Fairchild_RFP_Amendment_(FA3002-12-R-0022-0004).pdf

F1XT362172A001

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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.

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to:

1. Extend Proposal Receipt Due Date/Time for Volume I Technical Proposal and Volume III Price Proposal from 10 May 13 3:30 pm CST to 14

May 13, 12:00 pm CST.

2. Make changes to the PWS (conformed through Amendment 0004);

3. In Sections L&M, deleted paragraphs requiring projected overtime methology, L.3.1.3.4.3. and M.3.1.3.4.3.;

4. All other terms and conditions remain the same.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 15

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 08-May-2013

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X FA3002-12-R-0022

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10-Apr-2013

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer 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 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT 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.

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.

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.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

08-May-2013

CODE

AETC CONS/LGCK (ELIZABETH PRESTON)

2021 FIRST STREET WEST

JBSA RANDOLPH TX 78150-4302

FA3002 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA3002-12-R-0022

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The following have been modified:

ATTACHMENTS TITLE # OF PAGES

1 Performance Work Statement (PWS)

(conformed through Amendment 0004)

2 Wage Determination (WD) 18

3 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) 47

4 Manpower Matrix 7

5 Past Performance Cover Letter 1

6 Past Performance Questionnaire 8

7 Past Performance Information Sheet 3

8 Past Performance Consent Form 1

9 Question and Comment Sheet 1

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

PROPOSAL PREP INSTRUCTIONS

L. PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

L.1. GENERAL INFORMATION

L.1.1. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, offeror(s) must follow the instructions contained herein. Offeror(s) are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors.

Non-conformance with these instructions may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. The response shall consist of three (3) separate volumes; Volume I - Technical Proposal, Volume II – Past Performance Information, and Volume III - Price

Proposal. The proposal receipt due date and time are shown below:

Description Proposal Receipt Due Date/Time

Volume I Technical Proposal 14 May 13 not later than 12:00 p.m. CST

Volume II Past Performance Information 10 May 13, not later than 3:30 p.m. CST

Volume III Price Proposal 14 May 13, not later than 12:00 p.m. CST

Offerors must deliver the proposal documents to the address in paragraph L.2.2. by the Date/Time above.

L.1.2. In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.8, "Government Contract Files," the Government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals. The Government will destroy extra copies of unsuccessful proposals.

L.1.3. Submission of offers. Submit signed and dated offers to the office specified in this solicitation at or before the exact date and time specified in this solicitation. Offers shall be submitted on the Standard Form 33.

L.1.4. The Contract Specialist/Contracting Officer is the sole point of contact for this acquisition. Questions pertaining to this Request For Proposal (RFP), or any of its attachments, shall be submitted in writing, using the

Solicitation Question and Comment sheet found in Attachment 9 and e-mailed to the Contract Specialist/Contracting

Officer identified below not later than 6 May 13. The Government will disregard questions submitted in any other format. Furthermore, due to the time required to research and respond, questions received after this date may not be answered. Offerors are responsible for ensuring receipt of the communication by the designated officials and should consider obtaining an electronic confirmation receipt.

Ms. Antoinette Davis Ms. Liz Preston

Contract Specialist Contracting Officer

E-mail: antoinette.davis.1@us.af.mil and E-mail: elizabeth.preston@us.af.mil

Telephone: 210-652-3710 Telephone: 210-652-2490

Ms. Michelle Spencer

Contract Specialist

E-mail: belinda.spencer@us.af.mil

Telephone: 210-652-7864

L.1.5. Minimum Proposal Acceptance Period: The term “acceptance period,” as used in this provision, means the number of calendar days available to the Government to award a contract from the date specified in this solicitation for receipt of proposals. The Government requires a minimum acceptance period of 240 calendar days from the date of receipt of offers; however, offerors may specify an acceptance period exceeding the Government’s minimum requirement.

L.1.6. Exceptions to Terms and Conditions: Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors. Offerors must clearly identify any exceptions to the solicitation terms and conditions, to include complete rationale supporting the exception that fully explains potential impacts on the performance, schedule, cost, and specific requirements of the solicitation.

L.1.7. Potential Errors: If an offeror believes requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer in writing with supporting rationale.

NOTE: The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions in accordance with FAR 15.306.

L.1.8. Other Information Required. Provide the name, title and telephone number of the corporate POC(s) possessing authority to contractually negotiate/obligate the offeror.

