2024.01.29 693KA9-24-R-00005 SIR Amendment 0002.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ.NO.

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

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

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 is extended, is not extended.

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.

(x) A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14.

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

1 18

0002 01/29/2024

AAQ-410 ACQ STRATEGY & PERFORM NISC

Orville Wright Bldg. (FOB10A), Room 406 FAA National Headquarters 800 Independence Ave., SW

AAQ410-AFN

Washington DC 20591

Resource Management Branch Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue SW Washington DC 20591

ASU360-ARA

x

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment number. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 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.

copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted ; or (c) By ___________ x x

693KA9-24-R-00005

copies to the issuing office.

11/16/2023

(x)

See the continuation pages.

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. CONTRACT AUTHORITY 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16C. DATE SIGNED

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

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9 A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect .

LASONDIA R DRAPER

1.29.2024

ATEPS II Screening Information Request (SIR) Page 2 of 18 SIR No. 693KA9-24-R-00005 Amendment 0002

A. PURPOSE

To revise the SIR and Attachments as indicated herein and to provide a conformed copy of the SIR and revised Attachments that incorporate these changes. Punctuation and grammatical changes were made but are not identified by this Amendment. For any discrepancies between the Description of Changes in this Amendment 0002, the conformed SIR and revised Attachments, the conformed SIR and revised Attachments take precedence.

B. DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES

SECTION A SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

Block 8 of the Solicitation Form is revised to extend the date of receipt of proposals to 02/15/2024.

Block 10 is revised to update Table of Contents page numbers.

SECTION B SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICE/COST

B.3 MAXIMUM CONTRACT LIMITATION

A third paragraph is added as follows:

The FAA intends to manage this contract at the ceiling dollar level; the Government reserves the right to adjust the level of effort between line items and the base or option periods as the need arises. Any modification or changes to the TO ceiling requires written approval by the CO.

B.6.1.3 ODCs

Delete the following from the first paragraph:

The handling rate must only be applied to the direct costs for ODCs at the Prime Contractor level. Additional indirect charges allocated by the Prime to subcontract costs are unallowable under this contract. Profit is unallowable on all ODCs under this contract. (See Section G.13).

Replace with:

Indirect costs may be applied to ODCs in accordance with the Contractor’s established accounting practices. Profit is unallowable on all ODCs under this contract. (See Section G.13).

B.6.1.4 Handling Rate

Delete the following:

The handling rates are fixed over the life of the contract and are not subject to redetermination for contract closeout purposes.

Replace with:

The handling costs are considered part of the overall not to exceed (NTE) for ODC/Travel. The handling rates may be updated annually based on a Contractor’s approved provisional billing rates and final approved indirect rates.

ATEPS II Screening Information Request (SIR) Page 3 of 18

B.6.2 Rate Refresh

Delete the following:

“The labor rates in Attachment J-1 and the handling rates in Section B.6 are fixed for all contract periods; however,”

SECTION C DESCRIPTION OF WORK/SPECS/WORK STATEMENT

Throughout Section C, change any reference to “Contract Data Requirements List” or “(CDRL)” to “Deliverable.”

C.2.3.1 Transition In Plan

Delete the following from the first paragraph:

The Contractor must prepare a draft Transition In Plan in response to the SIR that facilitates the accomplishment of a seamless transition from the incumbent to an incoming Contractor.

The first paragraph is now modified to start as follows:

The Contractor must submit a finalized Transition In Plan within fifteen (15) business days after award; the Government will not issue a TO for the Transition In Plan or Transition In activities.

The beginning of the last sentence of the second paragraph is changed -

FROM: At a minimum, the schedule must include:

TO: At a minimum, the Transition In Plan and schedule must include:

C.2.10.1 Quality Assurance/Quality Control

The second sentence of the first paragraph is changed –

FROM: The Contractor must prepare and submit a Quality Management Plan (QMP) (CDRL C-0008) in response to the SIR, which describes the QA/QC systems and processes used to measure and ensure the quality of ATEPS II services and products.

TO: The Contractor must prepare and submit a Quality Management Plan (QMP) (Deliverable C-0008), within forty-five (45) days of contract award (See Section F.4.4), which describes the QA/QC systems and processes used to measure and ensure the quality of ATEPS II services and products.

SECTION D PACKAGING AND MARKING

Throughout Section D, any reference to “Contract Data Requirements List” or “(CDRL)” is changed to “Deliverable.”

