FA2517-15-R-6000-0003.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS

The following additions/changes are made to FAR 52.212-2:

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

(a)(i) Basis for Contract Award. This contract will be awarded as Firm Fixed Price (FFP) in which the Government will utilize a performance price tradeoff source selection process wherein technical capability will be assessed on an acceptable/unacceptable basis and the Government’s decision will be based upon a tradeoff between past performance and price, where past performance is approximately equal to price.

The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest-priced technically acceptable offer if that Offeror is judged to have a performance assessment rating of “Satisfactory Confidence” or higher. In that event, the Government shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision. This may result in an award to a higher-rated, higher-priced Offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Government reasonably determines that more highly assessed past performance of the higher-priced Offeror outweighs the price difference.

While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, this source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the Offeror’s experience in performing the effort described in the solicitation, based on the Offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance.

By submission of its offer in accordance with the instructions provided in clause FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors, the Offeror accedes to the terms of this model contract and all such offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records.

(a)(ii) Evaluation Process. Technical proposals will be evaluated for technical acceptability. Past Performance will be evaluated for Recency, Relevancy, and Quality as the basis for the overall Performance Confidence assessment assigned to each Offeror. Price will be evaluated for balance, reasonableness and affordability.

(a)(iii) Evaluation Factors. To arrive at a decision, the Government will assess each offer in accordance with the following evaluation factors for the contract:

Factor 1: Technical Capability

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

Factor 1 - Technical Capability. The technical evaluation provides an assessment of the Offeror’s demonstrated approach to meet the Government’s requirements and will be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described in the Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Table 2-1. If an Offeror receives an “unacceptable” rating for any subfactor of the Technical factor, the overall Technical Factor will be considered “unacceptable” and the Offeror will be ineligible for award.

Technical Capability Evaluation. Offerors shall submit a Management Plan for technical evaluation. The Government will evaluate the management plan to assess the Offeror’s approach to determine if it is sufficient to successfully perform the tasks outlined in the PWS. Failure to provide a reasonable and complete management plan shall reflect a lack of capability to perform the work requirements and will result in a determination that the Offeror’s management plan is unacceptable. The management plan shall be evaluated for clear demonstration of the Offeror’s proposed approach to successfully accomplish the following:

Subfactor 1: Training Requirements. Meet and maintain all training requirements. To receive an Acceptable rating, the Management Plan shall demonstrate that the Offeror has adequate processes to successfully obtain required training IAW PWS Paragraphs 1.3 through 1.3.11 and Appendix D.

Subfactor 2: Workforce Management/Manning. Management of workforce. To receive an Acceptable rating, the Management Plan shall demonstrate the Offeror’s proposed approach is sufficient to successfully manage its workforce during fluctuating workloads in order to maintain continued services and provide adequate manning, sufficient oversight and an effective work schedule to ensure uninterrupted Transient Alert services and Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE) operations and maintenance at contract start date and throughout the life of the contract IAW PWS Paragraphs 1.0 and 1.1.1.1.

Subfactor 3: Quality Control Plan. Quality Control to ensure contract services are performed IAW the PWS. The Offeror’s Quality Control Plan (QCP) shall address the process/procedures to identify, prevent and ensure non-recurrence of defective services. To receive an Acceptable rating, the Quality Control Plan shall demonstrate an approach to ensure the quality of contract services IAW PWS Paragraph 4.1. A copy of the offeror’s inspection instructions shall be included.

Subfactor 4: Transition Plan. Manage and accomplish contract transition tasks. To receive an Acceptable rating, the Transition Plan shall demonstrate the Offeror’s proposed approach is sufficient to successfully transition without disruption of mission support IAW PWS Paragraph 4.8 through 4.8.5.

TABLE 2-1

TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATINGS TABLE

requirements of the solicitation.

Factor 2 - Past Performance. The past performance evaluation will assess the degree of confidence the Government has in an Offeror’s experience to perform the required services to meet the Government’s needs based on a demonstrated record of performance. The overall confidence rating will be based on Recency, Relevancy, and Quality. The Government intends to use the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) in its evaluation. The Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation.