L.1.9. Non-Government Advisors will not be utilized during source selection.

L.1.10. Proposals must be submitted in both electronic and paper format as specified in L.2.

ORGANIZATION/DISTRIBUTION/NUMBER OF COPIES/PAGE LIMITS. In case of conflict between paper and electronic proposal copies, the paper version will take precedence. Telegraphic or facsimile offers will not be accepted. The sealed envelope or package used to submit your proposal must show the time and date specified for receipt, the Solicitation Number, and the offeror’s POC name, address and phone number.

L.1.11. Offerors are cautioned that Joint Base San Antonio (JBSA)-Randolph has visitor control procedures requiring individuals not affiliated with the installation to obtain a visitor pass to gain entrance. SOME DELAY http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/04.htm#P247_37576 mailto:antoinette.davis.1@us.af.mil mailto:elizabeth.preston@us.af.mil mailto:belinda.spencer@us.af.mil http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P289_46239

SHOULD BE ANTICIPATED WHEN HAND CARRYING PROPOSALS. Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time to obtain a visitor pass and arrive at the bid depository PRIOR to the time specified for receipt. Late proposals will be processed in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(c) “Submission, modification, revision, and withdrawal of proposals.”

L.2. ORGANIZATION/DISTRIBUTION/NUMBER OF COPIES/PAGE LIMITS

L.2.1. Proposals shall be submitted as follows:

Volume Title Hard Copies CD/DVD Page Limit Due Date

I Technical Original + 4 1 50* See Block 9 of SF 33

II Past Performance Original + 2 1 See para L.3.2 See Block 9 of SF 33

III Price Original + 1 1 See para L.3.3 See Block 9 of SF 33

* Pages exceeding the page limitations in this Section L, will not be read or evaluated and will be destroyed as soon as practicable. The page count does not include the transmittal letter, cover pages, tab-divider pages, title pages, table of contents, lists of tables and drawings, glossary of acronyms, cross reference matrix, position qualifications or manpower matrix. Double-sided printed sheets will be counted as 2 pages.

Mark original hard copy as “Original” (for contract file), and all others as “Copy”. Narrative documentation shall be submitted in Microsoft Word (version Office 2007 or higher). The “Original” copy shall have two holes punched at top of each page. The contents, instructions and formats of each proposal volume are described in the Instruction to offeror(s) L.3. subparagraphs.

L.2.2. Mail hard copies and an electronic copy on CD or DVD of each volume to the following:

Ms. Liz Preston

Ms. Antoinette Davis

Ms. Michelle Spencer

AETC CONS/LGCK

2021 First St West

Randolph AFB, TX 78150-4525

L.2.3. Binding and Labeling: All hard copies (other than the Original) proposal volumes shall be submitted in separate three ring binders. The Original for each volume shall be unbound and also include a standard (5 ½ inch spaced) two-hole punch applied to the top center of each page when viewed in portrait orientation (for Government filing). Volumes I, II, and III shall not be submitted together within the same binding. A cover sheet should be placed at the beginning of each volume start, clearly marked as to whether it is the original or copy, volume number, title, solicitation identification, and the offeror's name. Be sure to apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(e), "Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data.”

L.2.4. Page Format Restrictions and Limitations:

L.2.4.1. Page Format: Proposals will be printed on 8.5” x 11” paper except for fold-outs used for charts, tables, diagrams, or provided attachments, which may not exceed 11” x 17” (11” x 17” paper will be counted as one page).

Typing shall be single spaced, 12 font size, and Times New Roman font style. Smaller font size may be used in tables, drawings, charts, graphs, and diagrams, but shall not be less than 8 font size, Times New Roman. Margins on all four edges of each sheet will be at least one inch. Proprietary statements, security markings, and page numbers may fall within the defined margin area. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. These page format restrictions shall apply to responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) as well as to the initial proposal.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_215.htm#P2_52

L.2.4.2. Indexing: Each volume shall contain a detailed table of contents which delineates subparagraphs within the volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections.

L.2.5. Documents submitted in response to this RFP must be fully responsive to and consistent with the following:

L.2.5.1. Requirements of the RFP (including Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) and Performance Work

Statement (PWS)) and Government standards and regulations pertaining to the PWS.

L.2.5.2. Evaluation Factors for Award detailed in Section M of this RFP.

L.2.5.3. NOTE: Elaborate formats, bindings or color presentations are neither desired nor required.

