W91CRB18R0001_0001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to:

A. Post Questions and Answ ers #1 B. Correct Page page 171 of 173 in solicitation(Table M-1 changed to Attachment J.8) C. POC for this action is Peter P. Buckless peter.p.buckless.civ@mail.mil 410-306-1887

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 14

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 28-Dec-2017

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W91CRB-18-R-0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

15-Dec-2017

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer 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 1 copies of the amendment; (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 APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) 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 date, 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.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

28-Dec-2017

CODE

ACC - APG - W91CRB

4310 BOOTHBY HILL AVE

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD 21005-3013

W91CRB 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W91CRB-18-R-0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS #1

Solicitation W91CRB-18-R-0001 28 DEC 2017 Questions & Answers #1

Question 1: Relative to the proposal submittal date, we respectfully request a 30 day extension on submittal of responses to solicitation W91CRB-17-R-0007.

Government Answer 1: Please take note that the official solicitation number is W91CRB-18-R-0001 not W91CRB-17-R-0007. The Government respectfully declines this request since an extension to the date was built into the solicitation to compensate for the December/January holidays.

Question 2: Would the Government consider including provisions for either Performance Based or Progress Payments for applicable Firm Fixed Price CLINS in any resulting award?

Government Answer 2: An offeror can propose Performance-Based Payments or Progress Payments in their proposal, however, negotiation of either would occur post award.

Offerors should familiarize themselves with FAR 32.106 and DFARS 232.10 if they are considering proposing either type of payment.

Question 3: Would the government authorize Pre-Contract costs in accordance with FAR part 31.205-32?

Government Answer 3: No. Pre-contract costs, meaning costs incurred before the effective date of the contract directly pursuant to the negotiation and in anticipation of the contract award when such incurrence is necessary to comply with the proposed contract delivery schedule, are not authorized by the Government for this effort.

Question 4: Please provide a contract award date for offerors to use when developing the IMS

Government Answer 4: For proposal purposes, Vendors should assume a 30 July 2018 contract award when developing their IMS.

Question 5: Please provide Appendix J.3-A, Optical Improvements (CLASSIFIED) and Appendix J.3-B, Nuclear Survivability (CLASSIFIED).

Government Answer 5: This information will only be provided to offerors who will propose as a Prime. If an offeror will not propose as a Prime, it will be the responsibility of the Prime to provide this information. Therefore, when an offeror requests access to these documents, they shall provide their intent to be a Prime and provide their CAGE code.

Classified document requests will be forwarded to the program office. A point of contact from that office will coordinate providing the requested documents. As a reminder, no classified information, to include questions regarding those documents, is to be directed back to the contracting office/point of contact for the solicitation.

Question 6: Please provide authorization to share the solicitation and access controlled documents to offeror’s suppliers required to prepare proposal submissions.

Government Answer 6: The Government is not providing authorization to share the solicitation and access controlled documents. Vendors must utilize FBO for access to the documents and submit an FBO request to view the access controlled documents via the FBO website.

Question 7: Is there any flexibility to stagger dates for testing provided the end date of 24 Months ARO remains the same?

Government Answer 7: The SOW specifies No Later Than (NLT) requirements for testing events. Vendors may propose to perform testing requirements before the specified date so long as other preceding SOW requirements have been satisfied.

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The following have been modified:

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS

LLDR 3 - W91CEB-18-R-0001 – RFP Attachments and Exhibits, & Proposal Appendices

Name Content Location

Attachment J.1 LLDR 3 Sample Hardware Evaluation Matrix Attachment to RFP Access Controlled

Attachment J.2

LLDR 3 Sample Hardware Submission Requirements Attachment to RFP

Attachment J.3 LLDR 3 Performance Specification (PS) Attachment to RFP Access Controlled

