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 11

0004 10/10/2017

AAQ-811 FAC. & AVIATION SAFETY ACQ

FAA AERONAUTICAL CENTER

PO BOX 25082

MPB ROOM 380

AAQ0811-AFN

OKLAHOMA CITY OK 73125

AAQ-811 FAC. & AVIATION SAFETY ACQ

FAA AERONAUTICAL CENTER

PO BOX 25082

MPB ROOM 380

AAQ811-AFN

OKLAHOMA CITY OK 73125

x

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

separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment number. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT

THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted , such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted ; or (c) By ___________ 1 x x

DTFAAC-17-R-00023

1 copies to the issuing office.

07/25/2017

(x)

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

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. CONTRACT AUTHORITY 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16C. DATE SIGNED

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

Stephanie Riddle

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

The purpose of this amendment is to revise Section L.3 Instructions for Preparation and Submission of Proposals Paragraph (i) Section II-Technical Documentation, Section M.1 Evaluation Factors for Award, M.2 Technical Evaluation Rating Scale, M.3 Technical Evaluation, and extend the closing date.

FIRST: Section L.3 Instructions for Preparation and Submission of Proposals Paragraph (i) Section II-Technical Documentation, is hereby revised as follows:

FROM: L.3 Instructions for Preparation and Submission of Proposals

(i) Section II - Technical Documentation.

For technical documentation, the Offeror is to describe the company's past performance and experience in management of similar Hangar Mechanical Upgrades contracts.

Offerors with no relevant past performance or experience in Hangar Mechanical Upgrades will receive a neutral score.

(1) Offerors shall provide adequate past performance information on completed or current contracts (including Federal, State, local government, and private) considered most relevant in demonstrating the ability to perform the proposed work as identified within the Drawings and Specifications. Offerors are required to explain what aspects of each contract are deemed relevant to complexity and magnitude as related to the requirements of this solicitation and in accordance with Section M.

(a) The Offeror shall complete a minimum of three (3), but no more than five (5), "Past Performance Experience Information" forms, attached to the SIR (Section J, Attachment 9) in response to this factor. All blocks must be filled in and all data should be accurate, current and complete. All projects submitted must have been underway or completed within the last 7 years through the closing date identified on the SIR. Each project provided must be valued at or over $2,000,000. If the Offeror does not have prime contracts to cite, then the Offeror may cite instances on which it has served as a primary subcontractor.

(b) Offerors shall have current or past customers complete the attached Past Performance Survey (PPS) attached to the SIR (Section J, Attachment 10). A minimum of three (3) but no more than five (5) completed PPS's shall be submitted directly from the offeror's customer to the Contracting Officer no later than the SIR closing date. All PPS submitted must show the projects are underway or completed with the last 7 years through the closing date identified on the SIR. The Offeror's construction projects (or greater than) the complexity and breadth of the Hangar 08 and 09 Mechanical Upgrades Project.

*If a current or past customer will no longer be allowed to complete any type of past performance questionnaire for projects, then a final Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS) / Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS) evaluation may be submitted.

The Offeror's ability to meet contract obligations in a timely manner is an area of particular importance. A proposal should demonstrate acceptable past performance on construction projects of same or similar scope, complexity, and magnitude as the Hangar 08 and 09 Mechanical Upgrades.

Each PPS submitted shall be for work that is valued at or over $2,000,000.

TO: L.3 Instructions for Preparation and Submission of Proposals

(i) Section II - Technical Documentation.

For technical documentation, the Offeror is to describe the company's past performance and experience in management of similar Hangar Mechanical Upgrades contracts.

Offerors that do not submit a minimum of three (3) but no more than five (5) completed past performance experience information forms for projects with a value at or over $1,000,000 and projects submitted must have been underway or completed within the last 7 years through the closing date identified on the SIR will be considered non-responsive.

(1) Offerors shall provide adequate past performance information on completed or current contracts (including Federal, State, local government, and private) considered most relevant in demonstrating the ability to perform the proposed work as identified within the Drawings and Specifications. Offerors are required to explain what aspects of each contract are deemed relevant to complexity and magnitude as related to the requirements of this solicitation and in accordance with Section M.

(a) The Offeror shall complete a minimum of three (3), but no more than five (5), "Past Performance Experience Information" forms, attached to the SIR (Section J, Attachment 9) in response to this factor. All blocks must be filled in and all data should be accurate, current and complete. All projects submitted must have been underway or completed within the last 7 years through the closing date identified on the SIR. Each project provided must be valued at or over $1,000,000. If the Offeror does not have prime contracts to cite, then the Offeror may cite instances on which it has served as a primary subcontractor.

