W909MY-22-R-0001 Amendment 0003.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

W909MY

ARMY CONTRACTING CMD-APG

10205 BURBECK RD

FORT BELVOIR, VA 22060-5811

MICHAEL SAMPSON

EMAIL: MICHAEL.A.SAMPSON18.CIV@ARMY.MIL

W909MY-22-R-0001

2021OCT07

X

X

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: MICHAEL SAMPSON

Buyer Office Symbol/Telephone Number: CCAP-CCV/(703)704-0819

Type of Contract 1: Firm Fixed Price

Type of Contract 2: Cost Plus Fixed Fee

Kind of Contract: Supply Contracts and Priced Orders

*** End of Narrative A0000 ***

Amendment 0003

The purpose of this amendment is to update Section M and revise the Basis for Award in accordance with the Government's responses to

Industry questions issued in Amendment 0001. There is no proposal extension date associated with amendment 0003.

*** END OF NARRATIVE A0004 ***

2 9

W909MY-22-R-0001

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

A. BASIS FOR AWARD (Section M)

The Government intends to award up to two (2) contracts under this Solicitation based on the availability of funding, but reserves the right to award a single contract. Award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the four (4) evaluation factors: Technical, Cost / Price, Past Performance, and Small Business Participation. The Technical factor is significantly more important than the Cost / Price factor, which is significantly more important than the Past Performance factor, which is significantly more important than the Small Business

Participation factor. The Technical factor is comprised of three (3) subfactors: DCB Deliveries, Proposed DCB Design, and Proposed

Design Enhancements, which are listed in order of relative importance. All evaluation factors other than Cost / Price, when combined, are significantly more important than the Cost / Price factor. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than Acceptable must be achieved for the Technical factor (to include all subfactors) and for the Small Business Participation factor. Additionally

Other than a Small Business Offeror shall have an acceptable Small Business Subcontracting Plan to receive an award IAW FAR 19.702(a).

Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost / price offered.

This Solicitation contains Export Controlled Information. 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. If the appropriate information is not conveyed in the proposal, an Offerors technical rating may be impacted.

It is the Governments intent to make award without discussions, IAW FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors Competitive Acquisition.

The Government reserves the right, however, to conduct discussions if determined necessary by the Contracting Officer. 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, Offerors are cautioned that the initial proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms from a technical and cost / price standpoint. Proposals that do not include all the information and materials prescribed in Section L of the Solicitation may be disqualified from consideration for award upon receipt without further review by the Government.

With the exception of Past Performance information as identified above, evaluations will be based solely on material included in the proposal.

Offerors are cautioned that statements of compliance or repetition of the technical requirement without complete and factual discussion and analysis do not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform.

B. FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

Award(s) will be made to the Offeror(s) whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. The Government reserves the right to make award based upon the Cost / Price factor in the event that the Technical, Past Performance, and Small Business Participation evaluation results of all the Offerors proposals are substantially the same.

Factor 1: Technical:

a. DCB Deliveries

b. Proposed DCB Design

c. Proposed Design Enhancements

Subfactor (a) is more important than subfactor (b), and subfactor (b) is more important than subfactor (c).

Evaluation of the Offerors proposal will address each subfactor as it applies to the PWS, Interface Control Document (ICD), and applicable performance specification(s). A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the Evaluation

Approach, Paragraph C of this section. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign each Technical subfactor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 2: Cost / Price: The resulting award(s) will be a combined FFP and CPFF contract. Cost realism will be utilized in the evaluation of the CPFF effort. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the FFP efforts and overall award.

Factor 3: Past Performance: Each Offerors past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment.

Factor 4: Small Business Participation: Each Offerors level and degree of commitment to utilize small business in execution of the requirement will be evaluated.

Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details in their proposal to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each

3 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

proposal. Each volume of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, a Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. The

Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals will be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST). The overarching evaluation approach for the Technical factor and its subfactors is as follows:

a. Understanding of the Problem. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which it demonstrates a clear understanding of all features involved in solving the problem and meeting the requirements, and the extent to which uncertainties are identified and resolutions proposed.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine:

(i) The extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable.

(ii) The extent to which successful performance is contingent upon unproven devices and techniques that require excessive development.

(iii) The Governments level of confidence that the Offerors methods and approach are capable of successfully meeting the technical requirements within the required schedule and established contract value.

(iv) The extent to which the Offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule and established contract value.

c. Adequacy of Response/Completeness. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offerors methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the Solicitation. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal IAW the proposal submission section of the Solicitation.