L.3. SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS

L.3.1. Volume I – Technical Proposal (Factor 1): Volume I shall be prepared in accordance with these instructions and Paragraph L.2. of this Section L. Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the Section M evaluation criteria. An “unacceptable” rating in one or more technical subfactors will constitute an overall unacceptable rating for the technical evaluation. Each offeror shall submit information for the following sub-factors:

L.3.1.1. Subfactor 1 – Management Approach: This subfactor assesses the offeror’s plan to sustain effective and compliant mission support with a trained workforce. The offeror shall:

L.3.1.1.1. Present an internal Quality Control (QC) approach to assess maintenance quality issue identification, documentation, and deficiency correction procedures as follows:

L.3.1.1.1.1. Provide methodology to identify, track, document trends and analyze corrective action effectiveness.

Describe methods to continually improve quality, airworthiness, workmanship, and customer support.

L.3.1.1.1.2. Provide methodology to ensure performance complies with the PWS and demonstrate a process to apply corrective actions to immediately correct identified compliance discrepancies.

L.3.1.1.1.3. Explain how trend and risk analysis will be effectively applied to prevent problem relapse.

L.3.1.1.1.4. Describe the offeror’s system for recording, computing/assessing performance measurement data, and monitoring corrective actions to ensure successful and timely problem resolution.

L.3.1.1.2. Present an approach to ensure thorough data capture, documentation accuracy, completeness and reporting integrity is maintained for data systems and forms required in the PWS, including, but not limited to:

Maintenance Information System (MIS), Integrated Maintenance Data System Central Database (IMDS CDB), Aircraft Forms, Vital Records, etc.

L.3.1.1.3. Present a process to ensure employees are fully trained and qualified, and the training, certifications, and qualifications are current.

L.3.1.1.4. Present a methodology to procure non-Government provided aircraft parts or other consumables in a cost effective manner that meets technical order threshold standards.

L.3.1.1.5. Identify the appropriate number, type and capacity (or utility) of proposed vehicles required to support this mission.

L.3.1.1.6. Present a procedure to respond within 30 minutes, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to meet the National

Search and Rescue mission.

L.3.1.2. Subfactor 2 – Technical Approach: This subfactor assesses the offeror’s over-arching strategy to perform the aircraft maintenance mission. The offeror shall:

L.3.1.2.1. Present a methodology for small fleet aircraft maintenance management which delivers scheduled and unscheduled repair at Fairchild AFB and Cusick operating locations. As a minimum, the proposed methodology shall describe:

L.3.1.2.1.1. Detail procedures for performing simultaneous aircraft maintenance at Fairchild and Cusick operating locations.

L.3.1.2.1.2. Detail procedures to meet aircraft availability requirements that prevents depot, phase, and major scheduled aircraft maintenance from creating aircraft availability conflicts.

L.3.1.2.2. Present a methodology to ensure eTools are accessible to employees with detailed steps that ensure eTools will be maintained with current, accurate, and complete data required by the PWS.

L.3.1.2.3. Present a methodology to implement and manage tool control at Fairchild AFB and Cusick operating location.

L.3.1.3. Subfactor 3 – Staffing and Workforce Plan: This subfactor assesses the offeror’s proposed aircraft maintenance organizational staffing plan. The offeror shall:

L.3.1.3.1. Present an organizational structure that demonstrates a thorough understanding of the workforce requirements. It must provide sufficient rationale for the proposed roles, responsibilities, and relationships for each organizational element, work center, or shop. Provide a resume for the proposed site (lead) manager which details the individual’s experience/background leading helicopter maintenance operations in a small fleet dynamic environment. The organizational chart(s) shall provide a complete Staffing/Skill (job classification)/Shift Summary

Matrix (RFP Attachment 4) for the base period and each option.

L.3.1.3.2. To the extent cross-utilization of personnel is proposed, provide methodology used to assign cross-utilization of personnel within each functional area throughout the work center. Specifically, provide detailed structure of workforce that will be cross-utilized while ensuring required skill mix and staffing levels to execute

PWS.

L.3.1.3.3. Explain approach to ensure adequate backup capability for “one-deep” positions with fully trained and certified personnel. Include chart detailing backup position plans for each affected position.

L.3.1.3.4. Provide comprehensive manpower determination process to include:

L.3.1.3.4.1. Man-hour availability factors or Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs). Include breakout of productive and non-productive hour computations for the base period and each option.