SECTION F DELIVERIES AND PERFORMANCE

F.4 DELIVERABLES, DELIVERY SCHEDULE, AND DELIVERY FORMAT

Change references to “Contract Data Requirements List” or “(CDRL)” to “Deliverable.”

ATEPS II Screening Information Request (SIR) Page 4 of 18

F.4.4 Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) and Deliverables

Delete “Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL)” from the header title at F.4.4. The new header is F.4.4 Deliverables.

Delete Table F.4.4 CDRLS AND DELIVERABLES in its entirety and replace with the following:

Table F.4.4: DELIVERABLES Deliverable

Deliverable Name Reference

Section Format Delivery Schedule

C-0001 Staffing, Recruitment, and Workforce

Section C.2.2.3 Section F.4.4.1

Per FAA instructions

Within 15 business days after contract award.

C-0002 Transition In Plan Section C.2.3.1 Section F.4.4.2

Per FAA instructions

Within 15 business days after contract award.

C-0003 Transition Out Plan Section C.2.3.2 Section F.4.4.3

Per FAA instructions

90 calendar days prior to the end of the contract.

C-0004 Monthly Status Report (MSR)

Section C.2.4.1 Section F.4.4.4

FAA provided template

By the 15th of the month following TO award and monthly thereafter.

C-0005 Monthly Cost Report

(MCR)

Section C.2.4.2 Section F.4.4.5

FAA provided template

By the 15th of the month following TO award and monthly thereafter.

C-0006 Monthly Contractor Tracking Report

(MCTR)

Section C.2.4.3 Section F.4.4.6

FAA provided template

By the 15th of the month following TO award and monthly thereafter.

C-0007 Quarterly Program Management Review (PMR) Briefing

Section C.2.4.4 Section F.4.4.7

FAA provided template

Within 90 calendar days after TO award and quarterly thereafter.

C-0008 Quality Management Plan

Section C.2.10.1 Section F.4.4.9

Per FAA instructions

Within 45 business days after contract award.

N/A Agendas and Meeting Minutes

Section C.2.5 Section F.4.4.8

Per FAA Instructions

As stated in Section C.2.5 or as requested.

F.4.4.9 Finalized Quality Management Plan (QMP)

The header title for F.4.4.9 is changed –

FROM: F.4.4.9 Finalized Quality Management Plan (QMP)

TO: F.4.4.9 Quality Management Plan (QMP)

The Section reference in the first paragraph for the QMP is corrected to Section C.2.10.1.

ATEPS II Screening Information Request (SIR) Page 5 of 18

SECTION G CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA

G.8 Task Orders

The first paragraph is revised to include the following:

TO start dates will be negotiated after award.

The first two sentences of the second paragraph are deleted and moved to B.3, Maximum Contract Limitations.

G.13 ODC REIMBURSEMENT

Paragraph (d) is revised to delete “which is not subject to redetermination for contract closeout purposes.”

SECTION H SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

H.2 AMS CLAUSES INCORPORATED IN FULL TEXT

Paragraph (d) of AMS 3.8.2.17 Key Personnel and Facilities (July 2019) is changed –

FROM:

(d) The key personnel and/or facilities under this contract are:

Contract Program Manager Deputy Program Manager Task Order Manager(s) Business or Financial Manager Task Lead for each Functional Task Area

TO:

(d) The key personnel and/or facilities under this contract are:

Contract Program Manager Deputy Program Manager Task Order Manager(s) Financial Analyst IV or Higher Task Lead for each Functional Task Area

H.5.9 Employee Termination

The reference to “CDRL” is changed to “Deliverable.”

ATEPS II Screening Information Request (SIR) Page 6 of 18

SECTION I CONTRACT CLAUSES

Table I.1: Clauses Incorporated by Reference

Delete:

Clause 3.13-14 Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards (April 2022)

Replace with:

Clause 3.13-14 Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards (October 2023).

I.2 AMS CLAUSES INCORPORATED IN FULL TEXT

Add:

“AMS” in front of 3.2.2.3-38 Alternate II Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data or Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data (Jan 2022)

Delete Clause AMS 3.13-16 Records Management (January 2020) in its entirety.

Replace in full text with:

AMS 3.13-16 Records Management (October 2023)

SECTION L INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

Table L.1 Provisions Incorporated by Reference

Correct the Provision number for Pre-Award On-Site Equal Opportunity Compliance Review (July 2023) to 3.6.2-7.

L.3.4 Offeror Statements

The first sentence of the second paragraph is revised to reflect that the “Technical Proposal” includes information submitted in Volumes 4, 5, and 6 for Factors 1, 2, and 3. Therefore the language is changed -

FROM: Any inconsistencies between the Technical and Price proposals must be fully explained.

TO: Any inconsistencies between the Technical (Technical Approach, Staffing Approach, and Management Approach) and Price proposals must be fully explained.

L.5 TIME, DATE, PLACE, AND SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

Paragraph (b) – the time and date set for proposal submission is changed to no later than Thursday, February 15, 2024, 2:00 PM Eastern Time.

ATEPS II Screening Information Request (SIR) Page 7 of 18

L.9 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION AND DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS

Table L.9 Proposal Submission Requirements is revised as follows:

For Volume 1, the Content/Format is revised to include:

- Section 6 – Teaming Arrangement/Joint Venture (as applicable)

- Section 7 - OCI Mitigation Plan

- Section 8 – Supplemental (as applicable)

- Section 9 – Information Regarding Financial Capability

For Volume 4, the Page Limits are revised as follows:

Unrestricted: 20 pages (excluding limit of 25 resumes, each resume submitted is limited to 5 pages)

Small: 8 pages (excluding limit of 25 resumes, each resume submitted is limited to 5 pages)

SDB: 8 pages (excluding limit of 25 resumes, each resume submitted is limited to 5 pages)

For Volume 7, delete -Section 3 – Financial Capability from the Content/Format.

L.9.1 Proposal Formatting

Paragraph (a), the last sentence is changed -

FROM: The exception is for charts, graphs, tables, figures, and pictures for which the paper size, up to 11 x 14, and font type is up to discretion of Offeror; however, font size must be no less than 8-point.

TO: The exception is for charts, graphs, tables, figures, and pictures for which the paper size, up to 8.5 x 14, and font type is up to discretion of Offeror; however, font size must be no less than 8-point.

Paragraph (g), the first two sentences are changed -

FROM: Except for the contents of Volume 7, Price Proposal, electronic files must be saved and submitted in a Portable Document Format (PDF). Volume 7 must include files in Excel compatible format.

TO: Except for the contents of Volume 7, Price Proposal, electronic files for Volumes 1 through 6 must be saved and submitted in a Portable Document Format (PDF). Volume 7 must include files in Excel compatible format, with the price narrative submitted in PDF.

Paragraph (k), the last sentence is changed -

FROM: The term “team member” refers to a member of the team (including the Offeror or one of the proposed subcontractors).

TO: The term “team member” refers to a member of the team (including the Offeror, teaming arrangement, joint ventures, or one of the proposed subcontractors).

ATEPS II Screening Information Request (SIR) Page 8 of 18

L.10.1.4 - Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Large Business Offerors Only)

Delete reference to approved commercial subcontracting plan and replace with approved master subcontracting plan.

L.10.1.6 Section 6 - Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan is renumbered to:

L.10.1.7 Section 7 - Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan

New language is incorporated at L.10.1.6 as follows:

L.10.1.6 Section 6 -– Teaming Arrangements/Joint Venture

If the Offeror has a teaming arrangement or is in a joint venture as defined in AMS T.3.2.2.7 it is important they specifically describe their relationship and work performed by each. The Offeror must submit a Consent Letter, executed by each team partner and joint venture partner, which authorizes release of adverse past performance information to the Offeror to allow a response by the Offeror. Past performance submitted as part of a team partner or joint venture will be evaluated as the Offeror’s will be.

L.10.1.7 Section 7 – Supplementary Information is renumbered to:

L.10.1.8 Section 8 – Supplementary Information

L.10.1.8 Section 8 - Information Regarding Financial Capability is renumbered to:

L.10.1.9 Section 9 - Information Regarding Financial Capability

L.10.1.9 Section 9 - Information Regarding Financial Capability

The first sentence of paragraph (3) is changed -

FROM: For every team member (i.e., the Offeror and all subcontractors) of the Offeror’s team:

TO: For every team member (i.e., the Offeror, including teaming arrangements, joint ventures, and all subcontractors) of the Offeror’s team:

L.10.2 Go/No-Go Documentation – Volume 2

The second sentence is changed -

FROM: Such Offerors must demonstrate that their capability and experience is relevant to the size, scope, and complexity of ATEPS II.

TO: Such Offerors, teaming arrangements, or joint ventures must demonstrate that their capability and experience is relevant to the size, scope, and complexity of ATEPS II.

