B08 A0003 to W909MY24R0005 Section M Final Update.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

TONY ADAMS

EMAIL: TONY.D.ADAMS10.CIV@ARMY.MIL

W909MY-24-R-0005

2024AUG23

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: TONY ADAMS

Buyer Office Symbol/Telephone Number: CCAP-DDV/(703)704-0849

Type of Contract 1: Firm Fixed Price

Kind of Contract: Supply Contracts and Priced Orders

*** End of Narrative A0000 ***

2 9

W909MY-24-R-0005

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M. BASIS FOR AWARD CRITERIA

BASIS FOR AWARD.

The Government intends to award one Firm Fixed-Price (FFP) type single award contract under this Solicitation based on the availability of funding. 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 three (3) evaluation factors: Technical, Price, and Past Performance. The

Technical factor is significantly more important than the Past Performance factor, which is significantly more important than the Price factor. The Technical factor is comprised of three (3) subfactors: T1 Specific Performance Parameters and Production, T2 Integrated

Product Support (IPS) / Engineering Data, and T3 Program Management, which are listed in order of relative importance. All evaluation factors including technical and the past performance factor, other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important than the

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

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.

FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

Award will be made to the Offeror 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 Price factor in the event that the Technical, and Past Performance evaluation results of all the Offerors proposals are substantially the same.

Factor 1: The Technical factor is further divided into the following subfactors:

a. T1 - Specific Performance Parameters and Production

b. T2 - Integrated Product Support (IPS)/Engineering Data

c. T3 - Program Management

Subfactor (T1) is more important than Subfactor (T2), and Subfactor (T2) is more important than Subfactor (T3).

Evaluation of the Offerors proposal shall address each Technical subfactor as it applies to the Statement of Work (SOW) (Prime Power

Distribution Systems (PPDS)), Purchase Description (PD) 6110-0136) and applicable performance specification. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the Evaluation Approach, Paragraph D of this section. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign each Technical subfactor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 2: Price: IAW FAR 15.404-1, the resulting award will be a combined Firm Fixed Price (FFP) type contract. Price analysis and price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the FFP efforts.

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

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

EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be evaluated by the Source Selection Team (SST).

1. The overarching evaluation approach for the technical factor and 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.

3 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

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 is 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 RFP. 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. If items asked for are clearly not provided, then that section may be considered unacceptable and the risk the contractor may not perform could be considered high.

2. For the Technical factor, Offerors shall submit information and substantiating data to support compliance with the subfactors listed below. The volume shall be formatted such that all information is in the order listed below. Information applicable to a particular subfactor shall be contained within that subfactor or references provided to specify where the information is located. All paragraph references below are from the Statement of Work (SOW), Purchase Description (PD) 6110-0136, or PD Sheets (these sheets refer to the iPSC, iSDC-1, iSDC-2, and TPPT). Note: Test data may be offered to support compliance with the subfactors, provided that all data is obtained from the proposed PPDS configuration(s) and certified as authentic. Test data pages will not be included as part of the page count for the Technical Proposal but will not exceed 20MBs. Examples of acceptable certification would be a local Defense Contract

Management Agency (DCMA) signature, or other form(s) of Government or independent commercial witness, or company statements. The technical subfactors are divided into the following subfactors:

Subfactor T1: Specific Performance Parameters and Production This subfactor evaluates the Offerors response to meeting the technical requirements as it applies to the specific paragraphs from the Purchase Description as provided in Section L, Volume I-Technical, Table

L-1. Offerors shall provide a complete and detailed description of the overall concept, specific design approach and description of the production facilities to be used to support compliance with subfactor T1. Offerors shall discuss, and provide supporting analysis on, how the design and implementation plan will meet the requirements per PD 6110-0136. Offerors shall discuss the maturity of the proposed design to demonstrate the capability to achieve compliance with the schedule requirements for delivery of the eight (8) PPDS First

Article end items IAW SOW paragraph 3.1. Additional information to support compliance of Subfactor T1 includes the following:

- Offerors shall provide a Design Concept and Component Layout for each PPDS end item configuration and a detailed discussion and technical description of the major components for each PPDS end item to include at a minimum: the transformer; the control system; high and low temperature operation, electrical inputs/ outputs; the enclosure housing; and transportability, with respective commercial maturity.

