W56HZV15R0156-0005.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

Cost Plus Incentive Fee (Cost Based)

0005 2017JUL27

W56HZV

U.S. ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND

WARREN, MICHIGAN 48397-5000

CARRIE ENGLISH

EMAIL: CARRIE.L.ENGLISH.CIV@MAIL.MIL

W56HZV-15-R-0156

2017MAY16

X

X

/SIGNED/

2 signed

SEE SECOND PAGE FOR DESCRIPTION

1 10

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: CARRIE ENGLISH

Buyer Office Symbol/Telephone Number: CCTA-HCP-D/(586)282-7404

Type of Contract 1: Cost Plus Incentive Fee (Cost Based)

Type of Contract 2: Cost Plus Fixed Fee

Kind of Contract: Research and Development Contracts

*** End of Narrative A0000 ***

The purpose of amendment 0005 to solicitation W56HZV15R0156 is as follows:

1. Section M.3.5.2.5 Declining to Propose Data and Computer Software Rights is revised as follows:

FROM: An Offeror declining to propose an option for the Government to acquire rights in technical data and computer software greater than the rights to which the Government is already entitled, i.e., declining to provide an option to give the Government rights to support competition, will not receive a TDP and Computer Software adjustment. In accordance with 10 USC 2320 and DFARS 227.7103-1

Offerors are not required, either as a condition of being responsive to a solicitation or as a condition for award, to sell or otherwise relinquish to the Government any rights in technical data and computer software related to items, components or processes developed exclusively at private expense, except for the data identified at DFARS 227.7103-5(a). An Offeror proposing to provide a Government ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Format TDP and computer software deliverables with only Default Rights (the minimal level of rights required by DFARS) will still be_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ considered responsive.______________________

TO: An Offeror declining to propose an option for the Government to acquire rights in technical data and computer software greater than the rights to which the Government is already entitled, i.e., declining to provide an option to give the Government rights to support competition, will not receive a TDP and Computer Software adjustment. In accordance with 10 USC 2320 and DFARS 227.7103-1 Offerors are not required, either as a condition of being responsive to a solicitation or as a condition for award, to sell or otherwise relinquish to the Government any rights in technical data and computer software related to items, components or processes developed exclusively at private expense. An Offeror that does not propose to sell or otherwise relinquish any rights in technical data and computer software ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ related to items, components or process developed exclusively at private expenses will still be considered responsive._______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2. Attachment 0001 - Performance Specification contains changes to the following P-Specs:

P-spec-540

P-spec-595

P-spec-653

P-spec-665

P-spec-2867

P-spec-2868

P-spec-2869

P-spec-3176

P-spec-3272

3. Attachment 0004 RCIS Control Vehicle ICD (MPCV)revised System Support Package information and reliability data.

4. Attachment 0033 TDP and Software Rights revised PART 1B as follows:

FROM: Contractor Format TDP and Computer Software with Default Rights ______________

TO: Contractor Format TDP and Computer Software with the level of data rights guaranteed to the Government by law ____________________________________________________________

5. Attachment 0033 TDP and Software Rights revises Part 2, Row 5 as follows:

FROM: If proposed, greater rights than those asserted for Contractor Format TDP and Computer Software with Default Rights (Part 1B) and _______________ asserted in Attachment 0061 Identification and Assertion of Restrictions

TO: If proposed, greater rights than those asserted for Contractor Format TDP and Computer Software with the level of data rights _________________________ guaranteed to the Government by law(Part 1B) and asserted in Attachment 0061 Identification and Assertion of Restrictions___________________________________

2 10

W56HZV-15-R-0156 0005

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

6. Attachment 0061 Identification and Assertion of Restrictions is revised as follows:

FROM: Contractor Format TDP and Computer Software with Default Rights _______________

TO: Contractor Format TDP and Computer Software with the level of data rights guaranteed to the Government by law ____________________________________________________________

7. All other terms and conditions of Solicitation W56HZV1R0156 remain unchanged.

*** END OF NARRATIVE A0006 ***

3 10

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION J - LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