L.10.3.1 Subfactor 1.1 – Functional Task Areas

The first sentence is changed -

FROM: Offerors must describe their breadth and depth of knowledge in the ATEPS II functional task areas, described in Section C.4 for their proposed team.

TO: Offerors must describe their breadth and depth of knowledge in this subfactor for the ATEPS II functional task areas, described in Section C.4 for their proposed team.

ATEPS II Screening Information Request (SIR) Page 9 of 18

L.10.3.2 Subfactor 1.2 – Mission Alignment

The last sentence is changed -

FROM: The proposal must detail the Offeror’s breadth and depth of NAS-relevant experience in relation to the functional task area requirements of the SOW (i.e., Section C.4).

TO: The proposal must detail the Offeror’s breadth and depth of this subfactor for NAS-relevant experience in relation to the functional task area requirements of the SOW (i.e., Section C.4).

L.10.5.1 Subfactor 3.1 – Team Structure and Technical Experience

The second sentence is changed -

FROM: Offeror must demonstrate how the teaming and subcontract management approach will ensure effective, efficient, and quality performance.

TO: Offeror must demonstrate how teaming arrangements, joint ventures, and subcontract management approach will ensure effective, efficient, and quality performance.

L.10.5.2 Subfactor 3.2 – Transition Approach

The header title is changed -

L.10.5.2 Subfactor 3.2 – Transition In Approach

L.10.6 Factor 4 Past Performance – Volume 6

The first sentence of the third paragraph is changed -

FROM: Offerors must discuss their experience as a Prime Contractor or major subcontractor in relation to the specific functional task area(s) in Section C.4 under which they are proposing.

TO: Offerors must discuss their experience as a Prime Contractor or as a major subcontractor in relation to the specific functional task area(s) in Section C.4 under which they are proposing.

L.10.6.1 Subfactor 4.1 - Past Performance Narrative

The first two paragraphs are changed -

FROM: The proposal must cite and describe a minimum of three (3) for functional task areas C.4.1 to C.4.20 and up to three (3) for each functional task areas C.4.21 to C.4.25, previous or on-going contracts (Government or non-Government) that are:

(1) Comparable to the functional task area(s) in terms of scope and/or complexity; and

(2) Representative of the Offeror’s capability, experience, and performance relative to the functional task area(s) under which the Offeror is proposing.

The references must be for contracts held within the last five (5) years. The narrative must describe the objectives achieved and detail how the effort demonstrates breadth and depth of NAS-relevant experience in each of the Core Capabilities. The Offeror must list which functional task areas are covered by the past performance reference and how this

ATEPS II Screening Information Request (SIR) Page 10 of 18 past performance is relevant to performing those tasks. Prime and subcontractor past performance descriptions total must not exceed five (5) submissions in total.

TO: The proposal must cite and describe a minimum of three (3), but no more than five (5), previous or on-going contracts (Government or non-Government) that are:

(1) Comparable to the functional task area(s) in terms of size, scope and/or complexity;

and

(2) Representative of the Offeror’s capability, experience, and performance relative to the functional task area(s) under which the Offeror is proposing.

The references must be for contracts held within the last five (5) years. The narrative must describe the objectives achieved and detail how the effort demonstrates breadth and depth of NAS-relevant experience in the Functional Task Areas (C.4) and relevant Core Capabilities (C.3). The Offeror must list which functional task areas are covered by the past performance reference and how this past performance is relevant to performing those tasks. Prime and subcontractor past performance descriptions total must not exceed five

(5) submissions in total.

L.10.6.2 Subfactor 4.2 - Past Performance Customer Surveys and CPARS Performance Assessments

The first sentence of the first paragraph is changed -

FROM: The Offeror must complete Part A of Attachment L-1, Past Performance Customer Surveys for each cited contract in accordance with the instructions included therein.

TO: When the Offeror is submitting Attachment L-1, Past Performance Customer Survey, the Offeror must complete Part A of Attachment L-1 for each cited contract in accordance with the instructions included therein.

The second sentence of the first paragraph is deleted in its entirety.

The first sentence of the second paragraph is changed -

FROM: The Offeror must submit applicable recent and relevant CPARS performance assessments printed from the CPARS system as part of its proposal submission.

TO: When the Offeror is not submitting Attachment L-1, Past Performance Customer Survey, the Offeror must submit applicable recent and relevant CPARS performance assessments printed from the CPARS system as part of its proposal submission.

