SIR 6973GH-20-R-00168 Amendment 0004.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 17

0004 11/09/2020

AAQ-732 TRAINING & AVIATION ACQ

FAA AERONAUTICAL CENTER

PO BOX 25082

MPB ROOM 369

AAQ0732-AFN

OKLAHOMA CITY OK 73125

AAQ-732 TRAINING & AVIATION ACQ

FAA AERONAUTICAL CENTER

PO BOX 25082

MPB ROOM 369

AAQ732-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-20-R-00168

1 copies to the issuing office.

11/09/2020

(x)

The purpose of the Amended Solicitation is to make corrections to the sections below:

I. Section M, Page 13, item M.4 (c).2) should state a minimum of three (3) relevant and recent past and present contracts.

II. L11 SUBMISSION, MODIFICATION, REVISION AND WITHDRAWL OF PROPOSALS should read:

Proposals and modifications to proposals shall be submitted in electronic format via e-mail if possible. If not, a CD/DVD-ROM or USB Flash Drive included and addressed to the CO at the address shown in Section A of the model contract/solicitation, and showing the time and date specified for receipt, the solicitation number, and the name and address of the offeror, will be considered acceptable. You must notify nia.glover@faa.gov that a hard

Continued ...

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)

Stacey L. Stanley

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 .

ITEM NO. SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

NAME OF OFFEROR OR CONTRACTOR

2 17

CONTINUATION SHEET

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED PAGE OF

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)

6973GH-20-R-00168/0004

proposal will be delivered to that address as most personnel are teleworking during the pandemic.

II. Section L.4 reads; this competitive solicitation is set aside for socially and

Economically Disadvantaged Businesses SEDB/8(a), for award of an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity type contract.

III. All references to the Performance Work

Statement (PWS) should read Statement of Work

(SOW).

LIST OF CHANGES:

Section L - Instructions,Conditions, and Notices to Bidders was revised as follows.

Clause List was revised as follows.

L.1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

(a) This section of the SIR provides general guidance for preparing proposals as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the proposal. The offeror’s proposal must include all data and information requested by the SIR and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. The offeror must be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Solicitation and SOW. Non-conformance with the instructions provided in the SIR may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

(b) The proposal must be clear, concise, and must include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements. Offeror must assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience, and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror’s proposal.

(c) Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed artwork, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

(d) The proposal acceptance period is specified in Section A of the solicitation. The offer must make a clear statement in Section A of the proposal documentation that the proposal is valid until a specific future date.

(e) This solicitation is not to be construed as a contract or a commitment of any kinds. The Government will not be liable for payment of nor reimburse offerors for any costs incurred in the preparation and/or submittal of a proposal to this solicitation.

L.2 POINT OF CONTACT

The Contracting Officer identified in Block 9 is the sole point of contact for this acquisition. Address any questions or concerns you may have to the Contracting Officer. Written requests for clarification may be sent to the Contracting Officer at the address located in Section A of the solicitation. Proposals may be emailed to nia.glover@faa.gov by the closing date. OFFERORS MUST NOT CONTACT THE PROGRAM OFFICE OR

PROGRAM OFFICE PERSONNEL AT ANY TIME REGARDING THIS ACQUISITION.

L.3 DISCREPANCIES, QUESTIONS AND SITE VISIT

If an offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror must immediately notify the Contracting Officer in writing with supporting rationale. The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

Questions are to be submitted to nia.glover@faa.gov by close of business 12 Calendar Days after the release of this solicitation. This is to give ample time for these questions to be answered prior to the closing of this solicitation.

Questions beyond this deadline may not be answered. All questions received will be posted with answers as an amendment to the solicitation. Please provide questions that do not provide specific contractor information as the questions will be posted publically on beta.sam.gov

L.4 BUSINESS SIZE RESTRICTIONS AND COMPETITION CONSIDERATIONS

This competitive solicitation is set aside for socially and Economically Disadvantaged Businesses SEDB/8(a), for award of an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity type contract.