1. TECHNICAL FACTOR EVALUATION APPROACH

The Technical factor is divided into the following three (3) subfactors:

Subfactor 1: DCB Deliveries.

This subfactor evaluates the Offerors proposed approach to produce DCBs compliant with the DCB Performance Specification, DCB mechanical drawings, classified requirements, and in sufficient quantities to meet the contractual delivery schedule defined in the PWS and Section

B of the Solicitation. The Offeror will be evaluated on their response to this requirement, as well as on their statements concerning any other performance requirements that will be self-imposed. Additionally, the Offerors proposed approach will be evaluated on their planned performance of producibility improvements to the DCB and/or manufacturing changes needed to meet contractual deliveries, as well as implementation plan(s) for any predicted obsolescence changes. Marginal levels of DCB Deliveries could indicate a lack of understanding concerning mission requirements and may result in the entire proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range.

Subfactor 2: Proposed DCB Design.

This subfactor evaluates the Offerors overall DCB performance compliance, projected FPA yield, and all other aspects of the DCB design to meet specific performance specifications and proposed risk mitigation activities for any planned design changes to improve performance margins (if applicable) for the LRIP phase. Marginal levels of design performance compliance and FPA manufacturing could indicate a lack of understanding concerning mission requirements and may result in the entire proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range.

Subfactor 3: Proposed Design Enhancements.

Element 1 of this subfactor evaluates the enhancement potential of the Offeror's proposed baseline DCB LRIP design, such as readily accommodating new capabilities for growth, DCB yield / rate, and/or performance. If the Offeror proposes Specific Design Enhancements under Element 2, those enhancements will be evaluated for the likelihood that they will result in realized improvements, such as in the areas of performance, manufacturing yield or rate, or any other substantive improvements achievable during the LRIP Period of

Performance.

IAW the Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3), Section 3.1, the Army methodology for evaluating Technical Approach and Related Risk is the Combined Technical/Risk Rating, (see Table 4 below). This methodology considers risk, in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

4 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

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 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 thus contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

2. COST / PRICE FACTOR EVALUATION APPROACH

Adjectival ratings shall not be used for Offerors Cost / Price proposals. All proposed contract cost and pricing data will be considered in the overall cost / price evaluation, and the Government will fully evaluate all priced CLINs for award, including for unbalanced pricing. In the event only one offer is received, the Government reserves the right to negotiate all pricing. For award purposes, the total proposed cost / price for all CLINs will be added together into a total sum (contract value). The evaluation of all option CLINs will not obligate the Government to exercise any option. The Offerors Cost / Price proposal will be evaluated as follows:

a. The Government will analyze each Offerors cost and pricing information in terms of completeness, reasonableness, realism and magnitude. The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will consist of summing the Offerors proposed FFP CLIN prices (CLINs 0001 through 0003, 1001 through 1004, and 2001 through 2002) for base production and production options as calculated in the Price Model and described in paragraph d below, plus the Total Probable Cost (TPC) for the CPFF CLIN (CLIN 0004) for Engineering Services as calculated in the Price

Model and as described in paragraph e below.

b. Any proposal which is evaluated by the Government as significantly unreasonable in price or as significantly unrealistic in cost may be deemed unacceptable. Such a proposal may be considered by the Government to reflect either a lack of technical and management competence to accomplish the Government's requirements, or a failure to understand the Government's requirements, or both.

c. Adequate price competition is anticipated IAW FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i). However, in its discretion and as circumstances warrant, the

Government may also consider one or more other factors enumerated at FAR 15.404-1(b) in evaluating the reasonableness of proposed pricing.

d. A price reasonableness approach will be utilized on the fixed-price CLINs to determine whether the proposed price offered is fair and reasonable and that a buy-in or unbalanced pricing between CLINs or option periods is not occurring. For a price to be fair and reasonable, it shall represent to the Government a price that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The

Offerors proposed fixed-price CLINs may be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1, in order to determine if they are fair and reasonable. The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of the Offerors proposed price in relation to the Offerors specific technical approach. Price reasonableness will be established by a comparison of the unit prices, calculated from the Price Model for base procurement and each production option, from the proposals received in response to this Solicitation.

e. A cost realism analysis will be performed on the cost-reimbursement CLIN IAW FAR 15.404-1 to determine whether specific estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the contract requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the Offerors Technical proposal. The realism analysis will also be used to evaluate the Offerors understanding of contract technical requirements and the risk associated with the Offerors Technical proposal, including the specific technical approach and labor estimated for each proposed task. Therefore, the Offeror is advised to clearly show justification for unique practices that significantly lower costs.