(b) Offerors shall have current or past customers complete the attached Past Performance Survey (PPS) attached to the SIR (Section J, Attachment 10) or submit final Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS)/Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS) evaluations. A minimum of three (3) but no more than five (5) completed PPS's shall be submitted directly from the offeror's customer to the Contracting Officer or final CCASS/CPARS evaluations no later than the SIR closing date. All PPS or final CCASS/CPARS evaluations submitted must show the projects are underway or completed with the last 7 years through the closing date identified on the SIR. The Offeror's construction projects (or greater than) the complexity and breadth of the Hangar 08 and 09 Mechanical Upgrades Project.

Each PPS submitted shall be for work that is valued at or over $1,000,000.

Second: Section M.1 Evaluation Factors for Award is hereby revised as follows:

FROM: M.1 Evaluation Factors for Award

(a) This acquisition will employ best practices procedures for competitive negotiated procurements as authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Acquisition Management System (AMS).

Offers will be evaluated and contract award made to the Offeror whose proposal contains the combination of those criteria offering the best overall value to the FAA. Technical will be significantly more important than the price/cost which will be secondary.

Contract award will be made to the Offeror who is determined responsible in accordance with the Acquisition Management System(AMS), whose proposal conforms to the solicitation's requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, and certifications) and is concluded, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government.

A technical/price tradeoff will be made. The lowest total evaluated price offer may not provide the greatest overall value to the Government and award may be made to other than the lowest total evaluated priced offer. Technical is more important than cost/price.

To arrive at a best value decision, the Source Selection Official (SSO) will integrate the Technical Evaluation Team's of the specific criteria described above. While the Government Technical Evaluation Team (TET) and the SSO will strive for maximum objectivity, the Source Selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror's best terms from a technical and cost/price standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined by the Contracting Officer (CO) to be necessary. All communications are to be controlled by the CO. Discussions may be conducted with one, some, or none of the offerors. Discussion with one offeror does not oblige discussions with other offerors.

(b) Proposals may be eliminated if they are determined to be grossly deficient; e.g., does not comply with or represent a reasonable effort to address itself to all elements of the SIR/RFO; or clearly demonstrates that the Offeror does not understand the requirements of the SIR/RFO; and the proposed cost/price are not considered reasonable.

(c) Each proposal will be evaluated on the basis of its written submissions and cost/price information described in Section L (hereafter referred to as technical and cost/price proposals). Separate technical and cost/price proposals are required as described in Section L.

(d) Technical proposals will be evaluated, rated, and scored in accordance with pre-established evaluation factors. These factors are listed in Provision M.3.

(e) Cost/price submittals will not be rated or scored but evaluated pursuant to Provision M.4.

(f) The offer that provides the overall best value to the FAA will be selected. The successful offer may not necessarily be the lowest priced offer. Again, technical is significantly more important than cost/price.

(g) Because several proposals are anticipated, uniformity of proposals is essential to assure a fair and accurate assessment of each offer. All proposals must be submitted in accordance with Section L and must conform to all the terms and conditions of the SIR/RFO. Failure to conform to all requirements expressed may be cause for rejection without further evaluation or discussion.

(h) Additional information may be requested from the Offeror whose proposal the FAA considers to represent the overall best value. The information may clarify or supplement, but not basically change the proposal as submitted. The FAA reserves the right to award a contract based on initial offers received, without discussions or negotiations. For this reason, each initial offer should be submitted on the most favorable terms from the standpoint of technical and price/cost.

TO: M.1 Evaluation Factors for Award

(a) This acquisition will employ best practices procedures for competitive negotiated procurements as authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Acquisition Management System (AMS).

Offers will be evaluated and contract award made to the Offeror whose proposal contains the combination of those criteria offering the best overall value to the FAA. Technical will be significantly more important than the price/cost which will be secondary.

Contract award will be made to the Offeror who is determined responsible in accordance with the Acquisition Management System(AMS), whose proposal conforms to the solicitation's requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, and certifications) and is concluded, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government.

A technical/price tradeoff may be made. The lowest total evaluated price offer may not provide the greatest overall value to the Government and award may be made to other than the lowest total evaluated priced offer. Technical is more important than cost/price.

To arrive at a best value decision, the Source Selection Official (SSO) will integrate the Technical Evaluation Team's of the specific criteria described above. While the Government Technical Evaluation Team (TET) and the SSO will strive for maximum objectivity, the Source Selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror's best terms from a technical and cost/price standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined by the Contracting Officer (CO) to be necessary. All communications are to be controlled by the CO. Discussions may be conducted with one, some, or none of the offerors. Discussion with one offeror does not oblige discussions with other offerors.

(b) Proposals may be eliminated if they are determined to be grossly deficient; e.g., does not comply with or represent a reasonable effort to address itself to all elements of the SIR/RFO; or clearly demonstrates that the Offeror does not understand the requirements of the SIR/RFO; and the proposed cost/price are not considered reasonable.