List of Number List of Number

Addenda Title Date of Pages Transmitted By Addenda Title Date of Pages Transmitted By________________ ____________________________________________________________ _______________ ____________ _______________________________ ____________________________________________________________ _______________ ____________ _______________

Attachment 0001 RCIS PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION 20-JUL-2017 125 DATA

Attachment 0004 RCIS CONTROL VEHIVLE ICD (MPCV) 19-JUL-2017 019 DATA

Attachment 0033 TDP AND SOFTWARE RIGHTS 26-JUL-2017 003 DATA

Attachment 0061 IDENTIFICATION AND ASSERTION OF RESTRICTIONS 26-JUL-2017 005 DATA

4 10

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 Basis of Award

M.1.1 It is the Government's intent to award one contract for the combined RCIS Type I Engineering Manufacturing Design (EMD), Low Rate

Initial Production (LRIP) Options, Full Rate Production (FRP) Options, Technical Data Package (TDP) Option, Total Package Fielding

Option (TPF) Options, and Interim Contractor Support (ICS) Options. The Government will select for award the proposal which represents the best value to the Government as described below.

There are four Evaluation Factors:

Factor 1: Design

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Cost/Price

Factor 4: Small Business Participation

The relative order of importance of these Factors, and Sub-Factors where applicable, are described in section M.3.2.1.1 below.

M.1.1.2 Selection of the proposal which is most advantageous and represents the best value to the Government will be determined on a

Source Selection trade-off basis from Offeror proposals which are otherwise eligible for award.

M.1.1.3 To be eligible for award, Offeror proposals shall:

(a) Establish that the Offeror possesses a Secret Facility Clearance as verified through the Defense Security Service (see Section

M.1.3);

(b) Be determined responsible (see Section M.3.1.4);

(c) Include no Deficiencies (per FAR Part 15.001)

M.1.1.3.1 Proposals which are eligible for award in accordance with Section M.1.1.3 will be subject to the Source Selection Trade-off process, considering both the evaluation factors and their relative order of importance as cited in Section M.3, to identify the proposal which represents the best value and is most advantageous to the Government. The Government will weigh the evaluated proposals

(other than the Cost/Price Factor) against the total evaluated cost/price to the Government. As part of the best value determination, the relative strengths, weaknesses, and risks of each proposal shall be considered in selecting the offer that is most advantageous and represents the best overall value to the Government. The Government may choose not to award a contract where it concludes that no proposal exists with a reasonable probability of achieving program requirements complying with contract terms and conditions.

M.1.2 Importance of Cost/Price

Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal (1) is otherwise eligible for award under M.1.1.3, and (2) represents the best value to the Government. This may not be the Offeror with the lowest evaluated cost/price. However, the closer Offerors evaluations are to each other in those Factors other than the Cost/Price Factor, the more important cost/price becomes in the decision. Notwithstanding the relative order of importance of the four evaluation Factors stated herein, cost/price may be controlling when:

(a) proposals are otherwise considered approximately equal in non-cost/price factors; or

(b) an otherwise superior proposal is unaffordable; or

(c) the advantages of a higher rated, higher cost/price proposal are not considered to be worth the cost/price premium

M.1.3 Export Controlled Information

This solicitation contains Export Controlled information in Controlled Unclassified Attachments and within the Classified Annexes to this solicitation. It is the responsibility of the Offeror, not the Government, to obtain the necessary export licenses to share any such information with subcontractors or to obtain access to the files themselves. The failure or inability of an Offeror to obtain the appropriate license or agreement will not be considered as a mitigating factor in the evaluation process.

