FA3002-14-R-0012_SERE_RFP_14_Nov_14.pdf

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 T IT LE OF SIGNER (T ype or print)

30-105-04EXCEPT ION T O SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

ST ANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

This amendment changes the follow ing:

1) Section's L.3.2.4. and M.4.1.3.1, Training Certif ication and Management Plan changed to Training and Certif ication Plan.

2) PWS Para 2, Removes the Remote Training Site located in Texas.

3) PWS Appendix C, Link to Electronic Publishing has been updated to: http://w w w .e-publishing.af.mil/

4) PWS Appendix C, Air Force Instruction 33-204 has been superceded by: Air Force Instruction 33-200.

5) PWS Appendix D, See Government Operating Instruction 23-1, changes to Contractor-Furnished Equipment, Resistance Training Equipment.

6) Attachment 6, Para 6 removed from the Past Performance Information Sheet.

7) Revision to Appendix A Workload Estimate for S-V80-A: The students per class for a BEQ range of 3728 – 4320 is 78-90 students.

This amendment does not allow for an extension of the proposal due date. (see Summary of Changes)

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE P AGE OF P AGES

S 1 16

16A. NAME AND T IT LE OF CONT RACT ING OFFICER (T ype or print)

16C. DAT E SIGNED

BY

16B. UNIT ED ST AT ES OF AMERICA15C. DAT E SIGNED15B. CONT RACT OR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contract ing Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONT RACT OR (No., Street , County, State and Zip Code) X FA3002-14-R-0012

X 9B. DAT ED (SEE IT EM 11)

29-Oct-2014

10B. DAT ED (SEE IT EM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICIT AT ION NO.

11. T HIS IT EM ONLY APPLIES T O AMENDMENT S OF SOLICIT AT IONS

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 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 P LACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIP T OF OFFERS P RIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SP ECIFIED 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. ACCOUNT ING AND APPROPRIAT ION DAT A (If required)

13. T HIS IT EM APPLIES ONLY T O MODIFICAT IONS OF CONT RACT S/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES T HE CONT RACT /ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN IT EM 14.

A. T HIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT T O: (Specify authority) T HE CHANGES SET FORT H IN IT EM 14 ARE MADE IN T HE

CONT RACT ORDER NO. IN IT EM 10A.

B. T HE ABOVE NUMBERED CONT RACT /ORDER IS MODIFIED T O REFLECT T HE ADMINIST RAT IVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriat ion date, etc.) SET FORT H IN IT EM 14, PURSUANT T O T HE AUT HORIT Y OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. T HIS SUPPLEMENT AL AGREEMENT IS ENT ERED INT O PURSUANT T O AUT HORIT Y OF:

D. OT HER (Specify type of modificat ion and authority)

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

14. DESCRIPT ION OF AMENDMENT /MODIFICAT ION (Organized by UCF sect ion headings, including solicitat ion/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONT RACT /ORDER NO.

U0001

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. P ROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

14-Nov-2014

CODE

338 SCONS/PKD (ROBERT J. WALZ)

2021 FIRST STREET WEST

JBSA RANDOLPH TX 78150

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

4. REQUISITION/P URCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILIT Y CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA3002-14-R-0012

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTI

L. PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

L.1.1. GENERAL INFORMATION

L.1.1.1. 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.

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 - Price Proposal, Volume II -Technical Proposal, and Volume III - Past Performance

Information.

L.1.1.2. The Contracting Officer (CO) has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the CO will review this determination and if, in the CO's opinion, adequate price competition exists, generally no cost information will be requested and certification under

FAR 15.406-2 will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition the CO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists; certified cost or pricing data or data other than certified cost or pricing data may be required, as appropriate, for the CO to determine the reasonableness of the price.

L.1.1.3. In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.8, "Government Contract Files," the Government will retain one copy of all proposals. All additional copies of proposals will be destroyed by the Government after contract award.

L.1.1.4. 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. This requirement is set aside for Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB) IAW clause 52.219-27, and offers received from concerns that are not SDVOSB concerns will not be considered.

