass all aspects of schedule, performance and supportability, including the Offerors detailed record of: 1) compliance of products, services, documents, and related deliverables to specification requirements and standards of good workmanship; 2) commitment to customer satisfaction and business-like concern for customers interest, and 3) timeliness of performance for services and product deliverables, including the administrative aspects of performance.

M.3.5.4 Based on the Offerors previous and current experience and performance on same or similar items (maximum three (3) years), including the frequency of cost growths and schedule delays, the Government will assess those risks associated with the Offerors past performance. The Government will focus its inquiry of the Offerors record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, and quality of product, timeliness of performance, business practices, and customer significant achievement.

Offerors are cautioned that the Government may use data obtained from other sources.

M.3.5.5 Performance Relevancy Assessment. The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the Offerors past performance to determine if work performed in the past is "relevant" as defined in M.3.5.2 above. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant, and what is not relevant. In conducting the performance relevancy assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings identified below:

| Past Performance Relevancy Rating |

| Rating | Description |

| Relevant | Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this |

| | solicitation requires. |

| Not Relevant | Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and |

| | complexities this solicitation requires. |

M.3.5.6 Performance Confidence Assessment. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the Offeror performed under the contract scope. The past performance evaluation gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. In conducting the performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings identified below:

| Past Performance Confidence Rating |

| Rating | Description |

| Substantial | Based on the offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the |

| Confidence | Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. |

| Satisfactory | Based on the Offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that |

| Confidence | the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. |

| Neutral | No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offerors performance record is so sparse that no |

8 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

| Confidence | meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated |

| | favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance |

| Limited | Based on the offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the |

| Confidence | offeror will successfully perform the required effort. |

| No Confidence | Based on the offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the |

| | offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort. |

NOTE TO OFFEROR: An Offeror will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably for having Neutral past performance.

M.3.6 DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIBILITY:

M.3.6.1 For small businesses, a Certificate of Competency may be required by the Contracting Officer in accordance with FAR 19.6.

M.3.6.2 A Preaward Survey may be required by the Contracting Officer in accordance with FAR 9.106.

*** END OF NARRATIVE M0001 ***

9 9