M.2 Rejection of Offers

The Government may reject any proposal if in the Governments best interest. Examples include, but are not limited to, the following proposal conditions:

(a) Merely offers to perform work according to the solicitation terms or fails to present more than a statement indicating its capability to comply with the solicitation terms without support and elaboration as specified in Section L of this solicitation; or

(b) Is unbalanced as to price. An unbalanced offer is one which is based on pricing significantly higher or lower for one given period versus another period or the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated. There shall be a direct relationship between the effort expended and its price for each CLIN and incrementally funded period; or

(c) Fails to meaningfully respond to the proposal preparation instructions that are specified in Section L of this solicitation; or

(d) Is unaffordable for either EMD or any Option

(e) Proposes exceptions to the attachments, exhibits, enclosures, or other solicitation terms and conditions;

(f) If the proposal is received late; or

(g) The proposals acceptance period does not meet the Governments required minimum acceptance period (refer to Section L.3.5.11).

5 10

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

M.3 Evaluation and Source Selection Process

M.3.1 Evaluation Process

Selection of the successful Offeror shall be made following an assessment of each proposal, based on the response to the information called for in Section L of this solicitation and against the solicitation requirements and the evaluation criteria described in Section

M. Proposals will be evaluated as specified herein, to include narrative support for the evaluation conclusions under each Factor and

Sub-factor. The Government reserves the right to reject offers in accordance with solicitation provision Rejection of Offers above.

M.3.1.1 Source Selection Authority

The Source Selection Authority (SSA) is the official designated to direct the source selection process and select the Offeror for contract award. A Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) will provide a written comparative analysis of the proposals and an award recommendation for the SSA prior to the selection decision.

M.3.1.2 Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB)

An SSEB has been established by the Government to evaluate proposals in response to this solicitation. The SSEB is comprised of technically qualified individuals who have been selected to conduct an evaluation in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed for this solicitation. Careful, full and impartial consideration will be given to all proposals received pursuant to this solicitation. All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by a team of Government personnel.

M.3.1.3 Award with Discussions

This solicitation includes FAR Provision 52.215-1 Instructions to Offerors Competitive Acquisition (ALT I) in Section L, which advises the Government intends to conduct discussions with Offerors in the Competitive Range. Discussions will be conducted in accordance with

FAR Part 15.306. Since written and oral discussions are limited prior to any competitive range determination (FAR Part 15.306 (c)), it is vitally important that Offerors initial proposals are complete and comprehensive.

M.3.1.4 Determination of Responsibility

Per FAR Part 9.103, a contract will be placed only with the Offeror that the Contracting Officer determines to be responsible. That is, the Offeror who satisfactorily demonstrates the capability to perform the necessary tasks and delivery of the required items on time.

Prospective Offeror(s), in order to qualify as sources for this acquisition, shall be able to demonstrate that they meet standards of responsibility set forth in FAR Part 9.104. The prospective offeror must be able to demonstrate that they have a Facility Clearance in order to be determined responsible. In addition, the Government may assess the Offeror's financial and management capabilities to meet the solicitation requirements. The Government reserves the right to conduct a Pre-Award Survey on any or all Offeror(s) or their subcontractors to aid the Contracting Officer in the evaluation of each Offeror's proposal and ensure that a selected Offeror is responsible. Additional requirements of responsibility for this contract are the necessary Defense Security Service (DSS) Facility

Clearance. No award can be made to an Offeror who has been determined to be not responsible by the Contracting Officer. To make sure that you meet the responsibility criteria at FAR Part 9.104, the Government shall:

(a) arrange a visit to your plant and perform a necessary Pre-Award Survey, or

(b) request an Offeror provide financial, technical, production, or managerial background information. If the requested information is not submitted within seven calendar days from the date of the receipt of the request, or if an Offeror refuses the Government access to its facility, the Government may determine the Offeror non-responsible. If the Government visits the Offeror's facility, please ensure that current data relevant to the proposal is available for Government personnel to review.

M.3.2 Evaluation Criteria

M.3.2.1 There are four Evaluation Factors:

Factor 1: Design

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Cost/Price

Factor 4: Small Business Participation

M.3.2.1.1 Relative Order of Importance of Factors.

The Design Factor is more important than Cost/Price or Past Performance. Cost/Price and Past Performance are equal in importance to each other. Cost/Price and Past performance are, on an individual basis, significantly more important than Small Business Participation.