L.3.1.3.4.2. Methodology used to determine workforce by work center (office, shop, work area), skill (job classification), and shift(s) to include weekends, Cusick deployments and rescue mission coverage.

L.3.1.3.4.3. DELETED.

L.3.1.3.4.4. A detailed program to recruit and retain an experienced, motivated labor pool for the life of the contract.

L.3.2. Volume II - Past Performance (Factor 2): Volume II shall be prepared in accordance with these instructions and Paragraph L.2. of this Section L. Each offeror’s proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria in Section M. Volume II shall contain the following:

L.3.2.1. Table of Contents.

L.3.2.2. Summary Page describing the role of the offeror and each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner for whom the offeror is required to provide Past Performance Information Sheets in accordance with paragraph L.3.2.3.

L.3.2.3. Past Performance Information Sheets. Each offeror shall complete and submit, as part of their proposal, a

Past Performance Information Sheet in accordance with the format contained in Attachment 7, on no more than four

(4) contracts total (including proposed major subcontractors, teaming partners, joint venture partners proposed to perform 20% or more of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price, or perform aspects of the effort the offeror considers critical to overall successful performance) that you consider relevant consistent with the criteria in

Section M in demonstrating your ability to perform the proposed effort. The offeror shall submit Past Performance

Information Sheets identifying active or completed contracts - either Government or commercial - for each prime, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner (within the same division or cost center) and for a subcontractor performing meaningful work determined to be critical to overall successful performance. Each relevant contract must also meet the recency requirements of Section M, that is, each proposed effort must have been performed during the last three (3) years of the date of issuance of this solicitation and includes at least three (3) months performance prior to the date of issuance of this solicitation. The following may be provided as part of the Past

Performance Information Sheet(s): Quality and Satisfaction Rating for Contracts Completed in the past three (3)

Years, e.g. letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc., which demonstrates customer satisfaction with overall job performance and quality of completed product for relevant aircraft maintenance contracts. The Past

Performance Information Sheet for each contract, including letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc., is limited to five (5) pages total. The Government intends to collect additional references from other sources during the evaluation of past performance.

L.3.2.4. Specific Content. Offerors may include a discussion of efforts accomplished by the offeror to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risk. Merely having problems does not automatically equate to an “Unacceptable” rating, since the problems encountered may have been on a more complex program, or an offeror may have subsequently demonstrated the ability to overcome the problems encountered. The offeror is required to clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions, in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. In addition, explain corrective actions taken in the past, if any, for substandard performance and any current performance problems such as cost overruns, extended performance periods, numerous warranty calls, etc.

L.3.2.5. Subcontractor Letters of Consent and Client Authorization Letters.

L.3.2.5.1. Subcontractor Letters of Consent. Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor’s consent. Proposals must include a Past Performance

Consent Form (provided in RFP Attachment 8) 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 contractor. Consent

Letters must be executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing the release of past performance information so the offeror can respond to such information.

L.3.2.5.2. Client Authorization Letters. If applicable, offerors must also include Client Authorization Letters for each identified effort performed for a commercial customer, authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the offeror’s performance.

L.3.2.6. Organization Structure Change History. Many companies have acquired, been acquired by, or otherwise merged with other companies, and/or reorganized their divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc. In many cases, these changes have taken place during the time of performance of relevant present or past efforts or between conclusion of recent past efforts and this source selection. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to determine what past performance is relevant to this acquisition. To facilitate this relevancy determination, include in this proposal volume a “roadmap” describing all such changes in the organization of your company. As part of this explanation, show how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts you identify for past performance acceptability assessment. Since the Government intends to consider present and past performance information provided by other sources as well as that provided by the offerors, your “roadmap” should be both specifically applicable to the efforts you identify and general enough to apply to efforts on which the Government receives information from other sources.

L.3.2.7. Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs). The Government will evaluate the quality and extent of offeror's performance deemed relevant to the requirements of this RFP. The Government will use information submitted by the offeror and other sources such as other Federal Government offices and commercial sources, to assess

Acceptable/Unacceptable past performance. Offerors are requested to complete the information in Section 1of the

Past Performance Questionnaire in Attachment 6 in both paper and electronic format. The Government will send out a PPQ to each of the Points of Contact (POC) identified in the Past Performance Information Sheets. Ensure the POC provided is available and knowledgeable of the service provided under that contract. The POC will be asked to submit completed questionnaires directly to the Government. Once the PPQ is completed by the POC and submitted to the Contracting Officer for this acquisition, the information contained therein shall be considered sensitive and shall not be released to the offeror.

