Attachment 5 Addenda RFO FAR 52-212-1 and 52-212-2 Proposal Instructions and Evaluation Criteria.pdf

ADDENDA TO RFO FAR 52.212-1 AND 52.212-2

ADDENDA TO RFO FAR 52.212-1 AND 52.212-2: PROPOSAL

INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

Proposal Evaluation Methodology & Instructions

August 26, 2026

Table of Contents Table of Contents

1. Basis for Award

1.1 Exchanges with Best-Suited Offeror

2. Proposal Instructions

3. Factor 1: Demonstrated Technical Experience

3.1 Sub-Element 1.1: Quality Control & Certifications (PWS 4.1)

3.2 Sub-Element 1.2: Upfit & Engineering Capability (PWS 2.2 & 2.3)

3.3 Sub-Element 1.3: Maintenance & Logistics Plan (PWS 2.5 & 2.6)

3.4 Sub-Element 1.4: Pilot Provisioning & Flight Operations (PWS 8.0)

3.5 Sub-Element 1.5: Safety Management Approach (PWS 1.1, 2.3, & 13)

4. Factor 2: Price

4.1 Completeness

4.2 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

4.3 Unbalanced Pricing

1. Basis for Award The Government reserves the right to make the number of awards determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Based on the results of the evaluations, one of the following outcomes may occur:

• Single Award Contract

• Multiple Single Award Contracts: The Government may issue more than one contract.

• No Award Option: Make no award if it is determined that doing so is in the Government’s best interest.

Any award(s) will be made to the responsible Offeror(s) submitting an overall proposal that is determined most advantageous to the Government, price and non-price factors considered. The Government will utilize a Tradeoff source selection process. Award will be made to the firm(s) whose proposal meets the Government’s requirements and whose technical evaluation and price represents the Best Value to the Government.

To determine Best Value, the Government will conduct a tradeoff analysis between Factor 1 (Demonstrated Technical Experience) and Factor 2 (Price). In its evaluation of the non-price factor, the Government will consider the benefits and risks associated with the Offeror’s proposed approaches to arrive at a confidence assessment that the Offeror understands the requirement and will be successful in performing the contract.

Relative Importance: Demonstrated Technical Experience (Factor 1) is significantly more important than Price (Factor 2).

Price may become the determining factor for award as proposals’ technical evaluations become more equal. In the event that two or more proposals are determined not to have any substantial technical differences (i.e., are technically equivalent), award may be made to the lower-priced proposal. It should be noted that award may be made to other than the lowest-priced proposal if the Government determines that a price premium is warranted due to technical merit. The Government may also award to other than the highest technically rated proposal, if the Government determines that a price premium is not warranted.

1.1 Exchanges with Best-Suited Offeror

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make award(s) without conducting exchanges.

Therefore, each Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct exchanges if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

Once the Government determines the Offeror that is the best-suited (e.g., the apparent successful awardee), the Government reserves the right to communicate with only that Offeror to address any remaining issues, if necessary, and finalize a contract with that Offeror. These issues may include technical and/or price. If the parties cannot successfully address any remaining issues, as determined pertinent at the sole discretion of the Government, the Government reserves the right to engage the next best-suited Offeror based on the original evaluation and address any remaining issues. Once the

Government has engaged the next best-suited Offeror, no further engagements with the previous Offeror(s) will be entertained. This process may continue until an agreement is successfully reached and the contract is awarded.

2. Proposal Instructions

2.1 General Submission Information

Submission Deadline: Proposals must be received no later than September 3, 2026 at 10:00AM Eastern Time. Late proposals will be processed in accordance with RFO FAR 52.212-1(c).

Submission Method: Proposals shall be submitted electronically via email to the Contracting Officer at jonathan.igwebueze@hq.dhs.gov and the Contract Specialist at stephen.whittaker@hq.dhs.gov. The email subject line shall read: "Proposal Submission – [Insert Solicitation Number] – [Company Name]".

File Format: All files shall be submitted in Adobe PDF format, with the exception of the Price Model, which must be submitted in Microsoft Excel (.xlsx) format with all applicable formulas intact and unlocked. Zipped (.zip) files will be rejected.

2.2 Proposal Organization and Formatting

Proposals shall be structured into three (3) distinct, separate volumes as defined below.

• Formatting: Text shall be no smaller than 11-point font (Arial, Calibri, or Times New Roman).

Margins shall be 1-inch on all sides.

• Page Limits: Any pages submitted in excess of the defined limits will be removed and will not be read or evaluated.

VOLUME I: Administrative / General (No Page Limit)

This volume shall contain the necessary administrative documents to establish the Offeror’s eligibility.