The non-Cost/Price Factors, when combined, are significantly more important than the Cost/Price Factor.

M.3.2.1.2 Evaluation of the Design Factor: Government test data which supports the offered design configurations ability to meet requirements, and up to the objective (where applicable) performance levels, represents the most credible form of substantiating information. Therefore, any substantiating information for a design configuration which meaningfully varies from the offered design configuration may be considered less credible. The extent to which the offered design configuration meaningfully varies from the tested configuration, or testing conducted under Operating Environments different than those required by the Performance Specification, may be considered by the Government in assessing the relevance of the test data as substantiating information. Substantiating information other than Government test data may be considered less credible.

6 10

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

M.3.2.1.3 The extent to which the offered configuration varies from the tested configuration will be considered in the risk evaluation.

Proposed corrective actions or design changes which are either untested or partially tested may increase risk.

M.3.3 Evaluation of Factor 1: Design

The Design Factor contains four Sub-factors: (1) Control of Interrogation Functions, (2) Communications, (3) Teleoperation Control of

Automotive Functions, and (4) Semi-Autonomous Control of Automotive Functions. Sub-Factor (1) Control of Interrogation Functions is slightly more important than Sub-factor (2) Communications, which is slightly more important than Sub-factor (3) Teleoperation Control of Automotive Functions, which is slightly more important than Sub-factor (4) Semi-Autonomous Control of Automotive Functions.

a. Test Data: Government test data which supports the offered design configurations ability to meet the requirement. Therefore, any substantiating information for a design configuration which meaningfully varies from the offered design configuration may be considered less credible. The extent to which the offered design configuration meaningfully varies from the tested configuration, or testing conducted under Operating Environments different than those required by the Performance Specification, may be considered by the

Government in assessing the relevance of the test data as substantiating information. Substantiating information other than Government test data may be considered less credible.

b. The extent to which the offered configuration varies from the tested configuration will be considered in the risk evaluation.

Proposed corrective actions or design changes which are either untested or partially tested may increase risk.

M.3.3.1 Sub-factor 1: Control of Interrogation Functions

The Offeror's information submitted in response to L.3.1.1 will be evaluated to assess the risks that the Offeror's proposed approach for the Control of Interrogation Functions will meet the threshold requirements identified in Section L.3.1.1. No extra credit will be given for exceeding the threshold performance levels, except to the extent that performance beyond the threshold level reduces the risk of achieving the threshold performance level.

M.3.3.2 Sub-factor 2: Communications

The Offeror's information submitted in response to L.3.1.2 will be evaluated to assess the risks that the Offeror's proposed approach for Communications will meet the threshold requirements identified in Section L.3.1.2. No extra credit will be given for exceeding the threshold performance levels, except to the extent that performance beyond the threshold level reduces the risk of achieving the threshold performance level.

M.3.3.3 Sub-factor 3: Teleoperation Control of Automotive Functions

The Offeror's information submitted in response to L.3.1.3 will be evaluated to assess the risks that the Offeror's proposed approach for the Teleoperation Control of Automotive Functions will meet the threshold requirements identified in Section L.3.1.3. No extra credit will be given for exceeding the threshold performance levels, except to the extent that performance beyond the threshold level reduces the risk of achieving the threshold performance level.

M.3.3.4 Sub-factor 4: Semi-Autonomous Control of Automotive Functions

The Offeror's information submitted in response to L.3.1.4 will be evaluated to assess the risks that the Offeror's proposed approach for the Semi-Autonomous Control of Automotive Functions will meet the threshold requirements identified in Section L.3.1.4. No extra credit will be given for exceeding the threshold performance levels, except to the extent that performance beyond the threshold level reduces the risk of achieving the threshold performance level.

M.3.4 Evaluation of Factor 2: Past Performance

M.3.4.1 The Past Performance Factor evaluation will assess the expectation that the Offeror will successfully meet the RCIS Type I contract requirements based on the Offerors record of past performance on recent and relevant contract performance to the considerations listed in L.3.2.2. This assessment will result in the application of a Confidence Rating which will be based upon the extent to which recent prior past performance is relevant to the requirements listed in L.3.2.2.