L.10.7 Factor 5 Price Proposal – Volume 7

The first two paragraphs are changed -

FROM: The Price Volume must be submitted separately from all other volumes. Pricing data must not be included with any other volume and, if included within other volumes, it will be discarded and excluded from the evaluation. The pricing instructions are applicable to the Prime Contractor and all team members.

ATEPS II Screening Information Request (SIR) Page 11 of 18

Proposed team members may submit cost volumes directly to the CO, following these same instructions. If a team member submits directly to the CO via 9-AFN-ACQ- ATEPSII@faa.gov it must identify the Prime Offeror on the proposal submitted.

TO: The Prime Offeror must submit the Price Volume separately from all other volumes.

Pricing data must not be included with any other volume and, if included within other volumes, it will be discarded and excluded from the evaluation.

Team Member proposals are recommended but not required. However, the Government reserves the right to request this information if deemed necessary. Proposed team members may submit cost volumes to the Prime Offeror to be included as part of the Prime Offeror’s cost proposal or directly to the CO, following these same instructions. If a team member submits directly to the CO via 9-AFN-ACQ-ATEPSII@faa.gov it must identify the Prime Offeror on the proposal submitted.

L.10.7.2 Section 2 - Price Proposal Bid Model

Paragraphs (d)(4) and (d)(7), delete the sentence “Each Offeror must assume a contract start date as identified in Section L.3.2, Projected Acquisition Schedule.”

SECTION M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.3.2 Tiered Evaluations

In accordance with AMS T3.2.2.3(B)(7), a tiered evaluation is a process by which the FAA promotes Small Business participation while providing the FAA a means to continue the procurement, if Small Disadvantaged Business participation is insufficient.

To provide opportunities for Small and Small Disadvantaged Businesses and to ensure that FAA requirements are met without issuing another SIR, the acquisition strategy for this procurement is anticipated to use a tiered evaluation of Offerors with the following tiers:

• Tier 1 - Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDB)

• Tier 2 - Small Businesses

Tiered evaluation of offers under this solicitation is applicable only to functional task areas C.4.23, C.4.24, and C.4.25. In accordance with Section L.7, Number of Awards, these functional task areas are designated for SDBs (Tier 1); however, Small Business Offerors are encouraged to submit a proposal for one or more of these functional areas for inclusion in Tier 2. Once offers are received, the Government will evaluate Tier 1 offers. If the Government receives at least one (1) responsible responsive offer from an SDB but no award can be made, offerors from Tier 1 continue on in the evaluation and are evaluated against offerors from Tier 2.

Small Disadvantaged Business Offerors may be considered as a Prime Contractor for more than one

(1) SDB set-aside functional task area award. SDB Offerors must submit one (1) single proposal for each explicitly designated SDB functional task area identified in Sections C.4.23, C.4.24, and C.4.25 for which it intends to offer as per L.8.1.3.

ATEPS II Screening Information Request (SIR) Page 12 of 18

In accordance with AMS Clause 3.6.1-7 Limitations on Subcontracting, for set-aside portions of the requirement, at least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel must be performed by employees of the Prime Contractor or of a first-tier subcontractor, including an independent contractor, that has the same small business program status as that which qualified the Prime Contractor for the award.

Small and SDB Offerors can simultaneously pursue subcontracting opportunities on other functional task area awards without restriction.

M.4 EVALUATION FACTORS

Paragraph (1) is changed –

FROM: The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

(a) Other Proposal Documentation (Volume 1); NOT RATED

(i) Section 1 – FAA 4400-81

(ii) Section 2 – Contractor Submittal Letter

(iii) Section 3 – Section K

(iv) Section 4 – Subcontracting Plan (as applicable)

(v) Section 5 – Mentor-Protégé Agreement (as applicable)

(vi) Section 6 – OCI Mitigation Plan

(vii) Section 7 – Supplemental (as applicable)

TO: The following will be used to assess each proposal:

(a) Other Proposal Documentation (Volume 1); NOT RATED

(i) Section 1 – FAA 4400-81

(ii) Section 2 – Contractor Submittal Letter

(iii) Section 3 – Section K

(iv) Section 4 – Subcontracting Plan (as applicable)

(v) Section 5 – Mentor-Protégé Agreement (as applicable)

(vi) Section 6 - Teaming Arrangements/Joint Ventures (as applicable)

(vii) Section 7 – OCI Mitigation Plan

(viii) Section 8 – Supplemental (as applicable)

(ix) Section 9 - Information Regarding Financial Capability

ATEPS II Screening Information Request (SIR) Page 13 of 18

Paragraph (2) is changed –

FROM: The five (5) evaluation factors are Technical Approach, Staffing Approach, Management Approach, Past Performance, and Price. The non-price factors will be evaluated at the subfactor level.