Past Performance Evaluation. The Government intends to use both data provided by the Offeror and data obtained from other sources, including any combination of past performance information available. This may include data gathered from Offeror-provided references, PPQs, or through the use of interviews. Furthermore, the Government may use data independently obtained from other governmental and commercial sources, other customers known to the Government, consumer protection organizations, contractor performance evaluations (e.g., Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) information), interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) officials, Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) officials, and, if applicable, commercial clients, and any other source that may have relevant and useful information.

In evaluating past performance, the Government will first make a Recency determination, followed by an evaluation of Relevancy of the past performance submitted, and finally, a performance Quality assessment will be made. Based on Recency, Relevancy, and Quality, an overall Performance Confidence Rating will be assigned.

Recency assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made for each citation to determine if it is recent. (See Paragraph 4.2.2) Past performance information that is not recent will not be evaluated for relevancy and quality.

Relevancy assessment. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relates to the PWS and comparative magnitude of the effort. (See Table 2.2)

The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The data obtained from other sources will be considered in establishing the relevance of past efforts. The Government will, as deemed necessary, confirm past performance data identified by the Offerors in their proposals.

In considering how Relevant an Offeror’s present or recent past performance history is to this acquisition, the Government will assign one of the Relevancy ratings found in the Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Table 2-2 of this section. The definition of relevancy is tailored to the unique aspects of this acquisition. Relevancy will be assessed on all citations offered which were determined to be recent. Relevancy will be assessed as annotated in the Past Performance Relevancy Ratings table of this section under the “Definition” column. If an Offeror fails to present relevant past performance, the Offeror’s past performance may receive an “unknown confidence” rating. Each citation shall address a single contract and each citation will be evaluated separately and a separate past performance relevancy rating will be assigned to each citation in accordance with the past performance relevancy ratings table in this section.

TABLE 2-2

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS TABLE

Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality of Recent and Relevant efforts with regard to timeliness, responsiveness, performance results, customer satisfaction, business relations, subcontract management, quality control, adequate staffing, recruiting and retention of personnel, adherence to schedules, as well as any other aspects which appear important to the overall success of the contract. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials, and, if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials, DCAA officials, or other sources known to the Government.

The Government will assign one of the performance quality ratings from the Past Performance Quality Ratings Table 2-3 to each Recent and Relevant past performance citation for each area relevant to the citation.

TABLE 2-3

PAST PERFORMANCE QUALITY RATINGS TABLE

Excellent

The Offeror’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good

The Offeror’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory

The Offeror’s performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor appear or was satisfactory.

Marginal

The Offeror’s performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory

The Offeror’s performance does not meet most contractual requirements, and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance contains a problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions resulting in sustained improvements. If the Offeror clearly demonstrates corrective actions were employed in overcoming problems, and the effects of those actions resulted in improvements achieved or problems rectified, the Offeror may be rated higher than might otherwise be indicated.

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in the proposal preparation instructions to permit a meaningful assessment of past performance. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposals or respond to adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without discussions or the opportunity for proposal revision.

Overall Confidence Rating. An overall Performance Confidence Rating will be assigned based on an integrated assessment of Recency, Relevancy and Quality of each Offeror’s citations. Past Performance will be evaluated and receive one of the performance confidence assessment ratings found below in the Performance Confidence Assessments Table 2-4.

TABLE 2-4

Performance Confidence Assessments Table

successfully perform the required effort.

perform the required effort.

successfully perform the required effort.

FACTOR 3 - PRICE. The Price evaluation assesses each Offeror’s total proposed price for balance, reasonableness and affordability. An assessment that the Offeror’s total evaluated price is not balanced, reasonable or affordable will result in the Offeror not being considered for award.

Price Evaluation. Evaluations will be completed by multiplying the Offeror’s unit price by the estimated quantity for each CLIN. Prices for CLINs whose price or value has been set by the Government will be included in the Offeror’s total calculated price. A Total Evaluated Price will be calculated by adding the total amount proposed for each CLIN and then adding the total of all option CLINs (there are four option periods). Price will be evaluated for balance, reasonableness and affordability.

Transition CLIN will not be included in Price evaluation but will be evaluated for reasonableness and affordability.

Termination Liability CLIN(s) will not be included in Price evaluation but will be evaluated for reasonableness and affordability.

Reasonableness. The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 13.106-3 and 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable. Additionally, unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal.

The Contracting Officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. 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.

--End Addendum--

(End of Summary of Changes)