M.3.4.2 Unknown Risk: Offerors without a record of relevant Past Performance, upon which to base a meaningful performance risk prediction, will be rated as "Neutral Confidence", which is neither favorable nor unfavorable.

M.3.4.3 Past Performance Information: The Government does not assume the duty to search for data to cure problems it finds in proposals. The burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information remains with the Offeror. Additionally, the

Offeror may also be evaluated based on other internal Government or private source information. In this regard, the Government may utilize the Contract Performance and Rating System (CPARS) to search for recent and relevant Offeror performance and ratings. While the

Government may elect to consider data obtained from external sources other than the proposal, the burden on providing thorough and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

M.3.5 Evaluation of Factor 3: Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The TEP is calculated by subtracting the Data Rights Adjustment (as defined by M.3.5.2) from the Offerors Evaluated Contract Price (as

7 10

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

defined by M.3.5.1).

TEP = Evaluated Contract Price (M.3.5.1) Data Rights Adjustment (M.3.5.2)

M.3.5.1 Evaluated Contract Price:

The proposal will be evaluated to ensure prices are submitted for all CLINs as requested in in Attachment 0055. The Offeror's proposal shall be evaluated to determine the Evaluated Contract Price. The Evaluated Contract Price may differ from the total proposed price.

The Evaluated Contract Price, rather than the total proposed price, shall be used in the trade-off evaluation to determine best value.

The Evaluated Contract Price will include an assessment of the reasonableness of the Fixed Price and Cost Reimbursement CLINs, and an assessment of the realism of the Cost Reimbursement CLINs. Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and Defense Contract Management Agency

(DCMA) may be requested to verify rates and projections.

The Evaluated Contract Price is calculated by summing the following:

The Proposed Prices for the FFP CLINs;

The Proposed Ceiling Prices for the FPIF CLINS; and

The Most Probable Cost to the Government (to include cost and fee) for the CPFF and CPIF CLINs (as defined in M.3.5.1.1(c) &

(d) below).

M.3.5.1.1 Cost Reimbursement CLINs (CPFF and CPIF)

For the Cost Reimbursement CLINs, the Governments evaluation will include an assessment of the reasonableness and realism of the proposed costs, as described below:

a) Cost Reasonableness: For all Cost Reimbursement CLINs, the Government shall evaluate the reasonableness of the Offeror's proposed cost and fee in accordance with the definition in FAR 31.201-3. A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

b) Cost Realism: For all Cost Reimbursement CLINs, the Government shall evaluate realism by independently reviewing and evaluating the specific elements of the Offeror's proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the Offeror's technical proposal. The result of the realism evaluation will be a determination of the most probable cost to the Government (which consists of cost and fee) of performance for the Offeror. The most probable cost will be determined by adjusting the Offeror's proposed cost to reflect any additions or reductions to cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the realism analysis. Inconsistencies between the Technical and Cost/Price proposal may be assessed as proposed risk under the

Technical evaluation or as an additional Government costs during contract execution.

c) For CPIF CLINs, the most probable cost to the Government consists of the following:

i. The evaluated cost, which consists of the proposed target cost and any cost realism adjustments as described above; and

ii. Cost Incentive Fee, which will be determined by applying the cost incentive fee structure as set forth in FAR Clause 52.216-10 located in Section I (70/30 under-run and 50/50 over-run share ratio, a minimum fee percentage of 2%, and a maximum fee percentage of

12%) to the evaluated cost based on the cost realism evaluation described above.

d) For CPFF CLINs, the most probable cost to the Government consists of the following:

i. The evaluated cost, which consists of the proposed cost and any cost realism adjustments as described above; and

ii. Proposed Fixed Fee amount.

M.3.5.1.2 Fixed Price CLINs (FFP and FPIF)

For all Fixed Price CLINs, the Government shall evaluate the Offerors proposed prices and profit for reasonableness in accordance with the definition in FAR 31.201-3. A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. The Government may make a determination of reasonableness by any means allowable under FAR 15.404-1.

