Solicitation 80AFRC18R0006 Amendment 1 (002).pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

PAGE OF PAGES

3. EFFECTIVE DATE 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

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

FACILITY CODECODE

6. ISSUED BY CODE

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

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

Previous edition unusable STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016) Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16C. DATE

SIGNED

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE

SIGNED

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

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

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers extended.

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:

is not

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. 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 orletter provided electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return

A. The due date for receipt of proposals is changed from "03/16/2018 12:00 PM PDT" to "06/15/2020 12:00 PM PDT".

Continued...

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

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO.

IN ITEM 10A.

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) is extended, copies to issuing office.

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

NASA

Armstrong Flight Research Center P.O. Box 273, M/S 4811-140 Edwards CA 93523-0273

NASA

Armstrong Flight Research Center P.O. Box 273, M/S 4811-140 Edwards CA 93523-0273

X

80AFRC18R0006

03/12/2018

X

See Continuation Sheet If Applicable appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

CHECK ONE

(X)

The purpose of this amendment is to request new proposals to on-ramp new flight service providers for Profile1, Profile 3, and Profile 4 in accordance with clause C.14, “ON-RAMP OF NEW CONTRACTORS” of 80AFRC18R0006.

The solicitation is amended as follows:

electronic communication, orlettereach

P00001 x

(A)

ITEM NO.

(F)

AMOUNT

(B)

SUPPLIES/SERVICES

(C)

QUANTITY

(D)

UNIT

(E)

UNIT PRICE

CONTINUATION SHEET

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED

NAME OF OFFEROR OR CONTRACTOR

OPTIONAL FORM 336 (4-86)

Sponsored by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.110

Page of

80AFRC18R0006P00001

B. "ADDENDUM to 52.212-1-- INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS- COMMERCIAL" is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the attached "ADDENDUM to 52.212-1-- INSTRUCTIONS TO

OFFERORS-COMMERCIAL".

C. "52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

ADDENDUM to 52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS" is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the attached "52.212-2

EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)ADDENDUM TO

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS".

D."COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING THIS SOLICITATION" is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the attached "COMMUNICATIONS

REGARDING THIS SOLICITATION".

E. Under clause 52.217-9, OPTION TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT (MAR 2000), paragaraph (c), change the total duration of this contract from "shall not exceed 5 years, 6 months" to "shall not exceed 3 years, 6 months".

F. Under D.1 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS, the date of Attachment 2- Past Performance Questionnaire has been changed from "10/15/2017" to "04/27/2020" to reflect the revised Attachment 2- Past Performance Questionnaire incorporated for use.

G. A revised Exhibit A Pricing Spreadsheet is incoporated to use when submitting proposals.

E.1 ADDENDUM to 52.212-1—INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS – COMMERCIAL

Offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements. Failure to meet any of the solicitation requirements may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Should an offeror take exception to any solicitation requirement, the exception must be clearly identified and complete accompanying rationale must be provided.

Proposals shall be submitted electronically to the Government in three separate volumes:

Volume Description Page Limit

I Technical Volume 15 pages *

II Past Performance Volume 5 pages

III Pricing Volume Unlimited (See exhibit A for pricing table)

A page is defined as one side of a sheet, 8 1/2" x 11" except for fold-outs used for charts, tables, or diagrams, which may not exceed 11" x 17", with at least one inch margins on all sides, using not smaller than 12 point type, Times New Roman font. Offerors shall submit signed and dated proposal to the office specified in this solicitation before the exact time specified in this solicitation. Offers shall be submitted electronically to the designated Government point of contact. Pages submitted in excess of the limitations specified in this addendum will not be evaluated by the Government.

The Government will only accept proposals in response to this solicitation via electronic means.

All electronic documents shall be provided as standard "portable document format" (pdf) readable by both MS Windows and Apple OS X computers. Offerors are cautioned NOT to submit electronic documents in an editable word processing format. Electronic files shall not contain any extraneous information beyond that required in this document.

Proposal files shall be clearly marked with RFP number identification, date of submittal, and company nomenclature to enable the Government to clearly identify the origin and purpose of the submittal. Individual files shall be clearly identified with the proposal volume and company name: "Company XXX Volume I -Technical", "Company XXX Volume II –Past Performance", "Company XXX Volume III -Price", where "Company XXX" is the name of the proposing entity. Offeror may also include a cover letter of not more than two pages. Any additional required data, such as representations and/or certifications or other signed documents, shall be included as scanned pdf format files.

Please note: Offerors shall ensure that submittals are complete and readable, and are RECEIVED by the Government office designated in the solicitation by the time specified in the solicitation.