Appendix J.3-A Optical Improvements – CLASSIFIED* Appendix to PS Appendix J.3-B Nuclear Survivability - CLASSIFIED* Appendix to PS Appendix J.3-C Sample Reticle Appendix to PS Appendix J.3-D CBRN Criteria for Army Material Appendix to PS Appendix J.3-E Example Manmade Base Motion Environment Appendix to PS Appendix J.3-F Targeting System Interface Standard (TSIS) Appendix to PS Appendix J.3-G LLDR 3 System Requirements Verification Matrix Appendix to PS Appendix J.3-H Measuring Target Location Error Appendix to PS

Attachment J.4

DD254 Contract Security Classification Specification Attachment to RFP

Attachment J.5 Past Performance Questionnaire Attachment to RFP Attachment J.6 CLIN Pricing Matrix Attachment to RFP Attachment J.7 Cost Model Attachment to RFP

Attachment J.8 LLDR 3 Valued Technical Requirements Attachment to RFP Access Controlled

Exhibit A Systems Engineering Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) Attachment to RFP

Exhibit B Program Management CDRL Attachment to RFP Exhibit C Quality Assurance and Test CDRL Attachment to RFP Exhibit D Integrated Product Support CDRL Attachment to RFP

*All requests for CLASSIFIED documents shall be forwarded to the point of contact provided in section L of this RFP document. Absolutely no CLASSIFIED information or questions pertaining to CLASSIFIED information are to be forwarded to the point of contact of this RFP document itself.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

2.2. Evaluation Factors for Award (Section M)

2.2.1. Basis for Award

The Government expects to award a single contract on a best value trade-off basis between Technical and Cost/Price factors. The Technical factor is significantly more important than the Cost/Price factor. The Government will evaluate the Past Performance and Small Business Approach factors as “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”.

Within the Technical factor, Subfactor 1 is the most important subfactor. Technical Subfactors 2 and 3 will be evaluated as “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. Within Technical Subfactor 1, Element 1 is more important than Element 2 and Element 2 is more important than Element 3.

To be considered for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for all non- Cost/Price factors, and the Cost/Price factor must be determined to be fair, reasonable, and realistic. A proposal which fails to meet PS thresholds will receive an “Unacceptable” technical evaluation rating. A rating of “Unacceptable” at any level (Factor/Subfactor/Element) will cause the entire proposal to be rated “Unacceptable”.

The Government will conduct a best value trade off analysis between Technical and Cost/Price (Factors 1 and 2) including, as appropriate, a Value Adjusted Total Evaluated Price (VATEP) assessment on the four technical requirements specified in Attachment J.8 LLDR 3 Valued Technical Requirements.

Offerors are cautioned that contract award may not necessarily be made to the offeror with the highest technical rating or lowest total evaluated price and, that the Government reserves the right to make award without conducting discussions.

2.2.2. Evaluation Approach

The Government will consider how well the offeror complied with the solicitation instructions when evaluating the offeror’s capability to perform the prospective contract. The Government will evaluate all proposals to determine whether offeror’s methods and approach have adequately considered, defined, and satisfied the solicitation requirements. The Government will evaluate sample hardware and proposals to determine whether each requirement has been addressed in accordance with Section L of the solicitation. During the evaluation process, the Government may utilize additional subject matter experts/advisory personnel from the following Government contractors: NCI Information Systems, BANC3, Fulcrum, and John Hopkins University-Applied Physics Laboratory. These companies are not allowed to compete for contract award based on this solicitation and, advisors will be required to sign legally binding, non-disclosure agreements prior to review of any offerors’ proposals or hardware samples. Organizational conflict of interest issues will be addressed IAW FAR Subpart 9.5 – Organizational and consultant conflicts of Interest.