L.5 INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF PROPOSALS

(a) The offeror must prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table (Table L.1 below). The titles, contents of the volumes, and page limits are defined in this table. Required page limits with the number of copies (if applicable) are specified in Table L.1. Proposal contents and format instructions of each volume are described in paragraphs (b) through (f) below.

(b) Proposal Volumes must include:

1) Volume cover must designate volume title with noted Source Selection Sensitive marking.

2) Title page must include solicitation number, Prime Contractor name and address; and, point of contact name, telephone number, and electronic email address.

3) Table of contents and Evaluation Factor Matrix.

4) The offeror’s proposal must address the information as provided in Table L.1 above. Page limitations must be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal.

Each page will be counted except the following: blank pages, title pages, tables of contents, matrices, tabs, indexes, glossaries and attachments that are called out in this document to not count towards the page total.

5) Proposals will be submitted electronically in accordance with Section L, Provision 3.2.2.3-20. All volumes should be submitted in electronic format via e-mail. Each volume should be submitted in separately marked electronic files. In addition to the electronic submittal four hard copies of Volume II will be required as described in section L.11.

6) A footer identifying the volume number, page number and total number of pages should be put on the bottom of each page.

7) Formatting must allow proposal to be printed on standard 8 ½ X 11 paper, minimum 1 inch margins, left, right, top and bottom, with text font size no less than 10.

(c) Contract Documentation – Volume I

Completion of documents specified below indicates that the Offeror has read and agrees to the terms and conditions contained in the SIR/RFO. The FAA may consider offers that take exception to the terms and conditions of the SIR/RFO to be unacceptable and thereby ineligible for award. Offerors submitting such offers may not be given the opportunity to revise their offer.

1) Section B, Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs; Government format.

2) Section K, Representations and Certifications

(d) Technical Proposal Overview – Volume II

1) The Technical Proposal must be submitted as a separate and complete volume and tabbed separately for each of the Technical Evaluation Factors outlined elsewhere in this provision. The Technical Proposal must not include prices/costs or any pricing information.

2) The Technical Proposal must be self-sufficient in addressing all aspects of the Technical Evaluation Factors and must be independent of the information contained in the Past Performance Proposal and/or Cost/Price Proposal.

3) The Technical Proposal must be sufficiently detailed to enable technically oriented personnel to make a thorough evaluation and to arrive at a sound determination as to whether the proposed services meet the requirements of the Government and that the offered approach is valid and practical. The Technical Proposal must be specific, detailed and complete to clearly and fully demonstrate that the offeror has a thorough understanding of the requirements for, and the technical problems inherent in, providing services of the scope outlined in the SOW.

Clear evidence of services previously demonstrated and currently in place relating to the SOW requirements should be included in each evaluation factor.

4) Statements that the offeror understands, can, or will comply with all statements in the SOW and statements paraphrasing the SOW requirements or parts thereof, are considered insufficient. Phrases such as ‘standard procedures will be employed,’ or ‘well known techniques will be used,’ etc., will be considered insufficient.

5) Evaluation Factor Matrix - Offerors must prepare an Evaluation Factor Matrix to identify where a specific evaluation factor is addressed in their proposal.

(e) Past Performance Proposal Overview – Volume III

1) The Past Performance Proposal must be submitted as a separate and complete volume and tabbed separately for each contract reference as outlined elsewhere in this provision. The Past Performance Proposal must not include prices/costs or any pricing information.

2) The Past Performance Proposal must be self-sufficient in addressing all aspects of the Past Performance Evaluation Factors and Sub-Factors outlined elsewhere in this provision and must be independent of the information contained in the Technical Proposal and/or Cost/Price Proposal.

3) This volume will provide information to the FAA regarding assessing the offeror’s accomplishments for recent and relevant projects that are comparable in scope and magnitude to that described in the SOW under this SIR.