For the FPIF CLINs, the Government will evaluate the Offerors proposed prices based on ceiling prices. The ceiling prices for all FPIF

CLINs are calculated as 120% of the proposed target costs, as outlined in Attachment 0055.

M.3.5.1.3 Unbalanced Pricing

Offerors should note that pricing will be carefully reviewed to detect proposals that are unbalanced between line items or subline items in accordance with Clause 52.215-1(f)(8). Unbalanced offers may be determined unacceptable. See FAR 15.404-1(g) for more information on

8 10

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

unbalanced offers.

M.3.5.2 Data and Computer Software Rights Adjustment

The Data and Computer Software Rights Adjustment will evaluate information submitted in response to Section L.3.3.9 to assess the

Governments anticipated future savings based on the degree to which the Offerors proposed data and computer software rights (Part 2 of

Attachment 0033) support future full and open competitive acquisitions. The resulting Data and Computer Software Rights Adjustment will be subtracted from the Offerors Evaluated Contract Price as part of the TEP calculation to credit the Offeror for future savings the

Government may realize during future competitions through the entitlement to use a competitive TDP and competitive rights in computer software deliverables.

M.3.5.2.1 Data and Computer Software Rights Adjustment Formula

The TDP Adjustment will be calculated in accordance with one of the two scenarios described below. In both scenarios the Offerors

Proposed TDP and Computer Software Price is the price for CLIN 8001.

Scenario One: If the Offerors Proposed TDP and Computer Software Price is greater than or equal to $3,400,000), the TDP Adjustment will equal the Offerors Proposed TDP and Computer Software Price.

Scenario Two: If the Offerors Proposed TDP and Computer Software Price is less than $3,400,000 the TDP and Computer Software Adjustment will equal X + ((Z - X) * Y) where:

X = Offerors Proposed TDP and Computer Software Price

Y = Competitive Utility Multiplier (See M.3.5.2.4)

Z = Government Baseline Savings (see M.3.5.2.3)

M.3.5.2.2 Proposed TDP and Computer Software Price

The Offerors proposed TDP and Computer Software price will be evaluated as part of the Evaluated Contract Price calculated under

M.3.5.3. The Data and Software Rights adjustment conducted in accordance with M.3.5.5.1 will not be considered in the Evaluated Contract

Price calculated under M.3.5.3. However, the Offerors proposed TDP and Computer Software price is subtracted from the Evaluated Contract

Price as part of the TEP equation described in M.3.5.1.

M.3.5.2.3 Government Baseline Savings

The Governments baseline savings is $3,400,000. This baseline savings represents the savings the Government expects to yield if the

Offerors proposed TDP and Computer Software supports future full and open competitive acquisitions.

M.3.5.2.4 Competitive Utility Multiplier

The competitive utility multiplier represents an assessment of the capability of the Government to utilize the proposed TDP and Computer

Software and the Governments rights in deliverable software, for future competition (i.e., Competitive Utility), and will be applied based on the evaluation of RCIS Technical Data And Software Rights Evaluation Spreadsheet, Attachment 0033. The Government will not perform a risk assessment as part of the Competitive Utility Multiplier evaluation. The evaluation will take into account the quantity of TDP data and computer software elements which are not commercially available and for which the Offeror does not offer competitive rights and the impact of those TDP data and computer software elements to competitive utility and future competitive procurements. TDP data and computer software elements which are commercially available or for which the Offeror offers competitive rights provide competitive utility to the Government Proposing a TDP and computer software deliverables with significant quantities of TDP data and computer software elements which are not commercially available and for which the Offeror does not offer competitive rights generally may result in a lower competitive utility multiplier due to the additional reverse engineering and/or qualification testing necessary to attain secondary sources to support competition, which results in degraded competitive utility. There are two possible competitive utility multipliers: 0.00 and 1.00. Descriptions of each multiplier are as follows:

(a) 0.00 Multiplier: Represents proposed TDP and computer software deliverables that have degraded to no competitive utility due to the proposed TDP or computer software deliverables featuring items which are not commercially available* and for which the Offeror does not offer competitive rights**, which (in total) would require reverse engineering and qualification testing for secondary sources to permit future competition.