L.3.2.8. Recency and Relevancy Rating for Contracts Completed: For Past Performance to be determined recent, it shall have taken place within the last three (3) years from issuance of the RFP and begun no less than three (3) months from issuance of the RFP. Relevant present/past performance efforts shall involve similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. If the evaluated contract meets the definition of recent, the entire contract will be evaluated. See Section M, paragraph M.4.2.3. for further description of relevancy evaluation.

L.3.3. Volume III – Price Proposal (Factor 3): The Price Proposal shall be prepared according to these instructions and will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria in Section M of the RFP for the Price

Factor. Compliance with these requirements is mandatory and failure to comply may render the proposal unawardable. Data submitted beyond that required by this instruction shall not be considered or evaluated. The

Volume III shall contain the following:

L.3.3.1. The source selection will be conducted with the expectation of adequate price competition for this acquisition per FAR 15.403-1(c)(1); therefore, certified cost or pricing data are not required per FAR 15.403-

1(b)(1). In order to evaluate competing approaches and ensure each offeror understands the Government’s requirements, the offeror will be required to submit data other than certified cost or pricing data per FAR 15.402 and

15.403-3 as specified below. If at any time during this competition the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists or that price reasonableness cannot be determined, offerors may be required to submit certified cost or pricing data or additional data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, for the

Contracting Officer to determine price reasonableness. The proposed prices shall be based on the offeror’s own technical approach submitted in the Technical Proposal (Volume I) and the Government’s PWS requirements

Section J, Attachment 1 of this RFP.

L.3.3.1.1. Section B: The offeror shall propose and insert a unit price, rounded to two decimal places, for each

Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) CLIN of the Base Period and each Option Period in the Section B Price Schedule of the

RFP. The total extended amount for the FFP CLINs must equal the unit price multiplied by the quantity of units.

The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will not include the Not-To-Exceed cost reimbursable CLINs. The proposed prices in Section B must be based on the offeror’s own technical approach submitted in the Technical Proposal and the

Government’s PWS requirements as set forth herein. The evaluation of all options is included in the TEP during evaluation of the proposal (includes base year and all option periods).

L.3.3.2. Contract Forms: Designate on the volume cover which proposal package contains the original, executed copy of the RFP. Include on each proposal cover letter or proposal cover page: name, office phone and fax number

(and, if applicable, cell phone number), and e-mail address for each proposal point of contact. The offeror must complete the following and include in Volume III:

L.3.3.2.1. Standard Form 33, Blocks 13-18, of the RFP: In completing these blocks, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP Sections A through K.

L.3.3.2.2. All necessary clause fill-ins in Sections I through K. Ensure compliance with RFP requirements if using the annual representations and certifications electronically via the Government controlled Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA) website at http://orca.bpn.gov . Ensure the Tax Identification Number (TIN) is loaded in ORCA or provided for in the proposal submission. If the CO is unable to access the ORCA website to retrieve an offeror’s annual representations and certifications, that offeror may, upon request by the CO, be required to submit a hard copy of their annual representations and certifications. This request will not be construed as communications or discussions with an offeror as defined by FAR 15.306.

L.3.3.2.3. Submit a letter, signed at the vice-president level or equivalent or higher, that identifies the individual(s) with the authority to obligate or otherwise bind your company to the resulting contract and, if necessary, future contract modifications.

L.3.3.2.4. STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE SERVICE CONTRACT ACT (SCA). The SCA Wage

Determination (WD) provided at Attachment 2 is applicable to this requirement. The offeror shall provide a statement acknowledging that: a) they are in compliance with the requirements of the SCA WD; b) the prices proposed for labor covered by the SCA WD were formulated using the rates specified in the document as required for covered contractor personnel; c) the wage and benefit rates specified in the SCA WD are not escalated beyond the basic period of performance (FAR 52.222-43(a) and (b)); and d) they verified the proposed prices for each

CLIN demonstrate a logical correlation to the staffing (e.g., Full-Time Employees’ man-years, man-hours, labor categories, skill mix) proposed in the Technical Proposal at Volume I.