(f) Cost/Price Proposal Overview – Volume IV

The Cost/Price Proposal must be submitted as a separate and complete volume and tabbed separately for each document contained therein. The Cost/Price Proposal will provide information to the FAA for analyzing costs and pricing as well as preparing the contract document and supporting file for the successful offeror. Completion of the required documents indicates that the offeror has read and agrees to the entirety of the terms and conditions contained in the solicitation.

This volume should be sufficiently detailed in support of the proposed pricing to demonstrate cost realism and reasonableness.

No references must be made to proposed costs or prices in Volumes II or III.

L.6 PROPOSAL CONTENT

(a) Technical Proposal Content – Volume II

The Contractor’s Technical Proposal must be limited to no more than forty (40) typewritten pages, including attachments (excluding resumes), must present a clear and thorough understanding of all facets of the Government’s technical requirements listed in the SOW, and must include the following information and be organized under separate tabs as follows:

FACTOR 1 – UNDERSTANDING OF INSTRUCTIONAL DELIVERY, COURSE DEVELOPMENT AND

REVISION, AND TRAINING SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS

Criteria: To assess the Offeror’s understanding of the training instructional delivery and support requirements as described in the solicitation documents.

Offerors shall present their understanding of the instructional delivery training needs and curriculum development and revision functions. Include evidence and examples to validate understanding.

FACTOR 2 – STAFFING STRATEGY

Criteria: To assess the Offeror’s staffing strategy as it relates to the requirements and qualifications in the solicitation documents.

Attached resumes for personnel should describe background, experience, and education.

FACTOR 3 – UNDERSTANDING OF PROGRAM MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES

Criteria: To assess the Offeror’s understanding of program management responsibilities as described in the solicitation documents.

Offerors shall present their understanding of program management responsibilities to fulfill contract requirements.

Identify and describe organizational structure and authority delegations, as well as rationale for this structure.

Identify responsibilities for personnel supporting contract administration duties. Include evidence and examples to validate understanding.

FACTOR 4 –TRANSITION PLAN

Criteria: To assess the Offeror’s transition plan as described in the solicitation documents.

Offerors shall identify program management strategies in regards to the Transition Plan as described in the Statement of Work. Offerors shall submit a Transition Plan.

(b) Past Performance Proposal – Volume III

1) The Contractor’s Past Performance Proposal will not be page limited and should include documentation for a minimum of three (3) relevant and recent past and present contracts with commercial entities or performed for Federal, state, or local governments within the last five (5) years of similar scope, complexity, and magnitude.

Documentation for each contract must include the following information:

- Agency or entity name

- Project of program title

- Contract number

- Contract type (firm fixed-price, labor-hour, etc.)

- Contract total value ($)

- Contract start-completion dates

- Description of work performed

- Client point of contact (POC) information for a minimum of two (2) references including e-mail addresses and telephone numbers.

2) Offerors must explain what aspects of the contracts identified are deemed relevant to the proposed effort, and may include a discussion of significant achievements, recognitions, and successes obtained in specific projects that are relevant to the SOW.

3) The past performance evaluation will be based on the information contained in the offeror’s Past Performance Proposal Volume. In conducting the past performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance Proposal as well as information obtained from other sources, such as the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or similar systems.

4) The Offeror’s Past performance volume will be reviewed to evaluate past performance that is recent, as well as relevant (comparable in scope and magnitude to that described in the SOW).

Recent past performance will be understood to mean performance within the previous five (5) years.

Relevant past performance will be understood to mean the performance level of equivalency to the SOW in terms of similarity, complexity, and magnitude.

(c) Cost/Price Proposal Content – Volume IV

1) This volume will be in FAA format. This will assist the FAA in preparing the contract document and supporting file. Offerors must complete and submit Section B, Supplies or Services attached Table, Proposed FFP Costs attached table and Proposed Labor Hour Costs Attached Table, in the Government format as provided.

