6973GH-18-R-00113 - Amendment 0006.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 13

0006 12/10/2018

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 L.2 Instructions for Preparation and Submission of Proposals (i), Section M.2 Technical Evaluation Rating Scale, and Section M.3 Technical Evaluation.

FIRST: Section L.2 Instructions for Preparation and Submission of Proposals (i) is hereby revised as follows:

FROM: (i) Section II - Technical Proposal - The technical proposal shall not include prices/costs or any pricing information.

(1) The technical proposal shall include two (2) tables (1 for each Phase) that highlights where in the Offeror's proposal it addresses Attachment 1: SOW Musts and the types of supporting information and where it is located in the proposal.

(2) Factor 1: Offerors must provide a detailed narrative with respect to its proposed responses with supporting documentation to substantiate its proposed TAGARS solution. Experience with civilian aviation simulation offered must have a minimal depth of three (3) years of experience within the last 7 years directly related to the requirements numerated in the SOW. 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.

(3) Factor 2: Offerors 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 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.

(4) Factor 3(a): The Offeror shall complete a minimum of one (1), but no more than four (4) "Past Performance Experience Information" forms, attached to the SIR (Section J, Attachment 4) in response to this factor. All blocks must be filled in and all data should be accurate, current, and complete. All projects submitted must be underway or completed within the last 7 years through the closing date identified on the SIR. Each project provided must be valued at or over $500,000.

(5) Factor 3(b): The Offeror shall have current or past customer complete the attached Past Performance Survey (PPS) attached to the SIR (Section J, Attachment 5). A minimum of one (1) but no more than four (4) completed PPS's shall be submitted directly from the offeror's customer to the Contracting Officer no later than the SIR closing. All PPS submitted must show the projects are underway or completed within the last 7 years through the closing date identified on the SIR. The Offeror's Past Performance must demonstrate/possess relevant past performance for projects (or greater than) the complexity and breadth of the technically advanced general aviation research simulator.

Each PPS submitted shall be for work that is valued at or over $500,000.

TO: (i) Section II - Technical Proposal - The technical proposal shall not include prices/costs or any pricing information.

(1) The technical proposal shall include two (2) tables (1 for each Phase) that highlights where in the Offeror's proposal it addresses Attachment 1: SOW Musts and the types of supporting information and where it is located in the proposal.

(2) Factor 1: Offerors must provide a detailed narrative with respect to its proposed responses with supporting documentation to substantiate its proposed TAGARS solution. Experience with civilian aviation simulation offered must have a minimal depth of three (3) years of experience within the last 7 years directly related to the requirements numerated in the SOW. 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.

(3) Factor 2(a): The Offeror shall complete a minimum of one (1), but no more than four (4)

"Past Performance Experience Information" forms, attached to the SIR (Section J, Attachment 4) in response to this factor. All blocks must be filled in and all data should be accurate, current, and complete.

All projects submitted must be underway or completed within the last 7 years through the closing date identified on the SIR. Each project provided must be valued at or over $500,000.

(4) Factor 2(b): The Offeror shall have current or past customer complete the attached Past Performance Survey (PPS) attached to the SIR (Section J, Attachment 5). A minimum of one (1) but no more than four (4) completed PPS's shall be submitted directly from the offeror's customer to the Contracting Officer no later than the SIR closing. All PPS submitted must show the projects are underway or completed within the last 7 years through the closing date identified on the SIR. The Offeror's Past Performance must demonstrate/possess relevant past performance for projects (or greater than) the complexity and breadth of the technically advanced general aviation research simulator.

(5) Factor 3: Offerors 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 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.

Each PPS submitted shall be for work that is valued at or over $500,000.

SECOND: M.2 Technical Evaluation Rating Scale is hereby revised as follows:

FROM: (a) Factor 1: Phase One Technical Evaluation: Offerors will be rated on a GO/NO GO rating scale.

(b) Factor 2: Phase Two Best Value Determination: Offeror's proposal will be reviewed against the table outlined in M.3 based on the numerical scale corresponding to a 5-point (5.0, 4.0, 3.0, 2.0, and 1.0).

(c) Factor 3(a): Past Performance Information: Offerors will be rated on a GO/NO GO rating scale.

(d) Factor 3(b): Past Performance Surveys: Offerors will be rated on a GO/NO GO rating scale.

TO: (a) Factor 1: Phase One Technical Evaluation: Offerors will be rated on a GO/NO GO rating scale.

(b) Factor 2(a): Past Performance Information: Offerors will be rated on a GO/NO GO rating scale.