L.1.1.5. The CO and Contract Specialist (CS) are the sole points of contact for this acquisition. Offerors are responsible for ensuring receipt of any communication by the designated officials and should obtain an electronic confirmation receipt. Questions and written requests for clarification should be sent to both addresses below:

Mr. Robert J. (Joe) Walz (CS)

E-mail: robert.walz.1@us.af.mil

Telephone: 210-652-7780 and

Mr. Kevin Walker (CS)

E-mail: kevin.walker.3@us.af.mil

Telephone: 210-652-7871

L.1.1.6. 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 through 1 October 2015 from the date of receipt of proposals; however, offerors may specify an acceptance period exceeding the Government’s minimum requirement.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/04.htm#P247_37576 mailto:walker.3@us.af.mil

L.1.1.7. Exceptions to Terms and Conditions: Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements as defined in L.1.1.1. 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, price, and specific requirements of the solicitation.

L.1.1.8. Potential Errors: If an offeror believes requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound or ambiguous, the offeror shall immediately notify the CO 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.1.1.9. Other Information Required: Provide the name, title and telephone number of the corporate POC(s) possessing authority to contractually negotiate on behalf of and obligate the offeror.

L.1.1.10. Non-Government Advisors will not be utilized during this source selection.

L.1.1.11. Proposals must be submitted in both electronic and paper format as specified in L.1.2.

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, the name of the offeror, and the offeror’s POC name, address and phone number.

L.1.1.12. Offerors are cautioned that JBSA Randolph has visitor control procedures requiring individuals not affiliated with the installation to obtain a visitor pass to gain entrance. SOME DELAY SHOULD BE

ANTICIPATED WHEN HAND CARRYING PROPOSALS. Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time to obtain a visitor pass and deliver the proposal 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.1.2. ORGANIZATION/DISTRIBUTION/NUMBER OF COPIES/PAGE LIMITS

The response shall consist of three separate volumes. The offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the

Proposal Organization Table (Table 1.2 below). The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits and with the number of copies as specified in Table 1.2.

The contents of each proposal volume are described in the paragraphs below:

Table 1.2 Proposal Organization

Volume Title Hard Copies CD/DVD Page Limit Due Date

I Price Original + 3 2 Unlimited See Block 9 of SF 33

II Technical Original + 3 2 50* See Block 9 of SF 33

III Past Performance Original + 3 2 See para L.4.2 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. 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 staffing/manpower matrix and blank pages. Double-sided printed sheets will be counted as 2 pages.

One proposal shall be marked "Original" and all others as "Copy." Narrative documentation shall be submitted in

Microsoft Word (version Office 2007 or higher).

L.1.2.1. Mail four hard copies and two electronic copies on CD or DVD of each volume to the following:

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P289_46239

Mr. Robert J. Walz or Mr. Kevin Walker

338 SCONS/PKD

2021 First St. West

JBSA Randolph AFB, TX 78150-4302

L.1.2.2. Binding and Labeling: All hard copies (other than the Original) proposal volumes shall be submitted in separate three-ring binders. The Original unbound proposal shall also include a standard (3 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,” and FAR 3.104-4, “Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information.”

L.1.2.3. Page Format Restrictions and Limitations:

L.1.2.4. Page Format: Pages shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, not including foldouts used for charts, tables, or diagrams.

Pages shall be typed. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, typing shall be single space, 12 font size, Times New Roman font style. Smaller font size may be used in tables, drawings, charts, graphs, and diagrams, but shall not be less than 10 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 can 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.

L.1.2.5. Page Limitations: Compliance with page count limits shall be verified via the hardcopy. Page limitations shall be placed on responses to ENs. The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters when forwarding the ENs to the offeror(s). Any supporting documentation that is in response to an EN, not to include change pages, will not be subject to page limitations.

L.1.2.5.1. Pages Counted: Each page shall be counted except the following: 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 staffing/manpower matrix, blank pages and exceptions listed in L.1.2.6.3.

L.1.2.5.2. Indexing: Each volume shall contain a detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections.

L.1.2.5.3. Foldouts: Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible and shall not exceed 11” x 17” inches in size. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume. Each printed side of a foldout will count as one page. Foldout pages may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams and schematics; not for pages of text. For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the font shall be no smaller than 10 font size, Times New Roman.