- This section shall also provide the approach to minimize set weight, set dimension, cube, comply with altitude operation requirements, and increase reliability. Offerors should discuss the selected transformers with emphasis on continued availability projections of a minimum of ten (10) years AFTER contract award. Offerors should address their approach and design for the controls for each end item.

Offerors should provide a comprehensive design and implementation plan to meet all required performance parameters.

- Offerors shall describe the facilities to be used in the design and development of the PPDS end items to demonstrate the capability to deliver all testing hardware required, within the prescribed timeframes of the SOW, during the first article phase of the contract.

Offerors shall describe the facilities to be used in the production of the PPDS end items to assemble, test, paint and package production units within the delivery timeframes detailed in the SOW, during the Production Phase Options. The proposal should include all information needed to demonstrate capability to make production deliveries of up to a basic quantity of 10 total PPDS end items on a monthly basis for a period of up to 12-months beginning within 6-months after receipt of a delivery order.

Subfactor T2: Integrated Product Support (IPS) / Engineering Data Offerors shall provide a complete and detailed description of the overall approach to demonstrate compliance with the total IPS supportability, sustainment logistics support and data requirements of the

PPDS program as detailed in the SOW. Offerors shall discuss their overall IPS approach and management structure, with particular emphasis on the following:

- Offerors shall discuss the approach and processes taken to (1) address the level of commonality of parts between each PPDS end item

(PD 6110-0136, paragraph 3.4), and (2) address the System Modularity/Line Replaceable Units (LRUs) concept (PD 6110-0136, paragraph

3.13.4b).

- Offerors shall describe the approach to be used for development of the Maintenance Plan, including the operation, maintenance, and support functions of the PPDS end items. The following should be addressed for each end item: (1) the Failure Mode, Effects and

4 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

Criticality Analysis (FMECA) concept as it relates to maintenance task development as detailed in SOW paragraph 3.20.5.5b; (2) the Level of Repair Analysis (LORA) concept and experience with the Army COMPASS Level of Repair analysis as detailed in the SOW paragraph

3.20.5.5a; (3) the development and structure of the Family Tree from the end item down to the lowest repairable assembly as detailed in

SOW paragraph 3.20.2; and (4) the development and the concept for the Maintenance Allocation Chart (MAC), specifically how the MAC incorporates the Armys two-level of maintenance concept outlined in SOW paragraph 3.20.5.8.

- Offerors shall describe the approach to be used for Reliability, Availability and Maintainability (RAM) analysis and provide available supporting data to include supporting calculations and methodologies to be used in the prediction analyses, to demonstrate compliance with the 3400 hours Mean Time Between Essential Function Failures (MTBEFF) at an 80 percent confidence level as required in the PD 6110-

0136, paragraph 3.2.

Subfactor T3: Program Management The Offeror shall submit a Program Management Plan that demonstrates the Offerors understanding of the managerial process and tools that they intend to use in accomplishing the Governments requirements for this acquisition in terms of risk, cost, schedule, and performance, to include a detailed WBS with an IMS saved as adobe.pdf file. The Offeror shall include information on their proposed management team; how it (as the Prime) intends to assign work on the effort to include major subcontractors and its plan for communications with the Government.

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, (Table 4) shown below. This methodology below considers risk in relation with an Offerors potential performance in the planned PPDS Contract.

TABLE 4 Combined Technical/Risk Rating

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

BLUE OUTSTANDING

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

PURPLE GOOD

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

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.

5 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

RED UNACCEPTABLE

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

-Deficiency is 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.

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

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

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

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

1. Price Factor. Adjectival ratings shall not be used for Offerors Price proposals. All proposed contract pricing data will be considered in the overall price evaluation, and the Government will fully evaluate all priced CLINs for award, including reviewing them for any 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 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 Price proposal will be evaluated as follows: The

Contract Specialist will evaluate the offeror's proposed price model and price narrative utilizing the price analysis techniques in accordance with FAR Part 15.404-1(b). Any proposal which is evaluated by the Government as significantly unreasonable in its price, may be deemed unacceptable. For evaluation purposes, the Government will use Fort Belvoir, VA 22060 for its Freight on Board (FOB)

Destination.

a. 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.

b. 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 the base CLINs or the one 5-Year Optional Ordering Period CLINs 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, 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 may be established by a comparison of the unit prices, calculated from the Price Model for base procurement and consider each production option, from the proposals received in response to this Solicitation. The Offeror is advised to show pricing support for all its pricing. The results of the price analysis and all its pricing elements will determine the reasonableness of Offerors proposal.

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

1) Compliance: The 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 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 Offeror's 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. Past Performance Factor. The Government will evaluate the Offerors record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the SOW.

a. As part of the past performance evaluation, Recency which is part of the (ii) Quality Assessment below, is the time period that past performance references must meet to be considered. A recent CPARS Report is one that must have been completed in the past three (3) years prior to the solicitation release date. A recent contract is a contract under which any performance, delivery, or corrective action has occurred within the following time standards: within five (5) years prior to solicitation release date, even if the contract award date is outside this five (5) year window. Recent past performance data, other than CPARS Reports or contracts, is data generated during in the past five (5) years prior to the solicitation release date. The Government will focus its inquiries on the Offerors (and major subcontractors) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including 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

6 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

team who is expected to provide critical hardware / services (e.g., PPDS Support Hardware, Primary Switching Center, Secondary Switching

Center or Parts) or whose subcontract is for more than 20% 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. Therefore, Offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant past performance references. Relevant is defined as any efforts related to one or more of the following: 1) development of power distribution or transformation end-items and supporting equipment; and 2) packaging of end-items for use in tactical environments. Absent any recent and relevant past performance references 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.

b. 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) 221121. Data used in conducting performance assessments shall not extend past three years prior to the issue date of the RFP but may include performance data generated during the past five years without regard to the contract award date.

c. As per the requested information in Section L, (iii) VOLUME III Past Performance, 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.

d. The past performance evaluation will consider each Offerors demonstrated recent and relevant past performance references in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation, recency, relevancy, and quality assessment that includes a performance confidence assessment rating.

(i) RECENCY: Recency is the time period that past performance references must meet to be considered. A recent CPARS Report is one that must have been completed in the past three (3) years prior to the solicitation release date. A recent contract is a contract under which any performance, delivery, or corrective action has occurred within the following time standards: within five (5) years prior to solicitation release date, even if the contract award date is outside this five (5) year window. Recent past performance data, other than CPARS Reports or contracts, is data generated during in the past five (5) years prior to the solicitation release date.

(ii) RELEVANCY: The Government will assess the Offerors past performance to determine how relevant (as defined above) given its recency

(also defined above) effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through this source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the below criteria in Table 6 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.

TABLE 6 PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS.

ADJECTIVAL 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.

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

(iii) QUALITY ASSESSMENT: The Government will assess the quality of the Offerors past performance on those recent past performance references that were determined relevant by determining how well the contractor performed on the contracts. Documented results from the

Past Performance references provided, and any other sources will form the support and basis for this assessment.

(iv) PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The Government will assign a single consensus performance confidence assessment rating (see

Table 6 below) 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 all applicable past performance references provided as requested, and other support sources form the basis for the confidence assessment rating using Table 7.

7 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

TABLE 7 PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Adjectival 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 Offerors 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 Offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

E. DISCUSSIONS

1. GENERAL INFORMATION. IAW FAR 15.306(d), discussion sessions with each Offeror determined to be in the competitive range may be held.

2. If discussions are conducted with Offerors in the Competitive Range, regarding unclassified proposal submissions, the Government expects that the respective contractor will coordinate all proposal submissions, questions, evaluation notices (EN), and proposal revisions via business emails to the Contracting Officer Danny Lester at danny.w.lester.civ@army.mil and the Contract Specialist Tony

Adams at tony.d.adams10.civ@army.mil. The ASSIST software tool will not be utilized for this procurement. All administrative 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, and at no time or instance shall classified information be referenced in the

RFP or proposal. Further instructions will be coordinated during the proposal evaluation phase. The intent of this section is to advise

Offerors that they may be receiving ENs via their respective emails if they are included in the Competitive Range and may have a chance to improve their Respective proposals at that time.

3. It is the Governments intent to make award without discussions, in accordance with FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors

Competitive Acquisition. Therefore, Offerors should provide their best terms from a price and technical standpoint in their initial proposal. 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 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.

4. Price analysis will be utilized in the evaluation. Except for Past Performance information as identified above, evaluations will be based solely on materials included in the proposal.

8 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

*** END OF NARRATIVE M0001 ***

9 9