(c) Factor 2(b): Past Performance Surveys: Offerors will be rated on a GO/NO GO rating scale.

(d) Factor 3: Phase Two Best Value Determination: Offeror's proposal will be reviewed against the table outlined in M.3 based on the numerical scale corresponding to a 5-point (5.0, 4.0, 3.0, 2.0, and 1.0).

FIRST: M.3 Technical Evaluation is hereby revised as follows:

FROM: (a) Selection of contractors for award will be based on evaluation of price and technical proposals.

Technical proposals will be evaluated according to the factors listed below. Technical evaluation factors as listed below are intended to determine the offeror's capabilities to effectively and efficiently accomplish the performance of the contract.

(1) Factor 1 - Phase One - Technical Evaluation: Each Offeror must provide a detailed narrative with respect to its proposed responses with supporting documentation to substantiate its proposed TAGARS solution. Experience with civilian aviation simulation offered must have a minimal depth of three (3) years of experience within the last 7 years directly related to the requirements numerated in the SOW. 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. The Offeror 'must' meet all the factors outlined in Section J, Attachment 3: Phase One Technical Evaluation SOW "Musts" Checklist.

Evaluation: Offerors must receive a "GO rating for each category in Section J, Attachment 3: Phase One Technical Evaluation SOW "Musts" Checklist to receive an overall "GO" rating for this factor. Failure to receive a "GO" rating for any category listed in the Attachment 3: Phase One Technical Evaluation SOW "Musts" Checklist will result in an overall "NO GO" rating and elimination from further consideration for contract award.

Only the Offerors who receive a "GO" rating for Factor 1 will be considered for Factors 2 and 3.

(2) Factor 2 - Phase Two: Best Value Determination: 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

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

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 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 is in service.

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 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.

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 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.)

(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

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

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

25%

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 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

(3) Factor 3(a) Past Performance Information Each Offeror shall complete a minimum of one (1), but no more than four (4) "Past Performance Experience Information" forms, attached to the SIR (Section J, Attachment 4) in response to this factor. All blocks must be filled in and all data should be accurate, current, and complete. All projects submitted must have been underway or completed within the last 7 years through the closing date identified on the SIR. Each project provided must be valued at or over $500,000.

Evaluation: Offerors must meet all of the following minimum acceptability standards to receive a "GO" on this factor:

Offeror must have one (1) projects that are same/similar to that of the work required in the SOW and this solicitation; AND

Each project submitted must be valued at or over $500,000; AND Projects submitted must have been completed, or underway, within the last 7 years through the closing date of the SIR.

(4) Factor 3(b) Past Performance Surveys Each Offeror shall have current or past customers complete the Past Performance Survey (PPS) attached to the SIR (Section J, Attachment 5). A minimum of one (1) but no more than four (4) completed PPS's shall be submitted directly from the offeror's customer to the Contracting Officer no later than the SIR closing date. All PPS submitted must show that projects are underway or completed within the last 7 years through the closing date identified on the SIR. The Offeror's Past Performance must demonstrate/possess relevant past performance for projects (or greater than) the complexity or breadth of the technically advanced general aviation research simulator.

The Offeror's ability to meet contract obligations in a timely manner is an area of particular importance. A proposal should demonstrate acceptable past performance on projects of same or similar scope, complexity and magnitude as the technically advanced general aviation research simulator.

Each PPS submitted shall be for work that is valued at or over $500,000.

The Offeror shall also submit a list of one (1) but no more than four (4) Past Performance POC's with their proposal that:

Are knowledgeable of the firm's past performance; AND Are willing to be interviewed by the Government using the PPS; AND Include the POC's name, agency, phone number, and email address

Evaluation: Offerors must demonstrate the following minimum acceptability standards to receive a "GO" rating on this factor:

Each PPS submitted is for work that is valued at or over $500,000; AND Each PPS submitted must have received a response of "Acceptable" in all areas; AND All PPS submitted must show the projects are underway or completed within the last 7 years through the closing date identified on the SIR; AND All past or current references must recommend awarding similar contracts or using the offeror again for future work and reflect positive performance of the work requirements.

Failure to demonstrate the minimally acceptable criteria under this factor will result in a "NO GO" rating and possible elimination from further consideration for contract award. Offerors with no past performance information will receive a "NO GO" rating for this factor.

The FAA will not be held responsible for those Offeror's customers who refuse to respond or provide past performance information. If the Contracting Officer fails to receive any completed forms for an offeror, the FAA will attempt to follow up with the customers once, in order to retrieve the information. After this attempt any PPS not submitted and received by the due date/time will not be considered.

TO: (a) Selection of contractors for award will be based on evaluation of price and technical proposals.

Technical proposals will be evaluated according to the factors listed below. Technical evaluation factors as listed below are intended to determine the offeror's capabilities to effectively and efficiently accomplish the performance of the contract.

(1) Factor 1 - Phase One - Technical Evaluation: Each Offeror must provide a detailed narrative with respect to its proposed responses with supporting documentation to substantiate its proposed TAGARS solution. Experience with civilian aviation simulation offered must have a minimal depth of three (3) years of experience within the last 7 years directly related to the requirements numerated in the SOW. 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. The Offeror 'must' meet all the factors outlined in Section J, Attachment 3: Phase One Technical Evaluation SOW "Musts" Checklist.

Evaluation: Offerors must receive a "GO rating for each category in Section J, Attachment 3: Phase One Technical Evaluation SOW "Musts" Checklist to receive an overall "GO" rating for this factor. Failure to receive a "GO" rating for any category listed in the Attachment 3: Phase One Technical Evaluation SOW "Musts" Checklist will result in an overall "NO GO" rating and elimination from further consideration for contract award.

Only the Offerors who receive a "GO" rating for Factor 1 will be considered for Factors 2 and 3.

(2) Factor 2(a) Past Performance Information Each Offeror shall complete a minimum of one (1), but no more than four (4) "Past Performance Experience Information" forms, attached to the SIR (Section J, Attachment 4) in response to this factor. All blocks must be filled in and all data should be accurate, current, and complete. All projects submitted must have been underway or completed within the last 7 years through the closing date identified on the SIR. Each project provided must be valued at or over $500,000.

Evaluation: Offerors must meet all of the following minimum acceptability standards to receive a "GO" on this factor:

Offeror must have one (1) projects that are same/similar to that of the work required in the SOW and this solicitation; AND

Each project submitted must be valued at or over $500,000; AND Projects submitted must have been completed, or underway, within the last 7 years through the closing date of the SIR.

(3) Factor 2(b) Past Performance Surveys Each Offeror shall have current or past customers complete the Past Performance Survey (PPS) attached to the SIR (Section J, Attachment 5). A minimum of one (1) but no more than four (4) completed PPS's shall be submitted directly from the offeror's customer to the Contracting Officer no later than the SIR closing date. All PPS submitted must show that projects are underway or completed within the last 7 years through the closing date identified on the SIR. The Offeror's Past Performance must demonstrate/possess relevant past performance for projects (or greater than) the complexity or breadth of the technically advanced general aviation research simulator.

The Offeror's ability to meet contract obligations in a timely manner is an area of particular importance. A proposal should demonstrate acceptable past performance on projects of same or similar scope, complexity and magnitude as the technically advanced general aviation research simulator.

Each PPS submitted shall be for work that is valued at or over $500,000.

The Offeror shall also submit a list of one (1) but no more than four (4) Past Performance POC's with their proposal that:

Are knowledgeable of the firm's past performance; AND Are willing to be interviewed by the Government using the PPS; AND Include the POC's name, agency, phone number, and email address

Evaluation: Offerors must demonstrate the following minimum acceptability standards to receive a "GO" rating on this factor:

Each PPS submitted is for work that is valued at or over $500,000; AND Each PPS submitted must have received a response of "Acceptable" in all areas;

AND

All PPS submitted must show the projects are underway or completed within the last 7 years through the closing date identified on the SIR; AND All past or current references must recommend awarding similar contracts or using the offeror again for future work and reflect positive performance of the work requirements.

Failure to demonstrate the minimally acceptable criteria under this factor will result in a "NO GO" rating and possible elimination from further consideration for contract award. Offerors with no past performance information will receive a "NO GO" rating for this factor.

The FAA will not be held responsible for those Offeror's customers who refuse to respond or provide past performance information. If the Contracting Officer fails to receive any completed forms for an offeror, the FAA will attempt to follow up with the customers once, in order to retrieve the information.

After this attempt any PPS not submitted and received by the due date/time will not be considered.

(4) Factor 3 - Phase Two: Best Value Determination: 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 meets the requirements of BOTH a) or b).

a. Contractor provides evidence, through thorough documentatio n 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

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

a. Contractor provides evidence, through thorough documentatio n 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 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 is in service.

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 thorough documentatio n, 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 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 thorough documentatio n, 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.)

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

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

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

25%

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 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

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

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

TO: Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 3:00 PM CT

FIFTH: All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.