Any offer, modification, revision, or withdrawal of an offer received at the Government office designated in the solicitation after the exact time specified for receipt of offers is “late” and will not be considered for award.

Proposal packages shall include all information required by the RFP. OFFERORS SHALL NOT

INCLUDE any extraneous material, such as sales brochures or other non-required information.

Offerors are encouraged to submit multiple files rather than one large file, using one file for each required proposal volume, in order to separate the various volumes for clarity.

At a minimum, Offeror’s proposal must provide the following:

Volume I: Technical Volume

*The technical volume shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages total, unless the offeror is providing a technical proposal for multiple flight profiles, in which case, they may add five (5) pages for each additional flight profile. The technical volume shall consist of three separate parts:

description of proposed vehicle(s), an operational plan, and description of technology payload integration process.

Part I: Description of proposed vehicle(s)

a) The offeror shall provide a comprehensive technical description of the performance characteristics of their proposed Qualified Vehicle (QV) or QV family. This description shall include proof that conclusively demonstrates by successful flight(s) that the QV or QV family is capable of providing one or more of the Flight Profiles as defined in the PWS.

“Successful flights” shall be test flights demonstrated by a fully operational vehicle to meet or exceed the flight profile requirements specified in the PWS or flights for pay, that were launched and recovered successfully with payload intact and whose salient characteristics meet or exceed one or more of the PWS Flight Profile characteristics, including payload mass and altitude achieved. Legacy vehicles not currently in operational status shall not be considered as qualifying for the purposes of meeting the flight profile requirements, but may be used to demonstrate relevant past performance. (REF: PWS Sects 4.1, 4.2.3. 5.).

b) The Offeror shall describe the full capabilities of the vehicle including but not limited to, maximum altitude, mass, and volume. The Government will also consider proposed innovative approaches that improve upon the listed profile requirements provided that such approaches fall within the general scope of the existing PWS. (REF: PWS Sect 5.).

c) The Offeror shall describe in detail the routine capabilities and operating limits (for commercial use) of each vehicle in terms of payload mass per payload slot, number of payload slots, the maximum mass, volume, and configuration of each payload slot; flight profile(s) including times to various altitudes; available electrical power, environmental, and other experiment interfaces. (REF: PWS Sect 5.).

d) Where applicable, the offeror shall describe the capabilities of each proposed QV for periods at reduced or micro gravity, including measured quality of reduced gravity and methodology for this measurement, and maximum available time at reduced gravity.

(REF: PWS Sect 5.1,5.5).

Part II: An operational plan

a) The Offeror shall provide an operational plan clearly demonstrating that it can perform flights (1) independent of Government assistance; (2) with full responsibility for flight safety, mission assurance, and environmental compliance in accordance with local, state, and Federal regulations; (3) with full responsibility for QV systems engineering, payload integration, and other required services; and (4) with provision for access to launch facilities by Government observers. The operational plan shall also include a brief description on how the Offeror will respond to each Mission Implementation Document (MID). (REF: PWS

Sects 4.2.1, 4.2.2,6.1, 6.2, 6.3).

b) The Offeror shall provide sufficient evidence within the operational plan that they possess applicable licenses, permits, or waivers from the appropriate regulatory agency, or provide sufficient explanation of why such items are not applicable to their proposed QV(s). The offeror shall be capable of providing commercial flight services in accordance with one of more of the flight profiles on the date of the proposal is submitted to the Government. (REF:

PWS Sect 6.2).

c) Offeror shall describe their general operational plan, including: (1) how the Offeror will assure the physical security of payloads before and after flights; (2) the Offeror’s approach for vehicle and payload recovery; and (3) how the Offeror will provide access to payloads by payload providers. (REF: PWS Sects 4.2.5, 4.2.6).

Part III: Description of technology payload integration process

a) The Offeror shall provide a detailed description or an outline of their Payload Integration process. The Process shall include a Payload Acceptance and Readiness Review and a

System Safety and Mission Risk Assessment, and describe what the Offeror will provide to the payload providers within the Payload Users Guide (PUG). (REF PWS Sect 6.3). Offeror shall describe their general operational plan, including: (1) how the Offeror will assure the physical security of payloads before and after flights; (2) the Offeror’s approach for vehicle and payload recovery; and (3) how the Offeror will provide access to payloads by payload providers. (REF: PWS Sects 4.2.5, 4.2.6).

Volume II: Past Performance

The Government is seeking to determine whether the Offeror has relevant experience that will ensure its successful performance of the Flight and Payload Integration PWS and solicitation requirements. The Offeror’s proposal shall include an itemized listing and summary of three (3) current or past contracts performing the same or similar tasks to the

Flight and Payload Integration PWS and solicitation requirements within the last three (3) years. The summary should detail how the current or past contract task requirements relate in relevancy and similarity to each task required by the Flight and Payload Integration PWS and solicitation. This information should focus on work performed, progress, and projects of a same or similar size, content, and complexity as this PWS and solicitation requirement.

The Offeror should provide information on problems encountered during the performance of previous contracts, completion delays, terminations and the Offeror’s corrective actions. The

Offeror should also provide any awards or quality demonstrators of performance achieved during performance of previous contracts. The Offeror may submit past performance information relating to a major subcontract and/or team member contract as one (1) of the three current or past contracts performing the same or similar tasks to the Flight and Payload

Integration PWS and solicitation requirements. No more than one of the submitted past performance submittals may be related to the major subcontract and/or team member contract.

The relevant similar contracts shall contain the following information:

• Contract number

• Type of contract

• Start and end dates

• Contract value

• Respective primary Point of Contact for the customer (name, agency or firm affiliation, city and state, phone number and e-mail)

• Summary of the work performed

Subcontractor Consent: Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor’s consent. Provide with the proposal a letter from all subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime offeror.

Past Performance information may be obtained from the Governmentwide Past Performance

Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and any other reasonable basis. Offerors shall provide the CAGE Code and DUNS Number of the facility that will be identified on the potential contract.

NASA has provided a “Past Performance Questionnaire” that the Offerors will submit to the cited Client POC(s) for completion. Offeror shall submit the questionnaire to the POC(s) via email and include the NASA POCs cited in the solicitation.

The completed questionnaire must be returned directly to Andrea Basham. Client can email them to andrea.c.basham@nasa.gov. The completed questionnaire must come from the Client and be submitted no later than 12:00 PM PDT, June 10, 2020.

The Offeror is responsible for ensuring timely submission.

Volume III: Price

Offerors shall propose pricing based only on the flight and payload integration PWS

(Attachment 1). Offerors that do not propose pricing in accordance with the solicitation guidance may be considered unacceptable and thus precluded from receiving an award. The government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices or the fully burden hourly rates are significantly unbalanced.

FAR Clause 52.217-8 “Option to Extend Services” is applicable to the contract requirement and may be exercised within the limits and at the rates specified in the awarded contract.

The option pricing will be based on the last contract year’s pricing.

Offerors shall provide pricing for the following parameters for each proposed qualified vehicle or qualified vehicle family:

mailto:andrea.c.basham@nasa.gov

a) Maximum achievable altitude given the heaviest (mass) flight configuration.

b) Nominal flight profile (the flight profile that is most commonly offered on the commercial market) with no non-standard services included.

c) Pricing for other combinations of mass and altitude may be provided at the offeror’s discretion.

d) Fixed pricing for commonly requested non-standard services, if applicable.

e) Fixed hourly labor rates for uncommon non-standard services and special projects.

Insert proposed unit and extended prices in the Pricing Schedule. Prices shall be proposed for each year of services, consisting of the remaining base period of three (3) years, commencing in calendar year 2020 upon receiving a signed contract from the Government.

Pricing shall include both full manifest and individual payload slot pricing (if applicable to the proposed QV) for each year of the contract. Pricing shall encompass the entire end-to- end payload integration and flight, inclusive of all services required to analyze, accept, and integrate the payload; perform one flight at the required conditions; recover the payload; and provide a flight summary report. This should include both individual payload slots and full manifest, as applicable to the particular QV.

The Government will not accept additional costs for remote deployment if such deployment is at the offeror’s discretion.

The proposal shall contain the following information to be considered responsive:

a) Pricing details (as described above) for each year of three (3) contract years.

b) Other quantity discounts or other innovative approaches for NASA to realize price savings in the performance of this contract. This portion includes any potential non-standard services that could be anticipated for the performance of this contract.

c) Fully burdened hourly rates by year for each applicable labor category for the three (3) contract years. These hourly rates are for non-standard services and/or special projects that are not defined at this time and could be required during the performance of this contract.

Number of

Month(s)

Contract Year 1 12

Contract Year 2 12

Contract Year 3 12

See Exhibit A for Pricing Spreadsheet.

Proposed rates will be analyzed for reasonableness.

Contract award:

The Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions.

Therefore, the Offeror’s initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. The Government may reject any or all offers if such action is in the public interest.

Offeror must agree with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation.

Proposals that fail to furnish required representations or information, or reject the terms and conditions of the solicitation may be excluded from consideration.

The Offeror agrees to hold the prices in its proposal firm for 180 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of proposals, unless another time period is specified in an addendum to the solicitation.

Offers are due: 12:00 PM PDT, June 15, 2020, and must be submitted electronically to Andrea Basham at andrea.c.basham@nasa.gov. The Offeror is responsible for ensuring timely submission.

E.2 52.212-2 EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

ADDENDUM to FAR 52.212-2, EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

This is a competitive Price Performance Trade-off best value source selection where all evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

The evaluation factors are:

1. Technical Acceptability

2. Past Performance

3. Price

The evaluation process shall proceed as follows: An initial review of proposals will be conducted to determine acceptability of the proposals in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals. All unacceptable proposals will be eliminated from further evaluation.

Technical Acceptability: The Technical Acceptability rating will consist of evaluation of the technical approach. The government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable/unacceptable basis, assigning a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable using the descriptions in the below table “Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings”. The

Offeror’s technical proposal shall be evaluated to determine if the proposed approach and existing capability meet or exceed the various requirements identified within the PWS and the solicitation. Stating that you understand and will comply with the specifications, or paraphrasing the specifications is inadequate as are phrases such as: “standard procedures will be employed” and “well-known techniques will be used.”

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

The technical volume will be evaluated against the following factors:

1. The offeror shall provide a comprehensive technical description of the performance characteristics of their proposed Qualified Vehicle (QV) or QV family. This description shall include proof that conclusively demonstrates by successful flight(s) that the QV or

QV family is capable of providing one or more of the Flight Profiles as defined in the

PWS. “Successful flights” shall be flights for pay, that were launched and recovered successfully with payload intact and whose salient characteristics meet or exceed one or more of the PWS Flight Profile characteristics, including payload mass and altitude achieved. Legacy vehicles not currently in operational status shall not be considered as qualifying for the purposes of meeting the flight profile requirements, but may be used to demonstrate relevant past performance. (REF: PWS Sects 4.1, 4.2.3. 5).

2. Offeror can provide commercial services, independently: Offeror proposes an operating plan with sufficient evidence that it can operate QV(s) to fly technology payloads at a commercial level: (a) Offeror assumes full responsibility for Flight Safety, Mission

Assurance, and Environmental compliance in accordance with local, state, and Federal regulations; (b) Offeror performs independently, without assistance from the

Government. (REF: PWS Sects 4.2.1, 6.2).

3. Offeror can respond appropriately to task orders: Offeror proposes an operational plan that (a) addresses physical security and recoverability of payloads; (b) how it provides a comprehensive Payload Users Guide; (c) how it will perform QV systems engineering, payload integration, and other required services; (d) how access by payload providers and

Government observers will be provided. (REF: PWS Sects 4.2.2, 4.2.5, 4.2.6, 8).

4. Offeror has applicable approvals to fly: Offeror possesses all applicable permits, licenses, waivers, and/or flight approvals from the appropriate regulatory agencies, unless the offeror provides sufficient justification of why such items are not applicable to their proposed QV or QV family(s). (REF: PWS Sect 6.2).

All technically acceptable offers shall be treated equally except for their past performance records and prices. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions, and provide complete accompanying rationale. All unacceptable proposals will be eliminated from further evaluation.

Past Performance: The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to perform the solicitation requirements. This factor indicates the relevant quantitative and qualitative aspects of each Offeror's record of performing services or delivering products similar in size, content, and complexity as the requirements of the PWS and solicitation. The past performance evaluation shall be in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), NFS 1815.305(a)(2), and this section.

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation.

(1) The first is to evaluate the relevancy of the Offeror’s current or past contracts.

Relevant performance includes performance of the Flight and Payload Integration

Services in similar or greater in size, content, and complexity of the effort described in the PWS and solicitation. The evaluation team will review the Offeror’s Past

Performance and make an overall determination of the relevancy of the current or past contracts performance to the requirements of the PWS and solicitation then assign a Past Performance Relevancy Rating based on the following ratings and definitions:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same size, content, and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar size, content, and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the size, content, and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the size, content, and complexities this solicitation requires.

(2) The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on current and previous contracts. Past performance information will be obtained on the relevant, similar current or past contracts listed by the Offeror in Volume II Past Performance to assist in determining the quality level of past performance. The Government’s evaluation is not limited to past performance information on the listed contracts. Past performance information on work for commercial customers, local, state and federal Government that are relevant and similar to this procurement may also be evaluated. The Government may use past performance information obtained from the Government wide Past Performance

Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), other agencies, questionnaires or personal knowledge. The evaluation team will review the Offeror’s quality of past performance and assign a Quality Assessment Rating based on the following ratings and definitions:

Quality Assessment Ratings for Evaluating Past Performance

Rating Definition

Exceptional Contractor's performance meets contractual requirements and consistently exceed

(or exceeded) many of them. The contractual performance of requirements being assessed was accomplished with no more than a few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good Contractor's performance meets contractual requirements and consistently exceed

(or exceeded) some of them. The contractual performance of requirements being assessed was accomplished with no more than some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory Contractor's performance meets (or met) contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the requirements contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.

Marginal Contractor's performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the requirements being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

Unsatisfactory Contractor's performance is failing (or failed) to meet most contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the requirements contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. Extensive customer oversight and involvement was required.

Neutral Contractor performance was not observed or not applicable to the current effort being reported against.

The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the

Offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in this RFP, based on the Offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance. The assessment process of the two aspects of past performance will result in an overall performance confidence assessment as defined in NFS 1815.305(a)(2).

The evaluation team shall consider and clearly document each Offeror’s relevant quantitative and qualitative aspects of past performance data and assign an overall confidence rating.

Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will not be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal Offeror. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history or the Offeror’s performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating

"Neutral," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

Past Performance shall be rated using the following levels of confidence ratings:

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

Very High Level of

Confidence

The offeror’s relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition, indicates exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner and very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance.

Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a very high level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

High Level of

Confidence

The offeror’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition; demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements. Offeror’s past performance indicates that contract requirements were accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part, with only minor problems that had little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a high level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Moderate Level of

Confidence

The offeror’s relevant past performance is pertinent to this acquisition, and it demonstrates effective performance. Performance was fully responsive to contract requirements; there may have been reportable problems, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance.

Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a moderate level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort

Low Level of

Confidence

The offeror’s relevant past performance is at least somewhat pertinent to this acquisition, and it meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards. Offeror achieved adequate results; there may have been reportable problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a low level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the offeror’s existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements.

Very Low Level of

Confidence

The offeror’s relevant past performance does not meet minimum acceptable standards in one or more areas; remedial action was required in one or more areas. Performance problems occurred in one or more areas which, adversely affected overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a very low level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii) and (iv)).

PRICE:

Offerors that do not propose pricing in accordance with the solicitation guidance may be considered unacceptable and thus precluded from receiving an award. The government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the pricings for standard services rates for all three contract years and fully burdened T&M labor rates are significantly unbalanced.

The contracting officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this requirement. Upon examination of the initial offers, the contracting officer will review this determination and if, in the contracting officer’s opinion, adequate price competition exists, no additional cost information will be requested.

However, if at any time during this competition the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, offerors may be required to submit information other than cost or pricing data to support a determination of price reasonableness.

The Government will apply Price Analysis techniques to the proposed pricing, to determine whether proposed prices are "fair and reasonable" compared to known standards for same or similar services. The Government will use the proposed prices for standard payload slot for the price analysis. The price analysis will include the total price for the three contract years, assuming one flight per year in the most basic configuration with no non-standard services. The total price will be evaluated for reasonableness by comparing the sum of proposed standard payload slot for three contract years received in response to the solicitation. The total evaluated price will be for evaluation purpose only.

The Government will also separately evaluate the proposed T&M fully burdened hourly rates and the prices for non-standard services. An overall determination of "fair and reasonable" pricing will be presented to the Source Selection Authority.

The CO may send relevant requests for clarification, in writing, to the Offeror(s). The CO may also request clarification of information contained in the pricing proposal(s) or any other aspect of the proposal(s). All clarification requests will require a written response from the Offeror within the time frames established by the CO. Responses to clarification questions will not be considered “discussions”.

BASIS OF AWARD:

The resulting award will be a multiple award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contract to multiple contractors. The Government will award contracts resulting from this solicitation using the best value continuum Price Performance Trade-Off where all evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors.

(End of provision)

E.3 COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING THIS SOLICITATION

(a) Questions or comments regarding this solicitation must be submitted in writing, cite the solicitation number, and be directed to the following Government representative:

Name: Andrea Basham, Contracting Officer

Email: andrea.c.basham@nasa.gov

Oral questions will not be answered due to the possibility of misunderstanding or misinterpretation. All written questions shall be submitted no later than 12:00 PM

PDT, May 28, 2020. The offeror is responsible for ensuring timely submission.

End of Amendment 1