TO: The five (5) evaluation factors are Technical Approach, Staffing Approach, Management Approach, Past Performance, and Price. Evaluation of Factors 1, 2, and 3 will also consider the risk associated with the proposed approach. The non-price factors will be evaluated at the subfactor level.

Paragraph (2)(e) is changed –

FROM: Factor 5: Price (Volume 7)

(i) Section 1 - Price Proposal Narrative

(ii) Section 2(a) – Unrestricted Price Proposal Bid Model (as applicable)

(iii) Section 2(b) – Small Business Price Proposal Bid Model (as applicable)

(iv) Section 2(c) – Small Disadvantaged Business Price Proposal Bid Model (as applicable)

(v) Section 3 - Information Regarding Financial Capability

TO: Factor 5: Price (Volume 7)

(i) Section 1 - Price Proposal Narrative

(ii) Section 2(a) – Unrestricted Price Proposal Bid Model (as applicable)

(iii) Section 2(b) – Small Business Price Proposal Bid Model (as applicable)

(iv) Section 2(c) – Small Disadvantaged Business Price Proposal Bid Model (as applicable)

(v) Section 2(d) – Small Disadvantaged Business Price Proposal Bid Model (as applicable)

(vi) Section 2(e) – Small Disadvantaged Business Price Proposal Bid Model (as applicable)

M.4.1 Evaluation Order of Importance

The second paragraph is changed –

FROM: Volume 2 (Go/No-Go) is only applicable to unrestricted proposal submissions for tasks C.4.1- C.4.20; it represents a “Go/No-Go” factor. If Volume 2 receives a rating of “Go,” all subsequent factors will be evaluated.

TO: Volume 2 (Go/No-Go) is only applicable to unrestricted proposal submissions for tasks C.4.1-C.4.20; it represents a “Go/No-Go” factor. If Volume 2 receives a rating of “Go,” all subsequent Subfactors included in Factors 1 – 5 (Volumes 3 – 7) will be evaluated.

ATEPS II Screening Information Request (SIR) Page 14 of 18

M.4.1.3 Government’s Best Value Trade-Off

Delete this section in its entirety and replace with -

Using the results from the evaluation of Factors 1 through 4 and Price, the Source Selection Official will select for award the offer that provides the greatest overall value to the Government.

A tradeoff between non-price factors and price may be made, in which case, the lowest price or the highest rated Offeror may not necessarily provide the best value to the Government.

M.5.1.6 Section 6 – Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan (not scored) is renumbered to:

M.5.1.7 Section 7 – Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan (not scored)

New language is incorporated at M.5.1.6 as follows:

M.5.1.6 Section 6 – Teaming Arrangements/Joint Ventures (as applicable, not scored)

The FAA will review Teaming Arrangements/Joint Ventures in accordance with AMS T.3.2.2.7 Contractor Qualifications. This review is for informational purposes only and will not be an evaluation factor in the award decision.

Standard for Review: An acceptable Teaming Arrangement/Joint Venture must be reviewed and approved by the CO and/or the Small Business Office at the time of offer.

M.5.1.7 Section 7 – Supplemental (as applicable) is renumbered to:

M.5.1.8 Section 8 – Supplemental (as applicable)

M.5.1.9 Section 9 - Information Regarding Financial Capability (not scored) new language is incorporated as follows:

M.5.1.9 Section 9 - Information Regarding Financial Capability (not scored)

The FAA will evaluate Financial Capability in accordance with AMS T3.2.2.7, Contractor Qualifications.

Standard for Review: CO review and approval of an Offeror’s bank statements, documentation supporting payroll, and any other required documentation identified in Section L.10.1.9.

M.5.2 Volume 2 – Go/No-Go Documentation, Not Rated

The second paragraph is changed -

FROM: The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on a Go/No-Go basis. Offeror’s will receive a “Go” if the response is “Yes” to each factor of Volume 2 and the required documentation and/or supporting information is submitted. Offerors will receive a “No- Go” if the answer to any of the factors is a “No” or if the required documentation and/or supporting information is not submitted.

TO: The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on a Go/No-Go basis. Offeror’s will receive a “Go” if the response is “Yes” to each factor of Volume 2 and identifies where in the proposal the information is submitted. Offerors will receive a “No-Go” if the answer to any of the factors is a “No” or if the response does not identify where in the proposal the information is submitted.

ATEPS II Screening Information Request (SIR) Page 15 of 18

M.5.3.3.2 Subfactor 3.2 Transition Approach

The header title is changed to M.5.3.3.2 Subfactor 3.2 Transition In Approach.

Paragraph (a) reference to “a single day cutover” is changed to “transition.”

M.5.4 Factor 4 Past Performance

Delete this section in its entirety and replace with the following:

M.5.4 Factor 4 Past Performance

The past performance evaluation will be accomplished though assignment of a confidence rating (defined in Table M.6-3) based on a combination of Subfactor 4.1, Past Performance Narratives, and Subfactor 4.2, Past Performance Customer Surveys and/or CPARS Performance Assessments, provided such information is relevant and recent. The terms “relevant” and “recent” are defined as follows:

• Relevant: Having similar scope, size (magnitude of effort, in dollars and/or number of FTEs), and complexity to the requirements of this SIR.

• Recent: Occurring within the last five (5) years of the date of proposal submission.

The resulting confidence rating represents an evaluation of Offeror performance and the likelihood of the Offeror’s successful performance under the ATEPS II contract.

The Government reserves the right to contact and verify past performance information with the references provided in the Past Performance Customer Surveys and/or CPARS Assessment Reports, and to use any other past performance information available. Past performance data may be obtained through CPARS, or similar systems, other Government departments and agencies, program managers, contracting officers, and other sources known to the Government (including commercial sources), including references other than those identified by the Offeror. Offerors will be given the opportunity to address any negative performance information resulting from the past performance assessment inquiries.

If fewer than three Past Performance Customer Surveys are received, the FAA reserves the right to waive the submission requirement or assign a lower rating for the factor.

Subfactors 4.1 and 4.2 will be assigned a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable.” A rating of “Acceptable” indicates that the Offeror’s Past Performance meets the stated criteria. A rating of “Unacceptable” indicates that the Offeror’s Past Performance does not meet the stated criteria. An Offeror must not be rated favorably or unfavorably if the Offeror does not have a record of relevant and recent past performance or if a record of past performance is unavailable. In such cases, the Offeror will receive a rating of “Unknown Confidence.” However, an Offeror with favorable recent and relevant past performance may be considered more favorably than an Offeror with no recent and relevant past performance information.

Offerors with two (2) “Acceptable” and zero (0) “Unacceptable” subfactor-level ratings will receive a factor-level rating of “High Confidence.” Offerors with one (1) “Acceptable” and one

(1) “Unacceptable” subfactor-level rating will receive a factor-level rating of “Satisfactory

ATEPS II Screening Information Request (SIR) Page 16 of 18

Confidence.” Offerors with zero (0) “Acceptable” and two (2) “Unacceptable” subfactor-level ratings will receive a factor-level rating of “Low Confidence.”

The Government will evaluate:

M.5.4.1 Subfactor 4.1 Past Performance Narrative

Paragraph (b) is changed -

FROM: The degree to which the past performance demonstrates the Offeror’s capability, experience, and performance relative to the proposed ATEPS II Functional Task Area(s) (C.4).

TO: The degree to which the past performance demonstrates the Offeror’s capability, experience, and performance relative to the proposed ATEPS II Functional Task Area(s) (C.4), and relevant Core Capabilities (C.3).

The statement below that follows Section M.5.4.2 is deleted in its entirety.

“As a result of this analysis, each Offeror will receive a Past Performance Factor Confidence Rating in accordance with the definitions provided in Table M.6-3.”

M.6 DEFINITIONS AND ADJECTIVAL RATINGS FOR EVALUATIONS

Delete Table M.6-2 in its entirety and replace with the following:

Table M.6-2. Adjectival Ratings for Factor 1: Technical Approach, Factor 2: Staffing Approach, and Factor 3: Management Approach and Related Subfactor Evaluations

Rating Description

Excellent

The Offeror’s proposal contains no deficiencies and fully addresses all aspects of the criteria and demonstrates an excellent approach/solution and understanding of the requirements. Many strengths exist, far outweighing any weaknesses. The highest quality of contract performance is anticipated with very low risk. Very low risk is defined as very limited potential to cause decreases in performance or increases in schedule; normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will probably be sufficient to overcome difficulties.