2) All information relating to the proposed price including all required supporting documentation must be included in the section of the proposal designated as the Cost/Price volume.

a. Authorized Individuals – The offeror must provide the name, title, telephone number, and e-mail for the individual designated as the central point of contact for this proposal.

b. Assumptions – The offeror may describe any assumptions used to develop the proposed prices.

c. Other Than Cost or Pricing Data to support the proposed pricing.

3) Offeror’s Schedule B submitted for award consideration must not include any proprietary markings (other than as required for procurement sensitive markings) or revisions, qualifications, or alterations to the bid schedule. Such markings, if not removed, may eliminate the offeror from further competition.

4) Offeror’s must provide contract line item pricing based on the unit and total price for each line item.

5) Offeror must provide a cover letter in the Cost/Price Volume, which includes total proposed amounts by contract year and the total proposed contract amount for all years.

6) Within all Excel spreadsheets, Offeror must include all proposed formulas and calculations rounded to two (2) decimal places. Offeror must avoid using ‘value only’ type cells to the maximum extent possible. If links are utilized within the spreadsheets, the Offeror must supply all linked or referenced files. Spreadsheets and/or individual cells must not be protected.

7) In order to assist the Contracting Officer in a determination of price reasonableness, Offeror must provide a thorough explanation of the pricing methodology used for all proposed prices. Offeror must provide pricing assumptions, judgmental factors, supporting rationale and the basis of all estimates.

8) All Cost/Price Proposals must identify, in sufficient detail, all direct costs and markups, as allowed by the contract and any proposed subcontracts. Offeror is responsible for submitting sufficient information to enable the Government to fully evaluate the Cost/Price Proposal.

9) Cost/Price Reasonableness and Realism: These instructions are to assist you in submitting information other than cost or pricing data that is required to evaluate the reasonableness of your proposal. Compliance with these instructions is mandatory. Offer should include sufficient detail to demonstrate reasonableness. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed costs/prices rests with the Offeror.

10) For each CLIN listed in Section B, Offeror must propose fully burdened labor rates, by labor category. Offeror must provide CLIN pricing based on the unit price and the total price for each line item.

11) Offeror’s labor classifications should cross-reference to Department of Labor (DoL) wage determination classifications, to the extent possible.

12) By submitting a proposal, Offeror grants the PCO, or an authorized representative, the right to examine records that form the basis of the pricing proposal. The examination and review can take place at any time before the award.

13) For evaluation purposes, Offeror must sum the proposed Total Prices by contract year, provide a total overall price of the proposal using estimated or supplied quantities, and submit a complete Section B. The Schedule B Total Price is equal to the proposed unit price multiplied by the Section B quantity or estimated quantity for that CLIN.

14) Pricing Information for Teaming Arrangements and Subcontractors: Teaming arrangements and submittal of proposed cost and price information for each partner/subcontractor providing 50% or more of the effort is required for the base year and all option years.

15) Cost/price information must provide visibility into the fringe benefit rates applicable to each labor category.

L.7 Exceptions to Terms and Conditions

Exceptions taken to terms and conditions of this prospective contract, to any of its formal attachments or to other parts of the solicitation must be identified. Each exception should be specifically related to each paragraph and/or specific part of the solicitation to which exception is taken. Provide rationale in support of the exception and fully explain its impact, if any, on the performance, schedule, cost and specific requirements of the solicitation.

L.8 DEBRIEFINGS

The CO will notify unsuccessful offerors in accordance with AMS 3.2.2.3.1.4. Upon such notification, unsuccessful offerors may request and receive a debriefing. Offerors desiring a debriefing must make their request in accordance with the requirements of AMS 3.2.2.3.1.4.

Communication and exchanges of information between the Government and the offerors will be controlled by the CO. Email may be used to transmit such information.

L.9 ELECTRONIC REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on the Federal Aviation Administration Contract Opportunities Beta.SAM.Gov. Potential Offerors are encouraged to subscribe for e-mail notifications to receive information as it is posted to the website for this solicitation.

L.10 AMENDMENTS TO SOLICITATION

If this SIR is amended (SF-30), all terms and conditions that are not amended will remain unchanged, in full force and in effect. Offerors must acknowledge receipt of any amendment and provide confirmation (signed SF-30) upon submission of the offeror’s proposal.

L.11 SUBMISSION, MODIFICATION, REVISION AND WITHDRAWL OF PROPOSALS

Proposals and modifications to proposals shall be submitted in electronic format via e-mail if possible. If not, a CD/DVD-ROM or USB Flash Drive included and addressed to the CO at the address shown in Section A of the model contract/solicitation, and showing the time and date specified for receipt, the solicitation number, and the name and address of the offeror, will be considered acceptable. You must notify nia.glover@faa.gov that a hard proposal will be delivered to that address as most personnel are teleworking during the pandemic.

The remainder of this page has been intentionally left blank.

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award was revised as follows.

Clause List was revised as follows.

M.1 SIR PROCESS OVERVIEW

(a) This SIR will solicit proposals on a competitive basis restricted to SDB/SEDB/8(a) small businesses.

(b) Upon receipt of proposals and following initial screening for responsiveness, the remaining responsive proposals will be assigned to the Government evaluation teams for evaluation. Technical Proposals will be evaluated by the Government Technical Evaluation Team, Past Performance Proposals will be evaluated by the Government Past Performance Evaluation Team, and the cost and pricing portions of the Cost/Price Proposals will be evaluated by the Cost/Price Evaluation Team. Telework plans will not be evaluated as a part of the evaluation and contract award selection process. Information from the different volumes being evaluated will not be shared between the Government evaluation teams in order that the evaluation of the specific, individual volumes will not be influenced by knowledge of the other volumes. An evaluated assessment will be made independently for each proposal of the merit presented by each proposal.

(c)The SSO will consider technical merit and performance risk to be more important than proposed price, and proposed price to be more important than proposal risk. The Government reserves the right to award to other than lowest priced proposal. The best value selection decision will be made as further described in M.11.

M. 2 BASIS FOR AWARD

(a) The Government will make an award of a contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to this SIR, is determined to be the most advantageous to the Government, and represents the best value to the Government in terms of technical merit, performance and price (see AMS Clause 3.2.2.3-19 Contract Award).

(b) In determining which proposal represents the best overall value to the Government, the SSO will consider the results of the evaluation of proposals by the Government evaluation teams in regard to the Technical Evaluation Factors, Past Performance, cost realism and reasonableness, total evaluated price and the CO’s assessment of proposal risk.

(c) The SSO will consider technical merit and performance risk to be more important than proposed price, and proposed price to be more important than proposal risk. The Government reserves the right to award to other mailto:nia.glover@faa.gov than lowest priced proposal. The best value selection decision will be made as further described in M.11.

M.3 INITIAL SCREENING PROCESS

(a) The Government will initially screen all proposals for responsiveness (timeliness, completeness, and adequacy). Only those proposals determined to be responsive through the initial screening process will be forwarded to the evaluation team for further consideration.

1) Timeliness - No proposal or part thereof will be accepted for consideration following the closing period for this solicitation.

2) Completeness - Timely proposals will be reviewed for completeness. Incomplete proposals may not receive further consideration.

3) Adequacy - Complete proposals will be reviewed for adequacy, including proposal content and format as follows;

i. Content:

1. Completed Contract Documentation (Volume 1)

2. Completed Technical Proposal (Volume II)

3. Completed Past Performance Proposal (Volume III)

4. Completed Cost/Price Proposal (Volume IV)

ii. Format. Graphics are limited to a minimum font size of 10.

Elaborate presentation techniques, including color, are neither required nor desired. Page counts do not include front matter such as table of contents, list of figures, divider tab sheets, glossary, or cover pages. Attachments are included in page count. If a hard copy is provided instead of electronic double-side printing will be counted as two (2) pages for each sheet.

iii. For the purposes of adequacy review, missing proposal information component(s) identified above and/or non-adherence to proposal format instructions, may be considered non-responsive. Proposals found by the CO to be non-responsive may not receive further consideration.

CAUTION: Evaluators will read only up to the page limits as specified in Section L. Pages in excess of the stated limit will be removed from the proposal and will not be evaluated.

M.4 EVALUATION PROCESS

All proposals remaining after the initial proposal screening process of M.3 will be evaluated, rated, and analyzed as described in this part. Offerors are advised that their proposal must address all areas.

(a) Overall Evaluation Factors and Order of Importance: The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The Factors are listed in descending order of importance.

FACTOR 1 (TECHNICAL) – UNDERSTANDING OF INSTRUCTIONAL DELIVERY, COURSE

DEVELOPMENT AND REVISION, AND TRAINING SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS

FACTOR 2 (TECHNICAL) – STAFFING STRATEGY

FACTOR 3 (TECHNICAL) – UNDERSTANDING OF PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

RESPONSIBILITIES

FACTOR 4 (TECHNICAL) - TRANSITION PLAN

FACTOR 5- PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 6 - COST/PRICE

FACTOR 7 – PROPOSAL RISK

(b) Technical Evaluation Factors:

1) Each offeror’s Technical Proposal will be evaluated and scored using the following Technical Evaluation Factors. The Factors are listed in descending order of importance;

i. Factor 1: UNDERSTANDING OF INSTRUCTIONAL DELIVERY, COURSE

DEVELOPMENT AND REVISION, AND TRAINING SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS.

ii. Factor 2: STAFFING STRATEGY

iii. Factor 3: UNDERSTANDING OF PROGRAM MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES

iv. Factor 4: TRANSITION PLAN

2) Any offeror whose Technical Proposal does not address all Technical Evaluation Factors will be considered ineligible for award.

(c) Past Performance Evaluation

1) Each offeror’s past performance will be evaluated and rated using the following Past Performance Evaluation Factor and Sub-Factors. The Sub-Factors are of equal importance:

i. Sub-factor 1: Quality and Timeliness of Service

ii. Sub-factor 2: Cost Control

iii. Sub-factor 3: Business Relations – Effective Management

iv. Sub-factor 4: Customer Satisfaction

v. Sub-factor 5: Integrity

2) The Government will evaluate and assess the offeror’s past performance record on a minimum of three (3) relevant and recent past and present contracts. A Performance Risk Assessment will result from the Government’s level of confidence that the offeror will be able to successfully provide the support services to the Government in terms of scope of effort, tasks, and activities performed based on the offeror’s past performance record.

(d) Cost/Price Assessment and Evaluation

The Government will confirm the accuracy of each offeror’s total price calculation and assess the realism and reasonableness of the proposed costs for the unit prices in addition to assessing the total evaluated price for performing all services. The Government may make adjustments for any mathematical errors discovered in the price evaluation process. The total evaluated price will consist of the total of the Base Year period and Option Year periods One (1) through Four (4).

(e) Proposal Risk Assessment

A Proposal Risk Assessment will result from the Government’s level of confidence in the offeror’s proposed approach and any proposal weaknesses identified therein, and in consideration of the results of the Performance Risk Assessment, the Cost/Price Assessment, or any other aspect of the offeror’s proposal that may result in the potential to cause disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation of performance. This Proposal Risk Assessment will also include considering the level of effort by the contractor and the anticipated level of Government monitoring in order to minimize any difficulties during contract performance as identified through the Government’s evaluation of the proposal.

M.5 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

(a) Technical Evaluation Rating and Scoring - An adjectival rating and correlated numerical scoring system will be used for each of the Technical Evaluation Factors as follows:

Adjectival Rating Correlated Numerical Score

Excellent 4.0 Very Good 3.0 Satisfactory 2.0

Marginal 1.0 Unsatisfactory 0.0

(b) Past Performance Evaluation Rating

1) Recency, relevancy, acceptability, and confidence level rating systems will be used for the assessment of Performance Risk as follows:

i. Recency Rating. The contracts and past performance information being assessed will be assigned adjectival ratings of Recent or Not Recent. The contract efforts must be ongoing or must have been performed during the previous five (5) years from the date of issuance of this SIR to be assessed as being Recent. Contract efforts assessed as being Not Recent will not be evaluated further.

ii. Relevancy Rating. The contracts and past performance information being assessed will be assigned relevancy rating as follows:

Very Relevant: The recent contract performance efforts are essentially equivalent to the requirements of the SOW under this SIR and of equivalent magnitude and complexity.

Relevant: The recent contract performance efforts are mostly similar to the requirements of the SOW under this SIR and of slightly less magnitude and complexity.

Somewhat Relevant: The recent contract performance efforts are somewhat similar to the requirements of the SOW under this SIR and of significantly less magnitude and complexity.

Not Relevant: The recent contract performance efforts are unrelated to the requirements of the SOW under this SIR.

iii. Confidence Level Rating - The total score of recency, relevancy, and past performance sub-factors will be assessed a confidence rating based on the following scale:

High Confidence: The recent contract performance efforts indicate a high level of confidence in the offeror successfully performing and/or exceeding the requirements of the SOW under this SIR. Acceptability Ratings of Highly Acceptable must be received for all Past Performance sub-factors.

Moderate Confidence: The recent contract performance efforts indicate a moderate level of confidence in the offeror successfully performing the minimum requirements of the SOW under this SIR. Acceptability Ratings of Satisfactorily Acceptable must be received for all Past Performance sub-factors.

Low Confidence: The recent contract performance efforts indicate a low level of confidence in the offeror successfully performing the minimum requirements of the SOW under this SIR. A majority of the Acceptability Ratings received for all Past Performance sub-factors include Marginally Acceptable, Unacceptable, or Unknown/Neutral.

Unknown Confidence: Offeror has no recent or relevant past performance. Offerors without a record of recent and relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an Unknown Confidence rating for the Past Performance factor.

2) Proposal Risk Rating: The following confidence level rating system will be used for the assessment of proposal risk:

Low Risk: The offeror’s proposed approach, proposal strengths, past performance, and proposed cost/price indicate a low risk to the Government for the potential of disruption of schedule, increase in cost, degradation of performance, and increased contractor and Government monitoring to minimize any difficulties during contract performance.

Moderate Risk: The offeror’s proposed approach, proposal strengths and weaknesses, past performance, and proposed cost/price indicate a moderate risk to the Government for the potential of disruption of schedule, increase in cost, degradation of performance, and increased contractor and Government monitoring to minimize any difficulties during contract performance.

High Risk: The offeror’s proposed approach, proposal weaknesses, past performance, and proposed cost/price indicate a high and potentially unacceptable risk to the Government for the potential of disruption of schedule, increase in cost, degradation of performance, and increased contractor and Government monitoring to minimize any difficulties during contract performance.

M.6 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION

(a) Technical Proposals will be provided to the Technical Evaluation Team (TET), with the Past Performance Proposals and Cost/Price Proposals being retained by the CO in order that the evaluation of the Technical Proposals will not be influenced by knowledge of the related past performance or cost/pricing information. An evaluated assessment will be made independently for each proposal of the technical merit presented by each Technical Proposal.

(b) The technical evaluation will be based solely on the Technical Evaluation Factors stated in Section M.4 (b) of this SIR. The offeror must be capable of successfully performing the task identified in the SOW under this SIR or will be subject to disqualification from consideration for award. In conducting the technical evaluation, the TET will evaluate only the information contained in the offeror’s Technical Proposal. Therefore, the burden is on the offeror to provide a complete and thorough proposal.

(c) The TET evaluation will identify the strengths and weaknesses contained within the Technical Proposal to determine the merit of the Technical Proposal.

MI.7 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND PERFORMANCE RISK ASSESSMENT

(a) Past Performance Proposals will be provided to the Past Performance Evaluation Team (PPET), with the Technical Proposals and Cost/Price Proposals being retained by the CO in order that the evaluation of the Past Performance Proposals will not be influenced by knowledge of the related technical or cost/pricing information.

An evaluated assessment will be made independently for each proposal of the performance risk presented by each Past Performance Proposal.

(b) The past performance evaluation will be based solely on the Past Performance Factor and Sub-Factors stated in Section M.4(c) of this SIR. In conducting the past performance evaluation, the PPET will evaluate the offeror’s achievements, recognitions, and successes obtained in specific projects that are recent and relevant to the SOW under this SIR. In addition, the PPET may use past performance information obtained from other sources such as on-line such as the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or similar systems.

(c) The PPET evaluation will assess the recency, relevancy, and confidence level of the past performance information to determine the overall performance risk assessment of the Past Performance Proposal.

MII.8 COST/PRICE PROPOSAL EVALUATION

(a) The Cost/Price proposals will be provided to Cost/Price Evaluation Team (CPET), with the Technical Proposals and Past Performance Proposals being retained by the CO in order that the evaluation of the Cost/Price Proposals will not be influenced by knowledge of the related technical or past performance information. An evaluated assessment will be made independently for each proposal of the cost/pricing represented by each Cost/Price Proposal.

(b) The cost/pricing evaluation will be based solely on the Cost/Price Factor stated in M.4 (d) of this SIR. In conducting the cost/price evaluation, the CPET will evaluate only the information contained in the offeror’s Cost/Price Proposal. Therefore, the burden is on the offeror to provide a complete and thorough proposal in support of the proposed costs and pricing. In addition, the CPET will use the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE), historical pricing information from recent similar contracts, and on-line pricing indices available to the Government as well as other sources or pricing databases.

(c) The CPET evaluation will assess the cost realism and reasonableness for the cost/pricing presented in each Cost/Price Proposal. Cost realism and reasonableness will be assessed through an analysis of the offeror’s supporting cost/pricing information and a comparative evaluation of the proposed unit pricing and total pricing using the IGCE, historical pricing, pricing indices, or other available sources of pricing information.

M.9 PROPOSAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Upon completion of the Technical Proposal evaluations, the Performance Risk Assessment, and the Cost/Price Proposal evaluations, the CO will meet with the Government evaluation teams to assess Proposal Risk. Proposal Risk will be assessed by considering the offeror's proposed approach, the proposal strengths and weaknesses, the proposal uncertainties identified, the offeror's cost proposal, or any other aspect of the offeror's proposal that may result in the potential to cause disruption of schedule, increase in cost, degradation of performance, or increase in contractor and Government monitoring to minimize any difficulties during contract performance.

M.10 DISCUSSIONS

(a) After evaluating written proposals, the Government may (or may not) conduct written or oral discussions with all, or a limited number of the offerors. The Government in the evaluation and source selection decision may consider information obtained during discussion.

(b) It is also possible that discussions will not take place and award of the Contract will be made without discussions. Offerors should therefore submit their best technical and pricing proposals in their initial proposal submittal.

M.11 BEST VALUE SELECTION DECISION

(a) The SSO will select for contract award the offeror’s proposal that in the judgment of the SSO provides the best value to the Government in consideration of the technical merit, performance risk, proposal risk, and cost/price of the competing proposals.

(b) The Government reserves the right to award the contract to an offeror submitting other than the lowest priced proposal. The evaluation results of the Technical Evaluation Factors and Past Performance Risk Assessment are of significantly more importance than cost/price in determining the best value to the Government; however, cost/price will contribute substantially to the selection decision. A higher priced proposal may be selected for award where the technical merit value and performance and/or proposal risk of the selected proposal is deemed by the SSO to be worth the price differential to the Government, or where a lower priced proposal is deemed by the SSO to present lower technical merit and/or higher performance and/or proposal risk concerns in accomplishing the contract requirements successfully.

The remainder of this page has been intentionally left blank.