6973GH-18-R-00113 - Amendment 0005.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 7

0005 08/03/2018

AAQ-811 FAC. & AVIATION SAFETY ACQ

FAA AERONAUTICAL CENTER

PO BOX 25082

MPB ROOM 380

AAQ0811-AFN

OKLAHOMA CITY OK 73125

AAQ-811 FAC. & AVIATION SAFETY ACQ

FAA AERONAUTICAL CENTER

PO BOX 25082

MPB ROOM 380

AAQ811-AFN

OKLAHOMA CITY OK 73125

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 ___________ 1 x x

6973GH-18-R-00113

1 copies to the issuing office.

06/14/2018

(x)

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)

Stephanie Riddle

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 .

The purpose of this amendment is to revise Section M.3 Technical Evaluation, paragraph (2), incorporate a revised Statement of Work, and incorporate a revised SOW - Table of Musts.

FIRST: Section M.3 Technical Evaluation, Paragraph (2) Factor 2 - Phase Two: Best Value Determination is hereby revised as follows:

FROM: Each Offeror must provide a detailed narrative with respect to its proposed responses with supporting documentation to substantiate its proposed TAGARS solution for those items associated with its proposed best value submission. The narrative must provide sufficient information for the government to assess the Offeror's understanding and experience of the government requirement. The Offeror must provide substantial and reliable information such as pictures, materials, brands, drawings, etc...to ensure compliance by the government.

Evaluation Offerors must demonstrate a full and complete detailed proposal with supporting information sufficient to establish scoring in accordance with the table below. Failure to submit documentation that sufficiently allows the Government to clearly understand the components to its TAGARS solution may eliminate or severally reduce an offerors numerical score based on the Offeror's solution proposed.

% Name of item 5 (earned score) 4 3 2 1

30% Simulator Performance (Aero model)

Exceeds Level 6

Meets Level

Some items less than Level 6

Hardware Maintainability I:

Commercial off-the shelf hardware

All components off the shelf

75% off the shelf

50% off the shelf

25% off the shelf

No components off the shelf

Hardware Maintainability II:

local maintenance

Fully maintainable by lab personnel

75% in house 50% in house

25% in house

Must be maintained by outside personnel (contractor)

Hardware Maintainability

III:

Replacements

All components can be ordered commercially as off the shelf

75% available as

COTS

50% available as

COTS

25% available as

COTS

All replacements must be custom manufactured

Hardware Maintainability IV: Reliability

MTBF > 200

hours

MTBF >150 MTBF > 125 MTBF>75 MTBF<75

Software Maintainability I:

Source

100% commercial off the shelf

75% COTS 50% COTS 25% COTS All custom written software

25%

Software Maintainability II:

Licensing

No licensing required beyond initial acquisition

25% requires annual licensing

50% requires annual licensing

75% requires annual licensing

All software requires annual licensing

30% Experimenter/User interface I:

Usability

Exceeds all

FAA HCI

and best-practice standards

Meets all

FAA HCI

and best-practice standards

Meets 75% of published criteria

Meets 50% of published criteria

Meets few or none of the published usability criteria

Exp/User interface II: Stability

Interface exhibits stable performance

Interface is marginally stable

Exp/User interface III: Required Training

No training required as interface functions are inherently obvious

Minimal training required for certain functions

Moderate training required for roughly half of operations possible

Training required for most operations

Cannot be used without significant operator training

Exp/User interface IV: Compatibility with other lab systems

Uses same

COTS

software packages and hardware common to other lab simulators

Proposed system and existing lab systems have 75% overlap

Proposed system and existing lab systems have 50% overlap

Proposed system and existing lab systems have 25% overlap

Uses no

COTS

software packages or hardware common to other lab simulators

10% Ability to interface with auxiliary display equipment

Can easily interface with EFBs, iPad variants, Android platforms, HUD, HMD, and all other lab devices

Can interface with external devices after some minor programming or hardware modifications

Requires moderate modifications to interface with external devices

Requires major software or hardware modifications to interface with external devices

Cannot interface with external devices

5% Ability to interface with external data-collection systems

Can easily interface with eye-tracking and head-tracking equipment

Can interface with Eye and head trackers after some minor programming or hardware modifications

Requires moderate modifications to interface with eye and head trackers

Requires major software or hardware modifications to interface with eye and head trackers

Cannot interface with eye-tracking and head-tracking equipment

TO: Each Offeror must provide a detailed narrative with respect to its proposed responses with supporting documentation to substantiate its proposed TAGARS solution for those items associated with its proposed best value submission. The narrative must provide sufficient information for the government to assess the Offeror's understanding and experience of the government requirement. The Offeror must provide substantial and reliable information such as pictures, materials, brands, drawings, etc...to ensure compliance by the government.

Evaluation Offerors must demonstrate a full and complete detailed proposal with supporting information sufficient to establish scoring in accordance with the table below. Failure to submit documentation that sufficiently allows the Government to clearly understand the components to its TAGARS solution may eliminate or severely reduce an offerors numerical score based on the Offeror's solution proposed.