The results of the cost realism analysis will determine the TPC for the CPFF portion of the contract as it relates to the technical approach proposed by each Offeror and will be utilized in the selection of the offer that provides the best value to the Government. As part of the realism analysis, the Government will calculate an evaluated cost by determining what the Government predicts the Offerors approach would most probably cost the Government when the work performed for the task is completed. To the degree that the Government's most probable cost estimate differs from the Offerors proposed cost, the Offerors proposed cost will be adjusted upward and/or downward.

If the total evaluated cost is higher than the proposed cost, the evaluated cost becomes the probable cost. If the total evaluated cost is lower than the proposed cost, the proposed cost becomes the probable cost.

f. Overall Cost / Price Proposal Evaluation: The overall Cost / Price proposal will be evaluated for the following:

5 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

1) Compliance: The Cost / Price proposal submitted by the Offeror will be evaluated for compliance based upon the submission requirements contained in the Section L Cost / Price instructions and the associated receipt of all requested documents / files.

2) Unbalanced Pricing: The Offerors overall Cost / Price proposal will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing as defined in FAR 15.404-

1(g). An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the

Government (see FAR 15.404-1(g)(1) through FAR 15.404-1(g)(3)).

3) Errors: The Offerors Cost / Price proposal will be reviewed for errors. The Offeror may be given an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposal at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer.

4) Business Systems: The Government will verify the adequacy of the Offerors business systems.

3. PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR EVALUATION APPROACH

The Government will evaluate the Offerors record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS.

a. Evaluation of past performance shall be IAW this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Section J, Attachment 0003.

b. The Government will focus its inquiries on the Offerors (and major subcontractors) record of performance as it relates to all

Solicitation requirements, including cost price, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. For the purposes of this requirement, a major subcontractor is defined as a member of an Offerors overall team who is expected to provide critical components and/or whose subcontract is for 20% or more of the total proposed effort. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Relevant efforts are defined as any effort related to one or more of the following: 1) 3GEN FLIR Dewar Cooler Bench EMD, 2) Other multi-color infrared focal plane array (IRFPAs)

Development, 3) Cooled single band or multi-band Optical Improvement Development and Production, and 4) Cooled single band or multi-band

Integrated Dewar, Electronics and Cooler Assemblies (IDECA) Production. Relevant is also defined as any IDECA production contract valued at at least $20 million dollars. Recent is defined as any contract in performance or awarded after March 2016. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror will be assigned a neutral confidence rating and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

c. The Government may use data provided by the Offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in

Government files / Past Performance databases, or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State, or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 334511. Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend before March 2016, but may include performance data generated during the past five years without regard to the contract award date.

d. Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime Offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded after March 2016 that are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources, but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

e. The past performance evaluation will consider each Offerors demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation, relevancy and performance confidence assessment (quality assessment will be included in the performance confidence assessment).

(i) RELEVANCY: The Government will assess the Offerors past performance to determine how relevant (defined above) a recent

(also defined above) effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant, which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

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

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

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

6 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(ii) PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The Government will assign a single consensus performance confidence assessment rating for the Offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the table below. This rating will also consider the assessed quality of the

Offerors past performance on recent and relevant efforts (see above) by determining how well the contractor performed on those contracts. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Definition

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

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

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offerors performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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

No 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.

4. SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION FACTOR EVALUATION APPROACH

IAW Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) 215.304(c)(i), the extent to which offerors identify and commit to small business performance of the contract shall be evaluated. Offerors shall submit a Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD), Attachment 0006, which specifies the Offerors level and degree of commitment to small business utilization/participation in performance of this requirement.

An SBPCD, Attachment 0006, is required from all offerors, including companies with commercial plans and comprehensive subcontracting plans. The Government will evaluate the acceptability/unacceptability of the following:

a. The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals;

b. The extent of commitment to use such firms (and enforceable commitments will be considered more favorably than non-enforceable ones);

c. Identification of the complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform;

d. d. The extent past performance is in compliance with FAR 52.219-8 Utilization of Small Business, FAR 52.219-9 Small

Business Subcontracting Plan, and maximizing opportunities for U.S. Small Business Subcontractors. The Other than Small Business

Offeror shall provide three Individual Subcontracting Reports (ISRs) for recent contracts (within the past three years from the closing date of this Solicitation) that required a subcontracting plan utilizing the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) IAW FAR

52.219-9(d)(10)(iv).