(b) 1.00 Multiplier: Represents a proposed TDP and computer software deliverables that have full competitive utility due to the proposed

TDP or computer software deliverables all being commercially available* or for which the Offeror offers competitive rights**, which means that no reverse engineering or qualification testing for secondary sources will be necessary to permit future competition.

*See L.3.3.9.1.1 for definition of Commercially Available.

**See L.3.3.9.1.1 for definition of Competitive Rights.

M.3.5.2.5 Declining to Propose Data and Computer Software Rights

An Offeror declining to propose an option for the Government to acquire rights in technical data and computer software greater than the rights to which the Government is already entitled, i.e., declining to provide an option to give the Government rights to support competition, will not receive a TDP and Computer Software adjustment. In accordance with 10 USC 2320 and DFARS 227.7103-1 Offerors are not required, either as a condition of being responsive to a solicitation or as a condition for award, to sell or otherwise relinquish

9 10

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

to the Government any rights in technical data and computer software related to items, components or processes developed exclusively at private expense. An Offeror that does not propose to sell or otherwise relinquish any rights in technical data and computer software related to items, components or process developed exclusively at private expenses will still be considered responsive.

M.3.5.2.6 Data and Computer Software Rights in Resulting Contract

The Offeror selected for award will have Attachment 0060 Commercial Tech Data and Commercial Computer SW and Attachment 0061

Identification and Assertion of Restrictionsincorporated in Section J of the contract. The contractor shall deliver a TDP and computer software with restrictive markings, if any, conforming to Attachment 0060 Commercial Tech Data and Commercial Computer SW and

Attachment 0061 Identification and Assertion of Restrictions. In the event an Offeror does not agree to incorporate the proposed

Attachment 0060 Commercial Tech Data and Commercial Computer SW and Attachment 0061 Identification and Assertion of Restrictions, into the resulting contract, the Offeror will not be credited with the Data and Computer Software Rights Adjustment.

M.3.6 Evaluation of Factor 4: Small Business Participation

M.3.6.1 The Government will evaluate the extent of the offerors approach to achieving the Governments objective of providing opportunities in meeting the small business participation goals identified in this solicitation. The evaluation will be based on the extent of small business participation proposed and credibility of the data provided in the proposal measured against the Small Business

Participation Factor goals for this solicitation. As part of this assessment, the Government will consider the Offerors performance in complying with past Small Business Subcontracting Plans if they were required on prior contracts. Please note the solicitation goals are expressed as a percentage of 'Total Contract Amount', which is defined for this Small Business Participation Factor as Cell F28 on the For SBP only tab of Attachment 0055.

The Government's small business participation goals for this solicitation are:

12.4% Small Business (SB)

1.7% Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB)

1.7% Woman Owned Small Business (WOSB)

1% Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HubZone SB)

1% Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB)

1% Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)

M.3.6.2 Assessment of Proposed Goals Above or Below Government Goals.

Where the Offeror proposes small business participation higher than the Government's goals and the Government has determined that achievement of said small business participation is credible, or where the Offeror is assessed as credibly being able to achieve or exceed the Government's goals, the Government may assign the Offeror a strength against such proposal. Where the Offeror proposes small business participation lower than the Government's goals, or where the Offeror is assessed as not credibly being able to achieve the

Government's goals, the Government may assign a weakness or significant weakness against such proposal.

M.3.6.3 Contractual Goals.

If the awardee is other than a small business, the data submitted as part of the Small Business Participation Factor shall be consistent with the Small Business Subcontracting Plan which will be incorporated in the resultant contract, regardless of whether the Offeror proposed goals for the Small Business Participation Factor above, at, or below the Government's solicitation goals.

*** END OF NARRATIVE M0001 ***

10 10