L.4. Other Contracting Considerations:

L.4.1. Responsibility Determination: To assist in determining contractor responsibility in accordance with FAR Part

9.104-3(a), the offeror shall explain how they plan to maintain adequate financial resources for a contract of this magnitude and length. Offeror(s) shall address fiscal plan for covering mobilization, unexpected or emergency situations, and initial performance costs prior to recoupment in the form of monthly invoice payments. Offeror(s) must provide complete financial statements for one (1) fiscal year and year-to-date financial information through the last quarter available. The year-end financial statements must be certified by an independent accounting firm. If the offeror intends to rely on internally available working/operation capital, evidence of availability must be submitted.

If the offeror plans to rely on financial support from other sources, evidence of availability and the maximum lines of credit that may be available must be identified and must be based upon the inclusion of this contract effort.

Evidence of external funding must be provided in the form of a dated letter from the external source.

Documentation to support the amounts must also be included.

L.4.2. Organization: The above information shall be provided for the prime and all subcontractors expected to perform critical aspects of the effort.

L.4.3. Teaming Arrangements and/or Letters of Intent: If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, provide complete, verifiable information as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent Past Performance

Information on previous teaming arrangements with same partner. Submit information relative to the formation, organization and operation of the business unit. Additional information that should be submitted shall include cost and revenue sharing agreements and any other information which describes the business arrangement. Disclose existing or planned agreements between and among the principals, each company’s responsibility for financial management of the venture, the business systems contemplated for use by the entity and their location. If this is a first time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of relevant contracts.

L.4.4. An incomplete proposal may be considered to indicate lack of understanding of the requirement and may result in the entire proposal being determined “unacceptable” and eliminated from further consideration.

http://orca.bpn.gov/ http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/09.htm#P22_3269

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) best value source selection. Award will be made to the lowest reasonable evaluated priced offeror that is determined technically acceptable with an acceptable past performance rating. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Only offers that demonstrate acceptable submission to the Government of all items in Section L of this solicitation (or amendment thereof) will be considered for award. Offeror(s) must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

M.2. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Evaluation of all offers will be made in accordance with the criteria outlined in this section. The proposals will be evaluated against the following three (3) factors:

Factor 1 – Technical (See paragraph M.3)

Factor 2 – Past Performance (See paragraph M.4)

Factor 3 – Price (See paragraph M.5)

Proposals will be evaluated for acceptability, but will not be ranked using non-price factors/subfactors.

M.3. TECHNICAL EVALUATION (Volume I – Technical Proposal, Factor 1)

The offeror’s proposal shall, at a minimum, address each of three (3) technical subfactors below, M.3.1.1., M.3.1.2.

and M.3.1.3. as they apply to the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Detailed instructions are included in the proposal preparation instructions section (Section L) of this solicitation. During evaluation of each proposal, the

Government will assign a rating of either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” as depicted in Table 1 below. Risk is inherent in the government’s evaluation/assessment of this Factor. Risks have the potential to disrupt schedule, increase costs, degrade performance, increase need for Government oversight, or increase likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. A rating of “Unacceptable” in one or more technical subfactor(s) will constitute an overall rating of “Unacceptable” for the technical evaluation.

Table 1: Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

RATING DESCRIPTION

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

M.3.1. Proposals shall be evaluated against Subfactor 1 through Subfactor 3.

M.3.1.1. Subfactor 1: Management Approach: This subfactor assesses the offeror’s plan to sustain effective and compliant mission support with a trained workforce. The standard has been met when the offeror’s proposal meets all of the following requirements.

M.3.1.1.1. The offeror’s internal QC approach adequately assesses maintenance quality issue identification, documentation, and deficiency correction procedures as evidenced in the following:

M.3.1.1.1.1. The offeror’s QC approach methodology accurately identifies, tracks, documents trends, and analyzes corrective action effectiveness. Procedures continually improve quality, airworthiness, workmanship, and customer support.

M.3.1.1.1.2. The offeror’s QC approach methodology ensures performance complies with the PWS and demonstrates a process to immediately apply effective corrective actions to identified deficiencies.

M.3.1.1.1.3. The offeror’s QC approach methodology applies trend and risk analysis to effectively prevent recurring problems.

M.3.1.1.1.4. The offeror’s QC approach delivers system to record, computes/assesses performance measurement data, and monitors corrective actions to ensure successful and timely problem resolution.

M.3.1.1.2. Approach ensures thorough data capture, documentation accuracy, completeness and reporting integrity are maintained for data systems and forms required in the PWS, including, but not limited to: Maintenance

Information System (MIS), Integrated Maintenance Data System Central Database (IMDS CDB), Aircraft Forms, Vital Records, etc.