(c) Each proposal will be evaluated on the basis of its written submissions and cost/price information described in Section L (hereafter referred to as technical and cost/price proposals). Separate technical and cost/price proposals are required as described in Section L.

(d) Technical proposals will be evaluated, rated, and scored in accordance with pre-established evaluation factors. These factors are listed in Provision M.3.

(e) Cost/price submittals will not be rated or scored but evaluated pursuant to Provision M.4.

(f) The offer that provides the overall best value to the FAA will be selected. The successful offer may not necessarily be the lowest priced offer. Again, technical is significantly more important than cost/price.

(g) Because several proposals are anticipated, uniformity of proposals is essential to assure a fair and accurate assessment of each offer. All proposals must be submitted in accordance with Section L and must conform to all the terms and conditions of the SIR/RFO. Failure to conform to all requirements expressed may be cause for rejection without further evaluation or discussion.

(h) Additional information may be requested from the Offeror whose proposal the FAA considers to represent the overall best value. The information may clarify or supplement, but not basically change the proposal as submitted. The FAA reserves the right to award a contract based on initial offers received, without discussions or negotiations. For this reason, each initial offer should be submitted on the most favorable terms from the standpoint of technical and price/cost.

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

FROM: M.2 Technical Evaluation Rating Scale

All vendors will be ranked according to the quality of their submission. All offerors will be rated according to the rating scheme outlined in this section.

Each evaluator will use the following criteria to measure and score each proposal. Scoring will reflect the extent to which the vendor has met the overall factor requirements. Upon completion of the evaluation of each factor by a member of the evaluation team, the lead technical evaluator will summarize the proposals in a manner that determines which proposals are acceptable and which are unacceptable to support. Evaluation factors will be scored as outlined below to which the Offeror has met the overall factor requirements.

The Technical Evaluation will consist of two past performance ratings: Experience Relevancy and Performance Confidence. Using questionnaires, the Government shall seek performance information for the offerors.

EXPERIENCE – RELEVANCY (Factor 1) Rating

Very Relevant Past/present performance effort involved essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Past/present performance effort involved much of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Past/performance contractual effort involved some of the magnitude of effort and complexities that this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Past/present performance effort did not involve any of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Unknown Relevancy No past/present performance record is identifiable or the offeror’s past/present performance record is so sparse that no relevancy assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

PAST PERFORMANCE – CONFIDENCE (Factor 1) Rating

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the FAA has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the FAA has an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the FAA has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the FAA has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence No performance record is identifiable or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Weighting Factors. Technical is significantly more important than price/cost.

TO: M.2 Technical Evaluation Rating Scale

All offerors will be rated according to the rating scheme outlined in this section.

Each evaluator will use the following criteria to measure and score each proposal. Scoring will reflect the extent to which the vendor has met the overall factor requirements. Upon completion of the evaluation of each factor by a member of the evaluation team, the lead technical evaluator will summarize the proposals in a manner that determines which proposals are acceptable and which are unacceptable to support. Evaluation factors will be scored as outlined below to which the Offeror has met the overall factor requirements.

The Technical Evaluation will consist of two past performance ratings: Experience Relevancy and Performance Confidence. Using questionnaires, the Government shall seek performance information for the offerors.

EXPERIENCE – RELEVANCY (Factor 1) Rating

Very Relevant Past/present performance effort involved mechanical upgrades in a hangar facility that are essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexities that this solicitation requires.

Relevant Past/present performance effort involved mechanical upgrades that are much of the magnitude of effort and complexities that this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Past/performance contractual effort involved some mechanical upgrades in a facility which had some of the magnitude of effort and complexities that this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Past/present performance effort did not involve mechanical upgrades that have any of the magnitude of effort and complexities that this solicitation requires.

Unknown Relevancy No past/present performance record is identifiable or the offeror’s past/present performance record is so sparse that no relevancy assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

PAST PERFORMANCE – CONFIDENCE (Factor 1) Rating

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the FAA has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the FAA has an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the FAA has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the FAA has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence No performance record is identifiable or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Weighting Factors. Technical is significantly more important than price/cost.

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

FROM: M.3 Technical Evaluation

(a) Selection of contractors for award will be based on evaluation of price and technical proposals. Technical proposals will be evaluated according to the factors listed below. Technical evaluation factors as listed below are intended to determine the offeror's capabilities to effectively and efficiently accomplish the performance of the contract.

(b) Each proposal shall provide current and relevant information regarding an offeror's actions under previously awarded contracts. Offerors shall identify past or current contracts (including Federal, State, local government, and private) for efforts similar to the Government requirement as stated in the solicitation. The Government will evaluate the offeror's previous performance in the following areas: Adherence to progress schedules, provide management, technical, and administrative experience; effective quality control; timely submission of submittal data; approach to problem solving; timely resolution of punch list items. The Government may evaluate information on problems identified and encountered on previous contracts and correction actions taken by the offeror. In the case an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The proposals will be evaluated on how well they performed in the previously performed contracts.