All prime offerors, including small businesses, submitting a proposal are required to meet or exceed the Minimum Quantitative

Requirement(s) (MQRs) relative to the total contract value, or provide an explanation as to why any of the specific goals cannot be achieved, as follows: NOTE: For example, a participation plan that reflects {1%} of the contract value for WOSB would also count towards the overall Small Business Goal; and percentages for SDVOSB would also count towards VOSB.

Small Business (SB): 23%

Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB): 5%

Women Owned Small Business (WOSB): 5%

HUBZone-Certified Small Business (HUBZone): 3%

Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB): 3%

7 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB): 3%

Historically Black Colleges & Universities / Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI): 0%

Small business prime Offerors may achieve small business participation (meet or exceed MQR) through their own performance/participation as a prime and also through subcontracting to other small businesses. All Offerors are required to submit Small Business Participation

Commitment Documents IAW the instructions in Section L. The contractor shall report actual achievement of small business participation results on a periodic basis and shall discuss performance in achieving their small business commitments/requirements.

As part of the source selection evaluation, and in order to receive a rating of Acceptable (see table below), an Offerors Small Business

Participation Plan (SBPP), Attachment 0006 - SBPCD and any other supporting narratives, as required, shall demonstrate a feasible approach in meeting the aforementioned small business goals, or explan why any goal cannot be reached. Small business prime contractors will be given credit for their own small business participation.

Each Other Than Small Business Offeror shall provide a Small Business Subcontracting Plan that contains all the elements required by the

FAR Clause 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. This plan shall be submitted separately from the Small Business Participation

Plan information required above, which applies to both large and small businesses. The Subcontracting Plan is not a requirement for evaluation in the source selection, but rather, a requirement for award to a large business and it will be negotiated, as required, and incorporated into any resultant contract. Evaluation of the Small Business Participation Plan will be performed on an acceptable / unacceptable basis IAW FAR 52.219-8. The Offerors Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall be reviewed IAW with FAR 52.219-9 and AFARS

Appendix DD and will be negotiated with any apparent offeror(s) (for other than SBs) at time of contract award.

Small Business Participation Factor Rating Definitions

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 the small business objectives.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the 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 or does not otherwise provide sufficient basis for meeting SB goals.

D. DISCUSSIONS

GENERAL INFORMATION. IAW FAR 15.306(d), discussion sessions with each Offeror may be held. Should discussions take place, all Offerors in the competitive range will be allowed a minimum of 7 calendar days to submit Final Proposal Revisions.

If discussions are conducted with Offerors in the Competitive Range, regarding unclassified proposal submissions, the Government intends to use the Acquisition Source Selection Interactive Support Tool (ASSIST). The ASSIST software tool will allow Offerors to receive and respond to Evaluation Notifications (ENs) securely on-line. Offerors are required to provide the names of two (2) company individuals whose responsibilities will include receiving and responding to ENs through ASSIST. Two (2) agent names, company titles, telephone numbers, facsimile numbers, and email addresses shall be provided. This information is to be submitted with proposals under Volume V

Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations. Neither the ENs nor any responses will include classified information, if classified information is being referenced the EN and response shall be written in an unclassified form and only refer to the classified information location in the RFP or proposal. Detailed instructions will be provided during the proposal evaluation phase. The intent of this section is to advise Offerors that they may be receiving ENs on-line if they are included in the Competitive

Range.

It is the Government's intent to make award without discussions, IAW FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors Competitive Acquisition.

The Government reserves the right, however, to conduct discussions if determined necessary. 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, Offerors are cautioned that the initial proposal should contain the Offerors best terms from a technical and price standpoint.

All proposals shall be evaluated by a team of Government personnel with assistance from non-Government advisors employed by CACI

Technologies. Offerors shall advise the contracting officer as soon as possible of any concerns/questions with regard to the use of non-

Government advisors from the cited firms. Any Offeror who is affiliated with or who is contemplating a contractual relationship with

8 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

the cited firms must notify the Contracting Officer by the date of proposal submission. Offerors must make arrangements with CACI

Technologies for execution of the nondisclosure agreements required by FAR 9.505-4(b). See Proposal Submission Requirements Volume 5, below.

*** END OF NARRATIVE M0001 ***

9 9