• Signed Standard Form (SF) 1449, including acknowledgment of all amendments.

• Cover Letter (maximum 2 pages) stating the Offeror's CAGE code, UEI number, and authorized points of contact.

• In accordance with RFO FAR 52.204-7 Dev 25-19 System for Award Management, the offeror verifies by submission of this offer that the representations and certifications currently posted electronically in SAM at https://www.sam.gov are current, accurate, complete, and applicable to this solicitation (including the business size standard applicable to the NAICS code referenced for this solicitation) as of the date of this offer.

• Security Clearance Documentation (DD Form 254): The Offeror shall submit a completed copy of the Government-provided DD Form 254 (Attachment 4), demonstrating proof of an active Facility Clearance (FCL) at the [Insert Level, e.g., SECRET] level. In accordance with RFO FAR 52.240-92, the Offeror must provide their CAGE Code, the contact information for their Facility mailto:jonathan.igwebueze@hq.dhs.gov mailto:stephen.whittaker@hq.dhs.gov https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sam.gov

Security Officer (FSO), and identify any subcontractors (including their specific locations and CAGE codes) that will require access to classified information."

VOLUME II: Technical Proposal (Factor 1) (20-Page Limit)

The Technical Volume must not contain any pricing information. To ensure a streamlined evaluation, the Offeror’s Technical Volume (Factor 1) shall not exceed 20 pages. This page limit excludes copies of required quality control procedures, facility certifications (e.g., FAA 14 CFR Part 145 Certificate, AS9100 Certificate), or configuration drawings. Pages submitted in excess of the 20-page limit will not be read or evaluated.

The Technical Volume must clearly demonstrate the Offeror’s capability to successfully perform the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) by addressing the following five (5) critical sub-elements for Factor 1 Demonstrated Technical Experience:

• Sub-Element 1.1 (Quality Control & Certifications): Offerors must submit a copy of an active, current FAA 14 CFR Part 145 Repair Station Certificate (with appropriate ratings for the Boeing 737 airframe) and/or an active AS9100 or ISO 9001 certification. Additionally, the Offeror must submit a completed copy of the Government-provided DD Form 254 demonstrating an active Facility Clearance (FCL) at the Top Secret level, including the Offeror's CAGE code and Facility Security Officer (FSO) contact information.

• Sub-Element 1.2 (Upfit & Engineering Capability): Offerors must submit:

1. A detailed narrative demonstrating prior experience executing aircraft interior modifications and obtaining FAA Supplemental Type Certificates (STCs) or FAA Form 337 Major Alteration approvals of similar scope and complexity.

2. An Engineering Plan detailing structural, electrical, and avionics integration.

3. Drawings for the Congressional Delegation Configuration and Executive Configuration that demonstrates alignment with the engineering plan discussed in the narrative.

4. A preliminary Weight and Balance Impact Assessment.

5. A detailed Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) mapping milestones from contract award to operational readiness, and strictly adhere to all upfit delivery deadlines as required in the PWS.

• Sub-Element 1.3 (Maintenance & Logistics Plan): Offerors must submit a top-level Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program (CAMP) outline and a detailed logistics/supply chain plan demonstrating the ability to meet the two-hour Aircraft on Ground (AOG) response requirement and secure critical replacement parts.

• Sub-Element 1.4 (Pilot Provisioning & Flight Operations): Offerors must submit a comprehensive flight operations outline demonstrating the ability to source, train, and manage highly qualified pilots who meet all FAA currency, medical, and safety requirements.

• Sub-Element 1.5 (Safety Management Approach): Offerors must submit a safety narrative describing their safety management considerations, internal safety protocols applicable to aircraft upfit and maintenance operations, safety culture, proactive risk management, and overall approach to aviation safety applicable to aircraft upfit and maintenance operations.

VOLUME III: Price Proposal (Factor 2) (No Page Limit)

The Price Volume shall contain the following completed documents:

1. Section 1 (CLIN Structure): The Offeror shall complete all blank unit prices for the CLIN 0001 (Upfit) line items.

2. Exhibit A (Scheduled O&M Catalog): The Offeror shall fill in all Base and Option Year rates for the M-01, M-02, U-01, U-02, and E-01 through E-05 line items.

3. Exhibit B (Unscheduled Maintenance Catalog): The Offeror shall fill in all Base and Option Year rates for the T-01, T-02, and T-03 Complexity Tiers.

4. DHS Air Pricing Model (Excel): The Offeror shall populate the Government-provided Excel Pricing Model with their proposed rates. The Excel file must be submitted with formulas unlocked and intact.