(c) Experience Relevancy will be evaluated. The Government will evaluate the offeror's summary of complete projects based on demonstrated past and present experience under recent and relevant contracts. Recency is defined as projects performed in the last seven (7) years. The Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this SIR.

Relevancy is defined as contracts involving:

(1) Projects involving construction in a Hangar facility

(2) Cost within project magnitude.

The following relevancy definitions apply:

VERY RELEVANT: Past/present performance effort involved essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT: Past/present performance effort involved much of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT: Past/present performance effort involved some of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT: Past/present performance effort did not involve any of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

UNKNOWN: No past/present performance record is identifiable or the offeror's past/present performance record is so sparse that no relevancy assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

(d) Performance Confidence will be evaluated. Performance confidence ratings assess the probability of the offeror successfully accomplishing the proposed effort based on the offeror's past performance. In assessing past performance confidence, the evaluators will primarily rely on information provided by offeror's completed past performance questionnaires. However, the Government may use data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources to be used in the evaluation process.

This performance assessment represents the Government evaluation team's judgment of the probability of an offeror successfully accomplishing the proposed effort based on the offeror's demonstrated past and present performance.

The ratings are defined as follows:

SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE: Based on the offeror's performance record, the FAA has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE: Based on the offeror's performance record, the FAA has an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

LIMITED CONFIDENCE: Based on the offeror's performance record, the FAA has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO CONFIDENCE: Based on the offeror's performance record, the FAA has no expectation the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE: No performance record is identifiable or the offeror's performance record is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

TO: M.3 Technical Evaluation

(a) Selection of contractors for award will be based on evaluation of price and technical proposals. Technical proposals will be evaluated according to the factors listed below. Technical evaluation factors as listed below are intended to determine the offeror's capabilities to effectively and efficiently accomplish the performance of the contract.

(b) Each proposal shall provide current and relevant information regarding an offeror's actions under previously awarded contracts. Offerors shall identify past or current contracts (including Federal, State, local government, and private) for efforts similar to the Government requirement as stated in the solicitation. The Government will evaluate the offeror's previous performance in the following areas: Adherence to progress schedules, provide management, technical, and administrative experience; effective quality control; timely submission of submittal data; approach to problem solving; timely resolution of punch list items. The Government may evaluate information on problems identified and encountered on previous contracts and correction actions taken by the offeror. In the case an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The proposals will be evaluated on how well they performed in the previously performed contracts.

(c) Experience Relevancy will be evaluated. The Government will evaluate the offeror's summary of complete projects based on demonstrated past and present experience under recent and relevant contracts. Recency is defined as projects performed in the last seven (7) years. The Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this SIR.

Relevancy is defined as contracts involving:

(1) Projects involving mechanical upgrades

(2) Cost within project magnitude.

The following relevancy definitions apply:

VERY RELEVANT: Past/present performance effort involved mechanical upgrades in a hangar facility that are essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexities that this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT: Past/present performance effort involved mechanical upgrades that are much of the magnitude of effort and complexities that this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT: Past/present performance effort involved some mechanical upgrades in a facility which had some of the magnitude of effort and complexities that this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT: Past/present performance effort did not involve mechanical upgrades that have any of the magnitude of effort and complexities that this solicitation requires.

UNKNOWN: No past/present performance record is identifiable or the offeror’s past/present performance record is so sparse that no relevancy assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

(d) Performance Confidence will be evaluated. Performance confidence ratings assess the probability of the offeror successfully accomplishing the proposed effort based on the offeror's past performance. In assessing past performance confidence, the evaluators will primarily rely on information provided by offeror's completed past performance questionnaires. However, the Government may use data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources to be used in the evaluation process.

This performance assessment represents the Government evaluation team's judgment of the probability of an offeror successfully accomplishing the proposed effort based on the offeror's demonstrated past and present performance.

The ratings are defined as follows:

SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE: Based on the offeror's performance record, the FAA has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE: Based on the offeror's performance record, the FAA has an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

LIMITED CONFIDENCE: Based on the offeror's performance record, the FAA has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO CONFIDENCE: Based on the offeror's performance record, the FAA has no expectation the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE: No performance record is identifiable or the offeror's performance record is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

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

FROM: Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. CT

TO: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. CT

SIXTH: Offerors are to acknowledge this amendment and strongly advised to review their original proposal. If there are no changes in the original proposal, notify the Contracting Officer of no changes. If anything has changed in the proposal, submit any changes to the Contracting Officer by the closing date above.

SEVENTH: All other terms and conditions remain unchanged and in full force and effect.