% Name of item 5 (earned score) 4 3 2 1

10% Simulation Device Characteristics:

Evidence of past performance

Contractor demonstrates experience in the engineering, design, and development of real-time flight-simulation systems, demonstrates experience in graphics modeling of instrument display systems and complex visual environments, demonstrates ability to provide data collection and data analysis systems, and demonstrates reliability of products through records of similar systems already in service. The contractor demonstrates the aforementione d by providing evidence that their organization has previously constructed a General Aviation Flight simulator, similar to that described in this SOW, and allows government to inspect one or more of these products that

Contractor meets the requirements of BOTH a) or b).

a. Contractor provides evidence, through thorough documentation that it has previously constructed, for either internal or external research and development, a General Aviation flight simulator, and provides information as to the location of such device to enable the government to evaluate it prior to contract award if deemed desirable by the government.

(Evidence of this should include at a minimum:

photos, a high-level system diagram, a description of the intended function, and for whom it was built.)

AND

b. Provider demonstrates, through

Contractor meets the requirements of EITHER a) or b).

a. Contractor provides evidence, through thorough documentation that it has previously constructed, for either internal or external research and development, a General Aviation flight simulator, and provides information as to the location of such device to enable the government to evaluate it prior to contract award if deemed desirable by the government.

(Evidence of this should include at a minimum:

photos, a high-level system diagram, a description of the intended function, and for whom it was built.)

OR

b. Provider demonstrates, through is in service. thorough documentation , that it has engaged in the maintenance and modification of a General Aviation flight simulator in the areas of both hardware and software, and providea information as to the location of such device to enable the government to evaluate the results of this maintenance/ modification activity prior to contract award if deemed desirable by the government.

(Evidence of this should include at a minimum:

photos, a high-level system diagram, a description of the intended function, and for whom it was built.)

thorough documentation , that it has engaged in the maintenance and modification of a General Aviation flight simulator in the areas of both hardware and software, and provides information as to the location of such device to enable the government to evaluate the results of this maintenance/ modification activity prior to contract award if deemed desirable by the government.

(Evidence of this should include at a minimum:

photos, a high-level system diagram, a description of the intended function, and for whom it was built.)

25% Simulator Performance (Aero model)

Exceeds Level

Meets Level 6 Some items less than Level

Hardware Maintainability I:

Commercial off-the shelf hardware

All components off the shelf

75% off the shelf

50% off the shelf

25% off the shelf

No components off the shelf

25%

Hardware Maintainability II: local maintenance

Fully maintainable by lab personnel

75% in house

50% in house 25% in house

Must be maintained by outside personnel (contractor)

Hardware Maintainability

III:

Replacements

All components can be ordered commercially as off the shelf

75% available as

COTS

50% available as COTS

25% available as

COTS

All replacements must be custom manufactured

Hardware Maintainability IV: Reliability

MTBF > 200

hours

MTBF >150 MTBF > 125 MTBF>75 MTBF<75

Software Maintainability I:

Source

100% commercial off the shelf

75% COTS 50% COTS 25% COTS All custom written software

Software Maintainability II: Licensing

No licensing required beyond initial acquisition

25% requires annual licensing

50% requires annual licensing

75% requires annual licensing

All software requires annual licensing

Experimenter/Use r interface I:

Usability

Exceeds all FAA HCI and best-practice standards

Meets all

FAA HCI

and best-practice standards

Meets 75% of published criteria

Meets 50% of published criteria

Meets few or none of the published usability criteria

Exp/User interface II:

Stability

Interface exhibits stable performance

Interface is marginally stable

Exp/User interface III:

Required Training

No training required as interface functions are inherently obvious

Minimal training required for certain functions

Moderate training required for roughly half of operations possible

Training required for most operations

Cannot be used without significant operator training

25%

Exp/User interface IV:

Compatibility with other lab systems

Uses same COTS software packages and hardware common to other lab simulators

Proposed system and existing lab systems have 75% overlap

Proposed system and existing lab systems have 50% overlap

Proposed system and existing lab systems have 25% overlap

Uses no COTS software packages or hardware common to other lab simulators

10% Ability to interface with auxiliary display equipment

Can easily interface with EFBs, iPad variants, Android platforms, HUD, HMD, and all other lab devices

Can interface with external devices after some minor programmin g or hardware modification s

Requires moderate modifications to interface with external devices

Requires major software or hardware modification s to interface with external devices

Cannot interface with external devices

5% Ability to interface with external data-collection systems

Can easily interface with eye-tracking and head-tracking equipment

Can interface with Eye and head trackers after some minor programmin g or hardware modification s

Requires moderate modifications to interface with eye and head trackers

Requires major software or hardware modification s to interface with eye and head trackers

Cannot interface with eye-tracking and head-tracking equipment

SECOND: A revised Statement of Work is hereby incorporated. The following paragraphs have been revised:

1.3.1 (iii) Simulation Device Characteristics

4.5 (i) Cockpit Graphics Display Editor Capability, Individual Display Reconfiguration

5.2.1 Autopilot

21.0 (i) Quality Assurance

THIRD: A revised SOW - Table of Musts is hereby incorporated. The following have been revised:

Section 1.3.1, Paragraph iii Section 4.5, Paragraph i Section 5.2.1, Paragraph i Section 21.0, Paragraph i

FOURTH: The Proposal Due Date is hereby extended as follows:

FROM: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 3:00 PM CT

TO: Friday, August 24, 2018 at 3:00 PM CT

FIFTH: All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.