M.3.1.1.3. The offeror’s process for providing fully trained/qualified personnel, capable of performing without direct supervision. Must ensure training, certifications, and other required qualifications are current.

M.3.1.1.4. The offeror’s procurement strategy for non-Government provided aircraft parts or other consumables ensures cost-effective purchases that meet technical order threshold standards.

M.3.1.1.5. The offeror’s vehicle strategy must identify the appropriate number, type and utility of vehicles required to support this mission.

M.3.1.1.6. The offeror’s National Search and Rescue response approach must deliver the capability to provide response within 30 minutes, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

M.3.1.2. Subfactor 2 - Technical Approach: This subfactor assesses the offeror’s over-arching strategy to execute the aircraft maintenance mission. The standard has been met when the offeror’s proposal meets all of the following requirements:

M.3.1.2.1. The offeror’s Small Fleet Aircraft Maintenance management strategy effectively delivers scheduled and unscheduled repair at Fairchild AFB and Cusick operating locations. The proposed strategy shall clearly articulate the following:

M.3.1.2.1.1. An effective approach to perform simultaneous aircraft maintenance at Fairchild and Cusick operating locations.

M.3.1.2.1.2. Comprehensive aircraft maintenance scheduling procedures that prevent depot, phase, and major maintenance from creating aircraft availability conflicts.

M.3.1.2.2. The offeror must propose an effective approach to utilizing “eTools” that ensures accessibility to employees and details steps to sustain “eTools” with current, accurate, and complete data required by the PWS.

M.3.1.2.3. The offeror must identify an effective tool control implementation and management methodology at

Fairchild AFB and Cusick operating location.

M.3.1.3. Subfactor 3 - Staffing and Workforce Plan: This subfactor assesses the offeror’s proposed aircraft maintenance organizational staffing plan. The standard has been met when the offeror’s proposal meets all of the following requirements:

M.3.1.3.1. The offeror must propose an organizational structure that demonstrates a thorough understanding of the workforce requirements. It must provide sufficient rationale for proposed roles, responsibilities, and relationships for each organizational element, work center, or shop. The proposal must include organizational chart(s) illustrating complete Staffing/Skill (job classification)/Shift Summary Matrix (RFP Attachment 4) that facilitate mission coverage for the base and each option period. The Site Manager resume must meet the following thresholds: at least two years’ experience managing fixed-wing or rotary-wing aircraft maintenance; at least two years’ experience managing a small fleet (3-10 aircraft); at least two years’ experience developing, implementing and sustaining an aircraft quality program.

M.3.1.3.2. If personnel cross-utilization is proposed, the methodology must demonstrate effective cross-utilization of personnel within each functional area throughout work centers. NOTE: The proposal must detail the percentage of the workforce that will be cross-utilized, while maintaining the required skill mix and staffing levels.

M.3.1.3.3. The proposal must ensure a sound backup capability for “one-deep” positions with fully trained and certified personnel. NOTE: The proposal must include a chart detailing backup position plans for each affected position.

M.3.1.3.4. The proposal must provide a comprehensive manpower determination process to ensure necessary support coverage is available at all times. As a minimum include the following:

M.3.1.3.4.1. Adequate man-hour availability factors (or Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs)) to include breakout of productive and non-productive hour computations for the basic and all option years.

M.3.1.3.4.2. Adequate methodology to determine workforce by work center (office, shop, work area), skill (job classification), and shift(s) to include weekends, Cusick deployments and rescue mission coverage.

M.3.1.3.4.3. DELETED.

M.3.1.3.4.4. A detailed program to recruit and retain an experienced, motivated labor pool for the life of the contract.

M.4. PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (Volume II – Past Performance, Factor 2)

The Government will evaluate past performance to assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum solicitation requirements.

M.4.1. Attributes of Past Performance Evaluation: This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of recent and relevant past performance information that pertain to the services outlined in the solicitation requirements. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: 1) determining whether the offeror’s recent past performance is relevant or not relevant to this effort; and 2) determining how well the contractor performed on the contracts determined to be relevant to this effort. The past performance evaluation performed in support of this source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and/or history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts. Rather, it gathers information from customers to enable the evaluators to assess how well the offeror performed on those contracts.