2.3 Questions and Answers (Q&A)

All questions or comments regarding this solicitation must be submitted in writing via email to stephen.whittaker@hq.dhs.gov and Jonathan Igwebueze at jonathan.igwebueze@hq.dhs.gov no later than 5:00 PM EST on August 27, 2026. The email subject line must read: "Questions - Solicitation 70RDA326R00000003". Questions must reference the specific solicitation document and paragraph number.

The Government reserves the right to answer only those questions it deems relevant to the solicitation.

Answers to relevant questions will be posted publicly via a solicitation notice or amendment. Questions received after the stated deadline will not be reviewed or answered.

3. Factor 1: Demonstrated Technical Experience The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Technical Proposal to assess the Government’s level of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The Government will evaluate the single Technical Capability factor by assessing the Offeror’s approach to the five (5) critical sub-elements listed below. (Note: These are sub-elements of Factor 1, not separate sub-factors; they will be evaluated holistically to arrive at a single Confidence Rating for Factor 1).

mailto:stephen.whittaker@hq.dhs.gov mailto:jonathan.igwebueze@hq.dhs.gov

3.1 Sub-Element 1.1: Quality Control & Certifications (PWS 4.1) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s submitted quality certifications (e.g., FAA 14 CFR Part 145, AS9100, ISO 9001) to determine the adequacy of their quality management system for heavy aircraft maintenance and modifications.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's submitted DD Form 254 to verify the Offeror possesses the mandatory Facility Clearance (FCL) required to perform the classified portions of the contract.

3.2 Sub-Element 1.2: Upfit & Engineering Capability (PWS 2.2 & 2.3) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s detailed narrative demonstrating prior experience executing aircraft interior modifications and obtaining FAA Supplemental Type Certificates (STCs) or FAA Form 337 Major Alteration approvals of similar scope and complexity.

The Government will evaluate the Offer’s engineering plan detailing structural, electrical, and avionics integration.

The Government will evaluate the Offer’s drawings for the Congressional Delegation Configuration and Executive Configuration that demonstrates alignment with the engineering plan discussed in the narrative.

The Government will evaluate the Offer’s preliminary weight and balance impact assessment.

The Government will evaluate the Offer’s detailed Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) mapping milestones from contract award to operational readiness.

The evaluation will specifically assess the Offeror's demonstrated ability to manage complex modification schedules, evidenced by the submission of a detailed Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) mapping milestones from award to operational readiness, and strictly adhere to all upfit delivery deadlines as required in the PWS.

3.3 Sub-Element 1.3: Maintenance & Logistics Plan (PWS 2.5 & 2.6) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program (CAMP) outline and logistics/supply chain plan to assess their ability to meet the two-hour Aircraft on Ground (AOG) response requirement and secure critical replacement parts.

3.4 Sub-Element 1.4: Pilot Provisioning & Flight Operations (PWS 8.0) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s comprehensive flight operations outline demonstrating the ability to source, train, and manage highly qualified pilots who meet all FAA currency, medical, and safety requirements.

3.5 Sub-Element 1.5: Safety Management Approach (PWS 1.1, 2.3, & 13) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s safety narrative describing their safety management considerations, internal safety protocols applicable to aircraft upfit and maintenance operations, safety culture, proactive risk management, and overall approach to aviation safety applicable to aircraft upfit and maintenance operations.

3.6 Technical Confidence Ratings

The Government will assign one of the following Confidence Ratings to Factor 1:

Confidence Rating Description

High Confidence The Government has high confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with little or no Government intervention.

Some Confidence The Government has some confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with some Government intervention.

Low Confidence The Government has low confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, or will be successful in performing the contract even with Government intervention.

4. Factor 2: Price The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Price Proposal to determine completeness, mathematical accuracy, and reasonableness.

4.1 Completeness

The Offeror must complete all required Firm-Fixed-Prices and Firm-Fixed-Unit-Prices within the RFP Section 1 Schedule, Exhibit A (Scheduled O&M Catalog), Exhibit B (Unscheduled Maintenance Catalog), and RFP Attachment 5 - Pricing Template.

4.2 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

For evaluation purposes, the Government will calculate a comparative TEP. The TEP will be calculated by multiplying the Offeror’s proposed FFUP rates by Government-estimated baseline quantities across the Base and Option Periods, and adding the Government-established Not-To-Exceed (NTE) ceilings.

4.3 Unbalanced Pricing

The Government will evaluate proposals for unbalanced pricing in accordance with FAR RFO 15.404.

Proposals that contain significantly unbalanced line item prices, including unbalanced pricing between the Base Period and Option Periods, or between scheduled and unscheduled maintenance catalogs, may be rejected as representing an unacceptable risk to the Government.