L.1.2.6. Documents submitted in response to this RFP must be fully responsive to and consistent with the following:

L.1.2.6.1. Requirements of the RFP (including CLINs) and Performance Work Statement (PWS) and Government standards and regulations pertaining to the PWS.

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

L.1.2.6.2. Evaluation Factors for Award in Section M of this RFP.

L.1.2.6.3. The page limit for the required Quality Control Plan and the Training and Certification Plan, Volume 2 –

Technical Proposal (Factor 2), is unlimited and will not count against the limit expressed in paragraph L.1.2. table for Volume 2, Technical Proposal.

L.1.2.6.4. Elaborate formats or color presentations are not desired or required.

L.2. Volume I – Price

L.2.1. Volume Organization

The Price volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

(1) Table of Contents

(2) Summary Page

(3) Glossary

(4) Price Data

(5) Statement of Compliance with SCA WD

(6) Responsibility Determination Supporting Documentation

(7) Teaming Arrangement(s) and/or Letters of Intent

L.2.2. General Instructions

The Price proposal shall be prepared according to these instructions and will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria in Section M of this RFP for the Price Factor. Compliance with these requirements is mandatory and failure to comply may render the proposal unawardable. The CD/DVD shall include all Microsoft Excel files with all cell formulas viewable.

L.2.2.1. Price Reasonableness

The source selection will be conducted with the expectation of adequate price competition per FAR 15.403-1(c)(1);

therefore, certified cost or pricing data are not required per FAR 15.403-1(b)(1). If at any time during this competition the CO 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 CO to determine price reasonableness. The proposed prices shall be based on the offeror’s own technical approach submitted in the Technical Proposal (Volume II) and the

Government’s PWS requirements.

Unbalanced pricing may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal. Offers should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate reasonableness and balance.

L.2.2.2. Price Data

The offeror shall propose and insert a whole unit price, with no 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. For CLINs with

Exhibit Line Item Numbers (ELINs), enter the Best Estimated Quantity (BEQ) amount from the applicable ELIN into the Section B CLIN that correlates to the ELIN (Section J, Attachment 2). The total extended amount for the

FFP CLINs must equal, to the dollar, the unit price multiplied by the quantity of units. The sum total of all FFP

CLINs, for mobilization, the Base Period and each Option Period, will form the offeror’s total evaluated price

(TEP). The offeror shall not provide a price for cost-reimbursable CLINs. All option periods will be included during evaluation of the proposal.

All ELIN amounts for X004, X005 and X010 will be evaluated to determine that the pricing is fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR 15.404, however, the BEQ will be evaluated and used for determining the TEP.

Data beyond that required by this instruction shall not be submitted, unless it is essential to document or support the offeror’s price position. All data relating to the proposed price, including all required supporting documentation, must be included in the Price volume (Volume I). Under no circumstances shall this data and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal.

The offeror must complete the following and include in Volume I:

(a) Summary Page: Show the aggregate price of the proposal for all FFP CLINs. This aggregate price shall be made up of the proposed price for mobilization and all option years. For CLINs that have ELINs, use the BEQ prices for the purposes of the aggregate price.

(b) 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.

(c) Complete all necessary fill-ins and certifications in Sections I through K. Ensure compliance with RFP requirements if using the annual representations and certifications electronically via the System for Award Management (SAM) website at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/. Ensure the Tax Identification Number (TIN) is loaded in SAM or provided for in the proposal submission. If the CO is unable to access/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.

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

(e) STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE SERVICE CONTRACT ACT (SCA).

The SCA Wage Determinations (WD) provided in Section J, Attachment 3 and 4, are applicable to this requirement. The offeror shall provide a statement acknowledging:

i. Compliance with the requirements of the SCA WD;

ii. The prices proposed for labor covered by the SCA WD were formulated in consideration of the rates specified in the document as required for covered contractor personnel;

iii. The proposed wage and benefit rates covered by the SCA WD are not escalated beyond the basic period of performance (FAR 52.222-43(a) and (b)).

L.2.3. Other Contracting Considerations

L.2.3.1. Responsibility Determination

To assist in determining contractor responsibility in accordance with FAR 9.104-3(a), the offeror shall explain how they plan to maintain adequate financial resources for a contract of this magnitude and length. The offeror shall address a fiscal plan for covering mobilization, unexpected or emergency situations, and initial performance costs prior to recoupment in the form of monthly invoice payments. The offeror must provide complete financial statements for one 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, documentation of availability must be submitted. If the offeror plans to rely on financial support from external sources, documentation of availability and maximum lines of credit available (based upon the inclusion of this contract effort) must be submitted. Evidence of external funding must be provided in the form of a dated letter from the external source.

IAW FAR 9.104-5, the offeror is required to comply with the submission regarding FAR 52.209-5, Certification

Regarding Responsibility Matters found in Section K of this RFP. Since it is the Government’s intent to make

Award Without Discussions IAW FAR 52.215-1, the Government may request that an offeror submit additional information so a responsibility determination can be made. This request for additional information will not be construed as communications or discussions with an offeror as defined by FAR 15.306. 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.

L.2.3.2. Teaming Arrangements and/or Letters of Intent If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, provide complete, verifiable information detailing the arrangement, to include any relevant and recent 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.

L.3. Volume II - Technical

L.3.1. General

Each offeror shall submit a Technical Volume with its proposal. The Technical Volume should be specific, clear and complete. Submissions will be evaluated against the Technical subfactors defined in Section M, Evaluation

Factors for Award. Using the instructions provided below, provide a detailed approach to accomplish/satisfy all subfactors. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the RFP or PWS. By submitting a proposal, the offeror affirms that its organization will perform all requirements specified in the RFP and PWS.

L.3.2. Format and Specific Content

L.3.2.1. Technical

In the technical volume, address your technical solution for meeting the Government’s minimum performance or capability requirements of each technical subfactor. PWS references provided are for reference and may not constitute every section of the PWS, or its appendices, in which a subfactor may be applicable.

L.3.2.2. Volume Organization

The Technical volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

(3) Glossary

(4) Cross Reference Matrix

(5) Subfactor One (Mobilization Plan)

(6) Subfactor Two (Staffing Strategy)

(7) Subfactor Three (Quality Control Plan)

L.3.2.3. Subfactor 1 – Mobilization Plan: This subfactor assesses the offeror’s mobilization plan. The offeror shall:

L.3.2.3.1. Provide a mobilization plan, with corresponding timelines, to complete all mobilization tasks and qualification requirements during the one-month mobilization period, IAW PWS 2.1.

L.3.2.3.2. Provide a proven method for completing required Human Factors Evaluations for all employees that will perform services on this contract, IAW PWS 5.9.2.

L.3.2.3.3. Provide the manner in which the offeror will ensure all employees performing services on this contract possess a current SECRET clearance prior to performing services and the contractor possesses a current facility clearance IAW PWS 6.4 and 7.1.

L.3.2.3.4. Provide a detailed strategy for recruiting (both locally and nationally), retaining, interviewing, hiring, training, qualifying, and certifying employees.

L.3.2.3.5. Describe how the offeror plans to successfully locate and hire a minimum of two female instructors for the Resistance Training Lab throughout the life of the contract.

L.3.2.4. Subfactor 2 – Staffing Strategy: This subfactor assesses the offeror’s approach for structuring and staffing personnel to effectively accomplish the services under this contract. The Training and Certification Plan submitted in response to this subfactor shall address management of instructional services. This plan shall become part of the awarded contract. The offeror shall:

L.3.2.4.1. Clearly define manpower structure including organizational charts and the process for sustaining trained and qualified personnel. At a minimum provide: a) descriptions of roles and responsibilities for all organizational elements; b) address mission coverage for all contract periods and c) coverage plans for all positions.

L.3.2.4.2. Identify and demonstrate that employees shall have the training, experience and qualifications to instruct and/or manage the services for which they will be responsible, IAW PWS 2.4, 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.6 and 6.7.

L.3.2.4.3. Demonstrate an approach with details for accomplishing service requirements including plans and rationale for personnel utilization (full-time, part-time, temporaries, personal time off, leave, sick leave, Guard/Reserve duty etc.).

L.3.2.4.4. Provide an approach for limiting employee turn-over, and a process for sustaining trained, qualified and technically capable personnel through the life of the contract.

L.3.2.5. Subfactor 3 – Quality Control Plan: This subfactor assesses the offeror’s approaches and processes to effectively measure, track, analyze, report, and implement corrective actions at the sites specified in the RFP. The

Quality Control Plan submitted in response to this subfactor shall address performance standards, control of information and physical security IAW PWS 5.7, 5.8 and 7. The offeror shall:

L.3.2.5.1. Demonstrate an approach that ensures instructors assigned to this contact complete a recognized academic instructor course listed in the AETCI 36-2604 Section 2.2, IAW PWS 5.7.

L.3.2.5.2. Provide a Quality Control Plan (stand-alone document) including approaches, tools and processes to recognize, react to and correct problems. The plan shall include, at a minimum, an inspection system covering the services contained in the Services Summary. The plan must indicate that the offeror (not the Government) is responsible for quality control and identify the offeror’s point of contact for quality control.

L.4. Volume III - Past Performance

L.4.1. General

Each offeror shall submit a Past Performance Volume with its proposal. The Past Performance volume shall be prepared in accordance with all instructions contained within this Section L. Each offeror’s proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria in Section M.5. Volume III shall contain the following:

L.4.2. Format and Specific Content

L.4.2.1. Volume Organization

The Past Performance Volume shall be organized according to the following general outline

(3) Specific Content

(4) Past Performance Information Sheet (PPIS)

(5) Organizational Structure Change History

(6) Subcontractor Letters of Consent

(7) Client Authorization Letters

(8) Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ)

L.4.2.2. Summary Page

Describe 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. The Table of Contents and Summary Page(s) shall not exceed five pages combined.

L.4.2.3. Past Performance Information Sheet (PPIS)

Submit information on no more than four total recent contracts that the offeror considers most relevant in demonstrating the ability to perform the proposed effort (Section J, Attachment 7). Two of the past performance references may be for subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partners, that will perform major or critical aspects, or a minimum of 20% of the requirement. “Recent” is defined as ongoing contracts or those completed within three years of the date of issuance of the solicitation, to include at least six months of documented performance during the three-year period. Include rationale supporting the offeror’s assertion of relevance. For a description of the characteristics or aspects the Government will consider in determining relevancy, reference

Section M.5. The following may be provided as part of the PPIS: Quality and satisfaction rating for contracts completed in the past three years, e.g. letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc., which demonstrates customer satisfaction with overall job performance and quality for relevant contracts. The PPIS for each contract, including letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc., is limited to five pages total.

The Government intends to collect additional references from other sources during the evaluation of past performance.

L.4.2.3.1. Specific Content

The offeror is required to explain what aspects of the past/current contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate. This 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 a “Limited” or “No Confidence” 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. For example, submittal of quality performance indicators or other management indicators that clearly support that an offeror has overcome past problems.

L.4.2.4. Organizational 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 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. A pamphlet or other commercial document describing such reorganizations may suffice. As part of this explanation, show how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts you identify for past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment. Since the Government intends to consider past performance information provided by other sources as well as that provided by the offeror(s), 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. There is no page limit applied to Organizational Structure

Change History; however, the offeror is requested to limit the number of pages to the minimum required to clearly articulate the pertinent information.

L.4.2.5. 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 Subcontractor Consent Letter (Section J, Attachment 8) executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor.

L.4.2.6. Client Authorization Letters

If applicable, offerors must also include Client Authorization Letters (Section J, Attachment 9) for each identified effort performed for a commercial customer, authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the offeror’s performance.

L.4.2.7. Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ)

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 past performance. Offerors are requested to complete the information in Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the PPQ (Section J, Attachment 6) and submit to the POC(s) that the offeror previously provided recent and relevant service. Send the PPQ with the Past Performance Cover Letter (Section J, Attachment 5). Ensure the Point of Contact provided is available and knowledgeable of the service provided under that contract. The POC shall submit completed questionnaires directly to the Government representatives identified in L.1.2.1. no later than the proposal due date identified in Table 1.2 above. Ensure the Government is provided a list of the POC(s) that PPQs are sent to in order to facilitate efficient follow ups as deemed necessary. Once submitted, the information contained therein shall be considered sensitive and shall not be released to the offeror.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

a. Basis for Contract Award

This is a competitive Limited Tradeoff source selection (Performance Price Tradeoff w/Technical

Acceptable/Unacceptable), in which competing offeror’s past performance will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price considerations. To be considered for award, the proposal must conform to the evaluation criteria described in this Section M, conform to all solicitation requirements and other information required by

Section L, and the offeror must be deemed responsible in accordance with (IAW) FAR 9.104-1.

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. All technically acceptable offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records.

Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation process will proceed as follows:

Limited Tradeoff, as defined for this acquisition, is the Government’s ability to trade price for a higher performance confidence assessment rating. The Government’s determination on how much more it will pay for a higher performance confidence assessment rating will be determined through a subjective assessment after consideration of the level of benefit the Government could expect as compared to the higher price. The Government is not required to pay what the Government perceives to be a substantial amount more for increased performance confidence if it is determined that it is not in the Government’s best interest to do so. The Government may trade up from an

“Unknown Confidence” or from a “Satisfactory Confidence” rating. The Government will not award a contract to an offeror that is rated as having “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence.”

For the purpose of conducting evaluations, the Government will first rank all proposals by TEP, and then proceed with the simultaneous evaluation of Price, Technical and Past Performance volumes beginning with the three lowest priced offerors. If it is determined that one of the three lowest priced offerors meets the criteria of having the lowest

TEP, is determined to be "Technically Acceptable," and determined to have a "Substantial Confidence" rating, that offeror represents the best value and award may be made without further evaluation of higher priced offers.

If none of the three lowest priced offerors are determined to have a “Substantial Confidence” rating, then the

Government may evaluate higher priced proposals. Additionally, if any of the three lowest priced offerors are determined not to have a “Technically Acceptable” rating, the Government may evaluate higher priced proposals.

The SSA will make an integrated assessment best value award decision or determine the competitive range for the purpose of holding discussions. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

b. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one contract for the SERE/ECAC Requirement.

c. Discussions

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions. Offeror(s) shall submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Proposal Preparation Instructions in Section L. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (e.g., the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond.

Exchanges conducted with regard to adverse past performance or to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions, and the CO reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. If the Government elects to hold discussions, a competitive range will be established based on FAR 15.306(c) procedures and this solicitation.

The Government reserves the right to further limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. If the CO determines that an offeror’s proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award. Written notice of this decision shall be provided to unsuccessful offeror(s) in accordance with FAR 15.503.

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

d. Solicitation Requirements, 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 factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

M.2. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Evaluation of 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 – Price

Factor 2 – Technical

Subfactor 1 – Mobilization Plan

Subfactor 2 – Staffing and Workforce Strategy

Subfactor 3 – Quality Control Plan

Factor 3 – Past Performance

M.3. Factor 1 – Price

Offers will be ranked from lowest to highest according to the proposed TEP, including all option prices. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in Section B by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number to confirm the extended amount for each.

NOTE: The contract will include FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, with the potential to extend the contract an additional 6 months beyond the awarded contract performance period. In the event the Government requires continued performance, the Government’s evaluation of prices proposed for the base and all option periods http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P289_46239 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P996_186227 will suffice to be the Government’s evaluation of prices under the extension of services (ref. 52.217-8). Should an extension of services be required, rates will be adjusted only as result of revisions to applicable prevailing

Department of Labor wage rates.

Offerors whose TEP is unreasonable (in accordance with FAR 15.404 and FAR 31.201-3) will not be considered for award. Offerors whose TEP is unbalanced (in accordance with FAR 15.404-1) may not be considered for award.

M.4. Factor 2 – Technical

The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposal for the three lowest priced offerors, assigning a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable. The Government reserves the right to evaluate additional technical proposals for acceptability if in the Government’s best interest. If additional technical proposals are evaluated, they will be evaluated in the order of total evaluated price from lowest to highest. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

M.4.1. Proposals will be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

M.4.1.1. Subfactor 1: Mobilization Plan

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposal for a sound mobilization plan.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal:

M.4.1.1.1. The mobilization plan is detailed, includes corresponding timelines, that demonstrates the offeror’s ability to complete all mobilization tasks and qualification requirements during the one-month mobilization period, effectively facilitating full performance at completion of the mobilization period.

M.4.1.1.2. The method for completing Human Factors Evaluations is comprehensive and will ensure all employees that will perform services on this contract have been properly screened.

M.4.1.1.3. The manner in which the offeror plans to ensure that employees performing services on this contract possess a current SECRET clearance prior to starting work is reasonable and will be effective; additionally the offeror provided evidence they possess a current facility clearance.

M.4.1.1.4. The strategy for recruiting (both locally and nationally), retaining, interviewing, hiring, training, qualifying, and certifying employees will enable the offeror to provide a sufficient number of fully qualified employees, by contract start date and maintain the workforce for the life of the contract.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL 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.4.1.1.5. The plan to locate and hire a minimum of two female instructors for the Resistance Training Lab throughout the life of the contract is realistic and effective.

M.4.1.2. Subfactor 2: Staffing Strategy

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s approach for structuring and staffing personnel to effectively accomplish the services under this contract. The Training and Certification Plan submitted in response to this subfactor shall address management of instructional services. This plan shall become part of the awarded contract.

M.4.1.2.1. Successfully defines a plan for a sound organizational structure, including organizational charts and an adequate process for sustaining trained and qualified personnel. The proposed organizational structure illustrates a thorough understanding of the workforce required to meet PWS requirements. The offeror has provided: a) detailed descriptions of proposed roles and responsibilities for all organizational elements; b) a plan illustrating sufficient mission coverage for all contract periods and c) adequate coverage plans for all positions.

M.4.1.2.2. The offeror clearly identified and demonstrated that employees will have the relevant training, experience and qualifications to effectively instruct and/or manage the services for which they will be responsible.

M.4.1.2.3. Successfully demonstrated a thorough and efficient approach with sufficient details for accomplishing service requirements including plans and rationale for personnel utilization (full-time, part-time, temporaries, personal time off, leave, sick leave, Guard/Reserve duty etc.).

M.4.1.2.4. The approach is comprehensive and will limit employee turn-over, an adequate process for sustaining trained, qualified and technically capable personnel throughout the life of the contract will ensure program continuity.

M.4.1.3. Subfactor 3: Quality Control Plan

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s approaches and processes to effectively measure, track, analyze, report, and implement corrective actions at the sites specified in the RFP. The Quality Control Plan submitted in response to this subfactor shall address performance standards, control of information and physical security IAW

PWS 5.7, 5.8 and 7.

M.4.1.3.1. The approach ensures instructors assigned to this contact satisfactorily complete a recognized academic instructor course listed in the AETCI 36-2604 Section 2.2 in conjunction with the offeror's Training & Certification

Plan.

M.4.1.3.2. The Quality Control Plan includes approaches, tools and processes to proactively recognize, react to and correct problems. The plan includes an inspection system covering the services contained in the Services Summary.

The plan clearly indicates that the offeror (not the government) is responsible for quality control and identifies the offeror’s point of contact for quality control.

M.5. Factor 3 – Past Performance

The Government will evaluate past performance to assess how well the offeror performed work relevant to the requirement described in the solicitation as an indicator of an offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully.

The Government will use the following procedures in evaluating past performance:

M.5.1. Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating the offeror’s recent and relevant past performance.

In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government. 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 this acquisition.

The offeror’s past performance efforts will be assessed for three categories: Recency, Relevancy and Performance

Quality. The Government will only evaluate Performance Quality on past efforts that are determined to be both recent and relevant.

M.5.1.1. Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the three years preceding the date of issuance of this RFP, to include at least six months of documented performance during the three-year period. Only performance that occurred during the three year period of performance prior to issuance of the RFP will be considered, i.e., if a contract has been performed for five years prior to the issuance of the RFP, only past performance that occurred during the three years prior to issuance of the RFP will be considered. Contract performance that does not meet these criteria will not be evaluated.

M.5.1.2. Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the scope, magnitude and complexity of efforts described in this solicitation.