M.4.2. Past Performance Evaluation Procedures

M.4.2.1. The Government will seek relevant performance information from: (i) past and present efforts provided by the Offeror (using questionnaires, which are forwarded by the contracting officer to the contractor's selected sources and (ii) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. The past performance evaluation will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. The past performance evaluation may also consider the past performance of affiliated companies or operating divisions within the parent company or joint ventures of the parent company when it is reasonable to attribute the experience of these past efforts to the proposed effort and when the proposal clearly demonstrates the resources (e.g. financial resources, overall oversight and management or other resources) of the parent or affiliated division will meaningfully affect performance of this acquisition. The past performance of teaming partners or subcontractors who are not proposed to perform meaningful or critical aspects of the work will not be evaluated.

M.4.2.2. Recency: Recent contracts are those in which the offeror has performed within the previous three years of the date of this solicitation. In order to be considered “recent” for the purpose of this evaluation, current programs must have at least three months of completed performance from issuance of this RFP. If the evaluated contract meets the definition of recency, the entire contract will be evaluated.

M.4.2.3. Relevancy: The Government will evaluate relevance of offeror’s past performance and assign ratings of

“Relevant” or “Not Relevant.” Evaluators will determine relevance of the offeror’s recent past performance by comparing those efforts to the current requirement with respect to type of contract, scope, magnitude, and complexity. Evaluators will review performance by the offeror, as well as proposed teaming partner(s), or subcontractor(s) in order to make a consolidated relevancy assessment. Relevancy will be determined as indicated in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Relevancy Description

ASSESSMENT DESCRIPTION

Relevant / Not Relevant

Recent past performance effort involved similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexity.

To be considered Relevant, in a single contract or in a combination of up to four

(4) contracts, past performance must demonstrate all of the following minimum experiences:

a. Past/current small fixed-wing or rotary-wing fleet (3 – 10 a/c) aircraft maintenance experience under a contract;

b. Past/current experience developing, implementing and sustaining an internal aircraft quality program under a contract;

c. Past/current experience managing a contract valued at least $1M per year;

d. Past/current experience managing a contract exceeding 3 years;

e. Past/current experience managing a firm-fixed-price contract

M.4.2.3.1. Performance that does not meet all of the minimum criteria listed in Table 2 will be considered “Not

Relevant”.

M.4.2.4. Past Performance Ratings: The Government will assign “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” past performance ratings based on the evaluators’ assessments of the offeror’s past performance data, as depicted in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

RATING DESCRIPTION

Acceptable

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown*.

Unacceptable

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

* In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P273_41602 offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

M.4.3. Sources of Past Performance Information for Evaluation: Sources of past performance information for evaluation will be: (a) offeror’s Attachment 7 to Section L "Past Performance Information” for each contract submitted; and (b) information obtained from any source available to the Government to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System, the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information

System, or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee-Determining Officials, and the Defense Contract Management Agency. The past performance evaluation team will review all past performance information as it applies to the requirements of this solicitation. See FAR 15.101-2(b)(1) for treatment of past performance relative to small business. Failure to receive an “Acceptable” past performance rating will result in the entire proposal being eliminated from the competition.

M.5. PRICE EVALUATION (Volume III – Price Proposal, Factor 3)

The Government will evaluate the price information submitted in each offeror’s price proposal as described below.

Any other data provided by the offeror with their price proposal that is not required by Section L will not be considered or evaluated.

M.5.1. Price Reasonableness: The price information submitted in each offeror’s price proposal, as required by

Section L, will be evaluated to determine if proposed prices are fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR 15.404

(which may include, but not limited to, one or more of the following proposal analysis techniques listed below) based on each offeror’s proposed approach. A contract will not be awarded to an offeror whose price is not determined to be fair and reasonable. The price proposed should correspond to efforts described in the technical proposal; therefore, a very low price or a price of zero may be considered unreasonable.

M.5.1.1. The Government may use any of the following price analysis techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404-

1(b) to determine price reasonableness: comparison of proposed prices received, comparison of previously proposed prices and previous Government and commercial contract prices, use of parametric estimating/rough yardsticks, comparison with competitive published price lists or market prices, comparison with Independent Government Cost

Estimates, comparison with market research, and analysis of pricing information provided by the offeror.

M.5.1.2. The Government may also use cost and/or technical analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404(c) and (e), respectively, to determine price reasonableness.

M.5.1.3. In addition, proposed unit prices may be evaluated for unbalanced pricing in accordance with FAR 15.404-

1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items or sub-line item(s) appear to be significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques.