W15QKN-20-R-0072 Amendment 0004.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

0004 2020MAY27

W15QKN

ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND - NJ

PICATINNY ARSENAL, NJ 07806-5000

PATRICIA A. KLEIMAN

EMAIL: PATRICIA.A.KLEIMAN.CIV@MAIL.MIL

W15QKN-20-R-0072

2020APR16

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: PATRICIA A. KLEIMAN

Buyer Office Symbol/Telephone Number: CCNJ-ET/(973)724-9591

Type of Contract 1: Firm Fixed Price

Kind of Contract: Supply Contracts and Priced Orders

*** End of Narrative A0000 ***

The purpose for this Amendment to W15QKN-20-R-0072 is to accomplish the following:

1. Provide Government responses to questions received after issuing Amendment 0003. Attachment 0025 has be updated with additional questions and Government responses.

2. Deleted Section M.5.4

All other terms and conditions of this solicitation remain the same and unchanged.

*** END OF NARRATIVE A0009 ***

2 9

W15QKN-20-R-0072

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 this solicitation. The Government will select for award the proposal that is most advantageous and represents the best value to the Government, with the SSA giving the appropriate consideration to the four evaluation Factors: Technical, Past Performance, Price and Small Business Participation. 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. For evaluation purposes, the Technical Factor is more important than the Past Performance Factor, the Past Performance

Factor is more important than the Price Factor, and the Price Factor is more important than the Small Business Participation Factor.

When all evaluation Factors other than Price are combined, they are significantly more important than Price. 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 Unacceptable at any Factor/Subfactor level are ineligible for award.

M-1.2 The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without Discussions (except for clarifications 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. In the event the SSA concludes conducting Discussions is in the best interest of the

Government, the Contracting Officer will establish a competitive range and open Discussions. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. Therefore, the Offerors initial proposal should contain the

Offerors best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

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 possible potential.

M-1.4 The Government reserves the right to incorporate any part of the Offerors proposal into the resultant contract.

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: Past Performance________

Factor 3: Price________

Factor 4: Small Business Participation________

The Technical Factor has three Subfactors which are listed below:

Subfactor 1: Manufacturing Plan___________

Subfactor 2: Quality Assurance and Critical Characteristic Plan___________

Subfactor 3: Management Plan___________

Of the three Technical Subfactors, the Manufacturing Plan is more important than the Quality Assurance and Critical Characteristic

Plan, and the Quality Assurance and Critical Characteristic Plan is more important than the Management Plan.

The Past Performance Factor does not have any Subfactors.

The Price Factor does not have any Subfactors.

The Small Business Participation 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

3 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

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 Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System

(CPARS) or Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS).

M-3. EVALUATION APPROACH:

M-3.1 TECHNICAL EVALUATION APPROACH

M-3.1.1 Careful, full, and impartial consideration will be given to all proposals received pursuant to the solicitation. 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-3.1.2 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL

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

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 requirements 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 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/adjectival ratings. Each Subfactor will be assessed for significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks (see below), 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 Unacceptable at any Factor/Subfactor level are ineligible for award.

The adjectival and color rating has an assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses,and considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Technical Factor risk will be evaluated with the help of the definitions below.

Adjectival Rating: Description

Low: Proposal may contain weaknesses, but they have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate: Proposal may contain a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses that have the potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

4 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

High: Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses that is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring may not be able to overcome difficulties.

Unacceptable: Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increase the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

M-3.1.3 SUBFACTOR 1: Manufacturing Plan ___________________

The Government will evaluate the Offerors detailed Manufacturing Plan (MP) for producing and testing the M19, M21, and M23 Assemblies to meet the requirements defined in the solicitation. The Government will evaluate the Manufacturing Plan for completeness, realism, producibility, and supportability. The Government will evaluate the Offerors description of the essential manufacturing facilities, equipment, processes and skills and assess their ability to satisfy the requirements defined in the solicitation. At a minimum, the

Government will evaluate the Offerors Manufacturing Plan to ensure the following areas are sufficiently addressed:

1. The adequacy of the proposed manufacturing processes and the steps required to manufacture, assemble, inspect, mark, and package all assemblies, subassemblies and parts, including, but not limited to, the shock tube, blasting cap and firing assembly, as required.

2. The adequacy of the Process Map to include, but not be limited to: supply chain ordering and ending with the shipment of finished product, incoming inspection, manufacturing, in-process inspection, testing, packaging, marking, and shipment.

3. Adequacy of a list of all the assemblies, subassemblies, parts, and processes (as defined in the Process Map) including, but not limited to, the shock tube, blasting cap and firing assembly. The list will be evaluated for the complete and adequate identification of which assemblies, subassemblies, parts and processes are manufactured in-house or subcontracted/purchased. The Government will also evaluate the adequacy and completeness of the MPs identification of any proposed subcontractor/vendor, their equipment, tooling, and essential manufacturing and test facilities. The Government will also evaluate the location of the vendors/subcontractors engineering, manufacturing, and test facilities along with their equipment and tooling to assess their capability to meet the requirements as defined in the solicitation.

4. The adequacy of the MP to handle production of the M19, M21 and M23 at the monthly scheduled quantities and the ability to ramp up the production rate to meet delivery of the maximum quantity per item per ordering period, in the event those quantities could be awarded. The Government will evaluate adequacy and completeness of the Offerors description for meeting a temporary increase in production rates (i.e. additional work shift due to unforeseen production issues), while delivering a conforming product.

5. Adequacy of essential manufacturing and test facilities, equipment, tooling, manpower, procedures and skills required to produce the M19, M21, and M23 Assemblies in accordance with the requirements defined in the solicitation. This will include facilities and equipment that are not currently owned or leased by the Offeror and their plans for obtaining the facilities and/or equipment.

6. Adequacy of description of any required personnel training or certifications, which have been, or are scheduled to be, obtained.

These skills include, but are not limited to, x-ray and explosive loading/handling.

7. Adequacy of the contractors Material Obsolescence Program to identify single point failure materials or single supplier issues and actions taken to mitigate risk of material non-availability.

8. Completeness of assumptions made in preparing the MP and adequacy of plan for mitigating risk any identified risks.

M-3.1.4 SUBFACTOR 2: Quality Assurance and Critical Characteristic Plan __________________________________________________

The Government will evaluate the Offerors Quality Assurance and Critical Characteristic Plan to meet the requirements as defined in the solicitation. At a minimum, the Government will evaluate the following areas:

1. The adequacy of the identification and description of each defined Critical Characteristic and associated processes including, but not limited to, the fabrication and/or assembly process(es) involved and the related piece(s) of equipment. The approach to control each Critical Characteristic with any inspection, test, analysis, or risk reduction techniques. The adequacy of the process to control each Critical Characteristic at the subcontract level, including specific procedures and controls.

2. The completeness of the Quality Management System Manual and whether the Offerors Quality Management System is compliant with ISO

9001:2015.

3. The adequacy of the plans/procedures for the manufacture, test, and inspection of the M19, M21, and the M23 Assemblies, its subassemblies, and components as it relates to the quality requirements defined in the solicitation.

4. The adequacy of the proposed inspection and test equipment, its calibration system, and any measuring and/or evaluation standards.

5 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

5. The adequacy of the inspection, test, and evaluation process that will be used to flow down quality requirements to subcontractors and suppliers.

6. The adequacy of the process and tools (i.e. failure investigation or root cause analysis) for identification, segregation, notification, analysis, and disposition of non-conforming material.

7. The adequacy of the process for inspection, prevention, and control of key parameters that could result in loss of performance, test failures, high scrap rate, or reduced reliability (e.g., frequency of inspection, Process Control/Statistical Process Control

(SPC) methods, and inventory management).

M-3.1.5 SUBFACTOR 3: Management Plan _______________

The Government will evaluate the Offerors Management Plan as it relates to the manufacture and production of the M19, M21 and M23

Assemblies and the solicitation requirements. At a minimum, the Government will evaluate the following areas:

1. The adequacy of the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) (including subcontractors and suppliers) to meet the production schedule as defined in the solicitation. The IMS will be evaluated for inclusion and adequacy of the qualification and sequential environmental testing, training requirements, number of shifts, critical paths, and clearly defined milestone dates from contract award to delivery of last lot, etc. The Government will assess the Offerors breakdown of the IMS in substantial detail showing specific piece-parts, sub-assemblies and components required. The Government will evaluate the Offerors identification and plans (including risk mitigation) for parts and assemblies that have lead times in excess of 90 days.

2. The adequacy and benefit of any process /product improvement methodologies such as Six Sigma, Lean Design, cost reduction, reliability improvement and continuous improvement efforts to be applied to this acquisition.

3. The adequacy of the Configuration Management System that would be used for the production of the M19, M21 and the M23 Assemblies;

the Government will assess the adequacy of 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.

4. The completeness of the organizational chart identifying key individuals, their skills and experience and any planned or required training relevant to this acquisition.

M-4 FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

M-4.1 The Offeror and its major/key subcontractors will be evaluated on the quality of their relevant and recent past performance of

Federal Government contracts 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-4.2 For the purpose of evaluating proposals, recent is defined as occurring within the following time standards: 1) occurring within the past three years, or 2) awarded earlier than three years ago, but for which deliveries/performance occurred or were scheduled to occur within the past three 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 critical hardware or whose subcontract is for more than 25% of the total proposed price.

M-4.3 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-4.4 Based on the Offerors previous and current experience and performance on same or similar items (maximum three 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-4.5 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 relevant is defined 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 Ratings

6 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

Rating Definition

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-4.6 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:

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Definition

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

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

Neutral No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror's performance Confidence 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.

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

No Confidence 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.

M-5 FACTOR 3: PRICE

M-5.1 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-5.2 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-5.3 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, including the evaluated per unit rental value for Government property in the Offerors (and any subcontractors) possession adjusted for cost realism and the price evaluation preferences for Historically Underutilized Business Zone

(HUBZone), 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.

7 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

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 percentage 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-5.4 Removed

M-5.5 Unbalanced Pricing. The offerors proposal will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing utilizing cost or price analysis techniques.

The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced. 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. Offers that include unreasonably high unit prices, for example the First Article Test CLINs, may be determined to be unbalanced and rejected in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g).

M-6 FACTOR 4: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

M-6.1 The Small Business Participation Factor will receive a color/adjectival rating. The Government will evaluate the extent of first-tier small business participation (in terms of the Offerors proposed Total Contract Price) which the Offeror credibly proposes to subcontract to U.S. small business (SB) concerns (including Small Business (SB), Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDB), Women-Owned

Small Businesses (WOSB), Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone SB), Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (VOSB), and Service

Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB) in the performance of the contract. For the purpose of this evaluation, the extent of

Offeror (or joint venture partner/teaming arrangement) participation in proposed contract performance, where the Offeror is a U.S.

small business concern, for North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 325920, Explosives (Caps, blasting and detonating) Manufacturing, with a Small Business size standard of 750 employees, will also be considered small business participation.

M-6.2 The evaluation will consist of the following:

a. The extent to which the proposal identifies challenging goals for participation by U.S. small business concerns and the adequacy of the rationale that support those goals (to include, as described above, the participation of the Offeror if it is a U.S. small business concern). The extent of participation of such concerns will be evaluated in terms of the percentage of the Offerors proposed

Total Contract Price.

b. An assessment of the realism, which includes strengths and weaknesses, that the Offeror will achieve the levels of small business participation identified in the proposal. This assessment will be based on an assessment of the Offerors proposed small business participation approach and the probability that the Offeror will satisfy commitments and requirements, on the resulting contract, based upon the extent of satisfaction of FAR 52.219-8 and/or FAR 52.219-9 (as applicable) commitments on prior contracts.

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

M-7 DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIBILITY:

M-7.1 As an element of determining the responsibility of Offerors who are large businesses, the PCO will evaluate the adequacy of the

Offerors Small Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR 19.705.

M-7.2 For small businesses, a Certificate of Competency may be required by the Contracting Officer in accordance with FAR 19.6.

8 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

M-7.3 A Pre-award Survey may be required by the Contracting Officer in accordance with FAR 9.106.

M-7.4 For actions over $10M, a Pre-award Clearance by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) will be required in accordance with FAR 22.805(a).

*** END OF NARRATIVE M0001 ***

9 9