2.2.3. Factors and Subfactors to be Evaluated

Factor 1 – Technical (O/G/A/M/U)

Subfactor 1 – System Design and Performance (O/G/A/M/U) Element 1 – System Performance (O/G/A/M/U) Element 2 – Sample Hardware (O/G/A/M/U) Element 3 – Flexibility of Design/Upgrade Potential (O/G/A/M/U)

Subfactor 2 – Program Management (A/U) Element 1 – Program Management Plan (A/U) Element 2 – Production Capabilities (A/U) Element 3 – Work Breakdown Structure (A/U) Element 4 – Integrated Master Schedule (A/U)

Subfactor 3 – Integrated Product Support (A/U) Element 1 – Maintenance Concept (A/U) Element 2 – Reliability Program Plans (A/U)

Factor 2 – Cost/Price

Factor 3 – Past Performance (A/U)

Factor 4 – Small Business Approach (A/U)

Subfactor 1 – Small Business Participation (A/U) Subfactor 2 – Small Business Subcontracting Plan (A/U)

2.2.3.1. Technical Evaluation Approach

The Government will evaluate the proposals to determine whether the technical requirements specified in the RFP have been adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied by the offeror. The evaluators will also consider the following criteria when evaluating the Technical proposal:

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

Feasibility of Approach The extent to which the proposed system approach is feasible and the results are achievable within the program schedule will be evaluated. The extent to which the proposed technical approach can successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule will be evaluated.

Completeness: The extent to which the proposal is complete and addresses all aspects of the SOW and technical performance requirements will be evaluated. The extent to which offeror’s performance claims are substantiated will be evaluated. The extent to which the offeror’s plan articulates the proposed effort will be evaluated.

Compliance with Instructions: The extent to which the offeror’s proposal complies with the solicitation instructions of Section L will be evaluated.

The ratings for the Technical factor and specified subfactors will be expressed as defined below.

Technical subfactor ratings will be rolled up to determine the overall Technical factor rating.

The Government will include assessment of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies in determining the Technical subfactor ratings and the overall Technical factor.

Adjectival Rating: Technical Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

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.

Adjectival Rating: Technical Risk Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

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

The Technical Factor Subfactor 1 – System Design and Performance and elements will be assessed for strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies using the following definitions:

Strength: An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

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

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

Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Technical Subfactors 2 – Program Management and 3 – Integrated Product Support and all elements will be evaluated as either “acceptable” or “unacceptable” as defined below:

Acceptable (A) – Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable (U) – Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation.

2.2.3.2. Factor 1 Technical

2.2.3.2.1. Factor 1 Subfactor 1 – System Design and Performance (O/G/A/M/U)

2.2.3.2.1.1. System Performance (Factor 1 Subfactor 1 Element 1) (O/G/A/M/U) The Government will evaluate the proposed system architecture, system design, features and performance of the offeror’s LLDR 3 system.

The Government will evaluate:

The offeror’s proposal to determine the extent to which the proposed LLDR 3 design meets or exceeds the threshold requirements defined in the LLDR 3 PS and whether all offeror performance claims exceeding threshold requirements are reflected in the offeror’s PS compliance matrix (Appendix B).

The proposed system design and how the requirements of the LLDR 3 PS will be satisfied, including:

o Components of the system o Day and thermal sighting components o Electronic/electrical design o Laser Rangefinder design o Designator design o Range finder detector design o Optical design o Optical bench o Digital magnetic compass integration o Celestial integration o Module attachment method (TLM, TIM, LDM, Tripod) o PAVAM component design and system level integration o Software/firmware o Graphical user interface o Electronics o Controls o Operator display/GUI o Internal military GPS o Description of Cybersecurity controls

The offeror’s proposed approach, design methodology, technical approach, and implementation plan for the development and manufacture of the LLDR 3 systems.

Proposed Target Acquisition Range (Day), Target Acquisition Range (Thermal), TLE, and Target Location Module volume, above threshold requirements, that the Government can substantiate based on the offeror’s proposal, which will each result in a strength as well as a VATEP credit in accordance with Attachment J.8. Each of the requirements are further defined in the PS.

o The proposed sighting component performance parameters and the projected target acquisition range analysis to confirm performance for both target and atmospheric conditions.

Proposed Camouflage Imaging capabilities, that meet the objective requirement and are reflected in the offeror’s red-lined PS (Appendix A), that the Government can substantiate based on the offeror’s proposal in accordance with Table M-1, will result in a “Strength”.

Table M-1. LLDR 3 Camouflage Imaging Camouflage Imaging Discriminator Toward Rating

The LLDR 3 shall provide enhanced camouflage imaging within nominally the 1 to 2 micron spectral band. The LLDR 3 shall accurately identify a target (NATO standard 2.3m x 2.3m) at an identification (70% p/id) range of > 1.8 km.

More than one optical FOV is allowed, but no optical FOV shall be less than 2 degrees in the horizontal. The Camouflage Imaging capability shall be incorporated into either the TLM or TIM.

Strength

Proposed GPS Degraded or Denied Operation capabilities, that meet the objective requirement and are reflected in the offeror’s red-lined PS (Appendix A), that the Government can substantiate based on the offeror’s proposal in accordance with Table M-2, will result in a “Strength”.

Table M-2. LLDR 3 GPS Degraded or Denied Operation

GPS Degraded or Denied Operation Discriminator Toward Rating System shall report self-location in a GPS denied or degraded environment. Once self-location is determined, the system shall maintain the required accuracies.

Strength

The extent the proposed LLDR 3 design meets or exceeds the threshold requirements defined in the LLDR 3 PS. The Government will evaluate whether all offeror performance claims exceeding threshold requirements are reflected in the offeror’s red-lined PS (Appendix A) and PS compliance matrix (Appendix B). All offerors proposed revisions to requirements with a numerical value in the red-lined PS must meet or exceed the threshold requirements of the LLDR 3 PS for this subfactor to be rated acceptable.

Additional specification changes to requirements without a numerical value or to other specification language may be unacceptable to the Government and cause the proposal to be un-awardable.

The performance model input data files (Appendix E) and optical design files (Appendix F) to address the validity of the inputs into the models.

The offeror’s proposal to determine the risk of unsuccessful performance of the proposed design.

2.2.3.2.1.2. Sample Hardware (Element 2) (O/G/A/M/U)

The Government will evaluate, model, and test the offeror’s LLDR 3 Sample Hardware, in accordance with Attachment J.1 LLDR 3 Sample Hardware Evaluation Matrix, and compare the results to the performance claims submitted in the offeror’s Appendix D Sample Hardware Test Data.

2.2.3.2.1.3. Flexibility of Design/Upgrade Potential (Factor 1 Subfactor 1 Element 3) (O/G/A/M/U) The Government will evaluate:

The proposed LLDR 3 design in terms of its flexibility/potential to insert new and improved technical solutions in the future and how they will be implemented (e.g., weight/volume reductions, M-Code upgrades, TLE improvements, range improvements, PAVAM capability improvements, advanced sensor technologies, image processing, software upgrades, firmware upgrades).

The feasibility of the proposed upgrades.

The proposed MOSA principles being incorporated to support technology updates.

2.2.3.2.2. Factor 1 Subfactor 2 – Program Management (A/U)

2.2.3.2.2.1. Program Management Plan (Factor 1 Subfactor 2 Element 1) (A/U) The Government will evaluate:

The offeror’s proposal to determine the adequacy of offeror’s approach towards managing the effort defined in the RFP.

The offeror’s proposed methods for planning, monitoring, and controlling program schedule, technical performance requirements, and cost, to include the offeror’s proposed

EVMS.

The offeror’s approach to managing major subcontractors.

The offeror’s approach to provide personnel with required skills, expertise, and security clearances to successfully perform the requirements.

The offeror’s proposed compliance with the SOW (Appendix C).

2.2.3.2.2.2. Production Capabilities (Factor 1 Subfactor 2 Element 2) (A/U) The Government will evaluate:

The adequacy of the offeror’s proposed production capabilities including manufacturing layout, methods, tools, instrumentation, test equipment, material, processes and manpower requirements; existing manufacturing facilities and detailed plans to increase capacity if required; use of subcontractors and/or intercompany transfers to provide components and/or subassemblies; and the ability to produce the proposed design at the production rates provided in the RFP.

The adequacy of the supplier agreements currently in place to procure the proposed, critical technology components during the life of the contract.

2.2.3.2.2.3. Work Breakdown Structure (Factor 1 Subfactor 2 Element 3) (A/U) The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal to determine the adequacy of the proposed contract WBS (Appendix G), compliance with MIL-STD-881C requirements, and the cross-reference between the SOW and the offeror’s WBS.

2.2.3.2.2.4. Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) (Factor 1 Subfactor 2 Element 4) (A/U) The Government will evaluate the proposed IMS (Appendix H) for compliance with the SOW and DI-MGMT-81861A requirements, to include activities and tasks deemed sufficient to account for contract award through the delivery of the first production units, and at a minimum, integrate all required data items, testing, hardware deliverables, and major contract program events/reviews, and program events requiring Government participation, and integrate all efforts, to include major subcontracts, intercompany transfers, and long lead items.

2.2.3.2.3. Factor 1 Subfactor 3 – Integrated Product Support (A/U)

2.2.3.2.3.1. Maintenance Concept (Factor 1 Subfactor 3 Element 1) (A/U) The Government will evaluate:

The offeror’s system maintenance concept to determine if it complies with the Army two-level maintenance concept (AR 750-1) and public private partnership (P3).

The offeror’s sparing plan concept and supply support equipment flow for evacuation or replacement of unserviceable items under warranty.

The offeror’s proposed approaches to logistics processes, to include providing necessary built-in tests, and scheduled inspection and maintenance requirements.

2.2.3.2.3.2. Reliability Program Plan (RPP) (Factor 1 Subfactor 3 Element 2) (A/U) The Government will evaluate:

The proposed RPP (Appendix I) to assess the offeror’s understanding of the reliability requirements and the overall plan to implement a successful reliability program.

The proposed reliability risk drivers and the risk mitigation plans to assess the proposed plan to meet the reliability requirements.

The initial LLDR 3 reliability predictions and prediction methodology for the system and components, to include software.

The proposed reliability demonstration plan and assess its adequacy to demonstrate reliability requirements.

2.2.3.3. Factor 2 – Cost/Price

Cost/Price factor is not evaluated with adjectival ratings. The overall, total evaluated price will be the total of all (Section B) CLINs, to include the Government provided, normalized amounts (in the CLIN Pricing matrix) for the cost reimbursable CLINs 0050-0055 and 0060-0065, minus the total VATEP evaluation credits (see Attachment J.8 LLDR 3 Valued Technical Requirements).

Price Analysis: CLINs 0003-0049 are firm-fixed-price CLINs:

In accordance with FAR 15.404-1, the analytical techniques and procedures used in the price analysis will be determined by the Contracting Officer.

In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(a)(2), price analysis will be used when certified cost or pricing data is not required.

In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b), an offeror’s proposed CLIN prices, will be evaluated for price fairness and reasonableness.

In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), proposed unit prices will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. Offerors shall use sufficient detail and provide documentation to explain any potential lack of balance. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Cost Analysis: CLINs 0001 and 0002 are cost reimbursable CLINs:

Cost proposals will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness and for cost realism in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 Proposal Analysis Techniques.

Proposal Cost/Cost Realism analysis techniques utilized will be determined by the

Contracting Officer, as appropriate. (FAR 15.404-1) Analytical techniques and procedures described under FAR 15.404-1 will be used singly or in combination with others to ensure the awarded price is fair and reasonable. (FAR 15.404-1 (a) (1))

The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the offeror’s accounting and purchasing systems.

Cost Analysis: CLINs 0050-0055 and 0060-0065 are cost reimbursable CLINs. The Government has provided normalized amounts for these CLINs, which, for the purposes of this solicitation, will not be evaluated during the cost analysis conducted during solicitation evaluation but will be reviewed for cost realism after award of a basic contract and issuance of individual task orders.

VATEP:

The Government will conduct a VATEP assessment on the four (4) technical requirements specified in Attachment J.8 LLDR 3 Valued Technical Requirements only after the proposal has been determined to be technically “acceptable” and the Cost/Price analysis has been determined fair, reasonable, and realistic.

The Government will conduct a tradeoff source selection process, VATEP, where the offeror’s total proposed price may be adjusted based on the value placed on better performance, as identified in Attachment J.8. The VATEP process will analyze the total of all Section B contract line items less any assigned reductions given for meeting technical criteria identified in Attachment J.8. Offerors are strongly cautioned that an award may not necessarily be made to the offeror with the lowest price or the offeror with the highest technical rating and that award(s) may be made without discussions.

2.2.3.4. Factor 3 – Past Performance (A/U)

The Past Performance factor will be evaluated as “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”.

A negative finding under any element may imply the offeror’s performance is of higher risk.

Actions taken by the offeror to fix specific performance problems may result in negating the negative past performance. Therefore, offerors are reminded to include all relevant past efforts, including demonstrated, corrective actions in their proposal. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work will be an important consideration in the source selection process.

The Government reserves the right to consider data obtained from other sources not herein described. Offerors will have the burden to address all negative past performance history to which they have not had an opportunity to respond.

The Government will:

Evaluate the risk associated with an offeror’s probability of success in performing the contract requirements based on the performance of the offeror’s recent, relevant contractual obligations.

Evaluate each offeror (prime contractor) and subcontractor individually and will develop a combined assessment of the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the required effort.

Evaluate all sources of past performance information not limited to the offeror’s responses to the Section L submission instructions and responses to the Past Performance Questionnaire.

RATING: Overall DEFINITION

ACCEPTABLE

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

UNACCEPTABLE

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

NOTE: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

2.2.3.5. Factor 4 - Small Business Approach (A/U)

Proposal will be evaluated as “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” based on the analysis of the two Sub-Factors: SB Participation Plan (this sub-factor applies to both small and large businesses) and SB Subcontracting Plan (this sub-factor applies to large business concerns only).

Sub-Factor 1 - SB Participation Plan (A/U)

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s SB Participation Plan demonstrate commitment to using SBs, SDBs, WOSBs, HUBZone SBs, and SDVOSBs in performance of the contract. The offeror’s SB Participation Plan will be evaluated on the basis of:

o The extent to which SB firms are specifically identified in proposals;

o The extent of commitment to utilize SB firms;

o The complexity and variety of the work small business firms are to perform;

o The extent of participation of SB firms in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisition and the extent to which the proposal meets the small business participation goals as set forth in the solicitation document.

o Past performance of the offerors in complying with requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

SB Participation Plan Ratings. The offeror’s SB Participation Plan will be evaluated and must meet a minimum of “acceptable” as shown below.

Sub-Factor 2 - Small Business Subcontracting Plan Factor (A/U)

The proposed Small Business Subcontracting plan will be evaluated and rated as “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” in accordance with FAR 19.705-4 Reviewing the subcontracting plan, DFARS 219.705-4 Reviewing the subcontracting plan, and AFARS Appendix DD Subcontracting Plan Evaluation Guide. An unacceptable subcontracting plan will make an offeror ineligible for award of a contract.

The Government will determine the basic acceptability of the Small Business Subcontracting Plan including the extent the proposal meets or exceeds the subcontracting objectives described for this requirement within the solicitation.

Overall SB Approach Rating

(End of Summary of Changes)

Rating Description

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.