Good

The Offeror’s proposal contains no deficiencies; fully addresses all aspects of the criteria and demonstrates a very effective approach/solution and understanding of the requirements. Some weaknesses may exist; however, the weaknesses, if any, are outweighed by strengths. A high quality of contract performance is anticipated with low risk. Low risk is defined as limited potential to cause decreases in performance or increases in schedule; normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring is anticipated to be sufficient to overcome difficulties.

ATEPS II Screening Information Request (SIR) Page 17 of 18

Satisfactory

The Offeror’s proposal contains no deficiencies; addresses all aspects of the criteria and demonstrates an adequate approach/solution and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. A quality contract performance is anticipated with an acceptable amount of risk. Acceptable amount of risk means the Offeror’s approach could potentially cause some decreases in performance or increases in schedule;

increased contractor emphasis and increased Government monitoring may be able to overcome difficulties.

Marginal

The Offeror’s proposal may contain deficiencies; fails to address all of the criteria and does not demonstrate an adequate approach/solution or understanding of the requirements. One or more weaknesses exist which are not offset by strengths.

Contract performance is anticipated with high risk. High risk is defined as likely to cause significant decreases in performance or increases in schedule even with increased contractor emphasis and increased Government monitoring.

Unsatisfactory

The Offeror’s proposal contains many deficiencies and does not address all aspects of the criteria and/or does not present evidence demonstrating an adequate approach/solution and understanding of the requirements. Many weaknesses and/or omissions exist creating an unacceptable risk. Unacceptable risk is defined as likely to cause very significant decreases in performance or increases in schedule even with increased contractor emphasis and increased Government monitoring.

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment J-1_Labor Rate Table-RESERVED is revised to delete paragraph (g) from the “Firm

Fixed Price (FFP) Task Orders” section and establish paragraph (f) in the “Time and Material (T&M) TOs” as follows:

(f) The Government and the Contractor will not close out the completed TO until Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) completes all reviews.

Attachment J-3_ATEPS II Standard Operating Procedures is revised at Table 10, Process Steps for Travel Authorizations, Step 3, to incorporate the following language at the end of the second paragraph:

Receipts are to be from the provider of the goods or services. Personal credit card statements are not required; PII may be redacted from submissions.

Attachment J-10_Labor Categories (LCAT) and Skills Level Description is revised:

(1) To incorporate Column F for applicable substitutions for LCAT requirements.

(2) To modify the certification requirements for the Change Management Consultant category and the Management Development / Leadership Consultant category to state “Candidate certification must be obtained within 6 months of award, or in the case of new employees, 6 months from the date of onboarding.”

Attachment J-11_Resume Template is revised to remove “Current Labor Category” and to remove the duplicate reference to “Education and Certifications.”

ATEPS II Screening Information Request (SIR) Page 18 of 18

Attachments L-2 (a) through (e) Proposal Bid Models are revised:

(1) To correct the formula in Column E for the overhead rate calculation on the Contractor Site Rate Buildup worksheet and Non-Contractor Site Rate Buildup worksheet.

(2) To delete the fiscal year and calendar year rows; to change the first year “Contract Period” to 09/24 – 08/25 and adjust other years accordingly on the Handling Rates worksheet and the Bid Model Rollup worksheet.

(3) To delete the column for “Travel/ODCs Handling” on the Bid Model Rollup worksheet.

Attachments L-3_Go_No-Go Size + Scope + Complexity Documentation is updated to improve formatting.

The following are included with Amendment 0002:

SIR 693KA9-24-R-00005 (Revised with Amendment 0002, January 29, 2024) Attachment J-1_Labor Rate Table-RESERVED (0124) Attachment J-3_ATEPS II Standard Operating Procedures (0124) Attachment J-10_Labor Categories (LCAT) and Skills Level Description (0124) Attachment J-11_Resume Template (0124) Attachment L-2a_Unrestricted - Proposal Bid Model (0124) Attachment L-2b_Small Business - Proposal Bid Model (0124) Attachment L-2c_SDB#1 - Bus. Mgmt. - Proposal Bid Model (0124) Attachment L-2d_SDB#2_RIO Proposal Bid Model (0124) Attachment L-2e_SDB#3 - Communications - Proposal Bid Model (0124) Attachment L-3_Go_No-Go Size + Scope + Complexity Documentation (0124)