FA4452-08-R-0006Amendment6.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

COST COMPARISON INFORMATION/BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

(1). Cost Comparison Information.

This solicitation is part of a Government cost comparison, pursuant to OMB Circular A-76 and Air Force Instruction (AFI) 38-203 (19 July 2001) to determine whether accomplishing the specified work under contract (private) or by in-house (public) performance is more economical.

On 13 February 2007, HQ USAF/A1 approved Air Mobility Command’s (AMC’s) request to conduct a standard competition within 12 months from public announcement to the decision point. On 21 February 2007, HQ AMC/A7KQD provided public announcement via FedBizOpps (FBO). In accordance with Air Force policy, the study must reach a performance decision to retain in-house or convert to contract within 12 months (18 months if an extension is requested and approved) from the public announcement. An 18 month extension for this study is pending.

(2). Basis For Contract Award.

This acquisition will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 15.101-2 Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Source Selection Process. This is a best value source selection where best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

A mission impact analysis is mandated if the performance decision is for contractor performance IAW Public Law 109-163, Section 341. The analysis is performed to ensure that there is no mission impact as a result of a contractor performance decision. The mission impact analysis validation will result in a “go/no go” decision. The Government retains the right to cancel the competition if the mission impact changes during the acquisition process or if Congress objects to the contract award.

Proposal evaluation is an assessment of the Service Provider’s ability to perform the prospective service successfully. This section describes the process the Government will use in evaluating proposals and capabilities for the Communications, Operations, and Maintenance Function A-76 Study. This section outlines the General Considerations and Specific Evaluation Criteria (Factors) the Government will consider in evaluating proposals. General Considerations are intended to confirm the Service Provider’s compliance with RFP terms and conditions. General Considerations must be met in order to be eligible for award. The Specific Evaluation Criteria are intended to show the scope of the evaluation to be performed on the proposals submitted in response to the RFP.

(a) General Considerations:

The proposal must comply in all material respects with the requirements of law, regulation and conditions set forth in the solicitation.

(1) Subcontracting Plan: The Service Provider shall address its plans to subcontract in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 19.7. The subcontracting plan will be evaluated to determine whether the Service Provider meets the requirements of FAR 19.704, FAR 52.219-9 and the offeror’s plan demonstrates achieving a small business subcontracting goal of 22% of the total contracted value.

(2) Responsibility Information: To be eligible for award, the Service Provider must be determined responsible as defined in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 9.104-1. A Pre-Award Survey (PAS) may be conducted as part of this evaluation. Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be evaluated to determine whether the Service Provider meets the general standards of responsibility as defined in FAR 9.104-1.

(b) Specific Evaluation Criteria (Factors)

(1) Factor Overview – The evaluation factors that establish the requirements of proposal acceptability are Mission Capability and Cost (Price). The Mission Capability subfactors will be evaluated for technical acceptability on a “pass” or “fail” basis. To be considered technically acceptable each proposal must meet the minimum mandatory criteria established for each of the Mission Capability subfactors as described below. Under the Cost (Price) factor, each proposal will be evaluated to determine completeness and reasonableness. All technically acceptable (“pass”) offers will be ranked by total evaluated price. The lowest priced technically acceptable offer will be compared to the Agency Tenders’ (AT) price through the COMPARE program to determine which service provider is the most efficient and cost effective method of operation. The conversion differential is a cost that is the lesser of 10 percent of the MEO's personnel-related costs (reflected on Standard Competition Form Line 1) or $10 million over all the performance periods stated in the solicitation. If a contractors’ proposal is more cost effective, a contract will be awarded. If the contract price is higher, the solicitation will be cancelled and a Letter of Obligation put in place with the AT.

Compare and NAICS Codes: The NAICS code for this solicitation is 541512. However, for cost comparison purposes, NAICS code 541512 is not available in the COMPARE program. Guidance provided by Office of Secretary of Defense states that the code that matches in the same hierarchy will be used in the COMPARE program. NAICS code 541515 will be used during evaluations in the COMPARE program for this solicitation and may effect tax rates, as tax rates vary by NAICS codes. The current tax rate for NAICS code 541515 is .0068. You can view more information on NAICS codes and the COMPARE program by visiting the A-76 Compare site at http://www.comparea76.com/Default.asp and search the help desk area for SRA# 8-000-379.

(1) Mission Capability

a. SUBFACTOR : Technical Approach

The Government will evaluate each proposal to determine the extent to which an effective and efficient organization will be employed to accomplish PWS requirements. This includes an evaluation of certain operational processes to determine the extent to which each proposal reflects a clear understanding of the work. Measures of merit for this subfactor are reached when the offeror:

Project Plan - Describes a sound approach for accomplishing all tasks in the PWS.

1) Submits a plan that demonstrates a sound and logical understanding of all PWS functions that ensures timely support.

2) Submits an organizational structure showing how the team will be organized and that identifies the number and labor category of personnel resources assigned to meet the requirements by function (i.e. Configuration Management, System Administration, etc) as described in the PWS.

3) Submits a plan that defines the interrelationship between organizational components to include lines of management authority.

Quality Control Plan - Reflects a clear understanding of the quality control process and implements effective procedures to identify, prevent, and ensure non-recurrence of defective services to meet mission objectives.

1) Submits a plan that clearly reflects understanding of the offeror’s quality control processes that will be used to implement effective procedures for early identification of non-conforming services to ensure services provided conform to the requirements identified in the PWS.

2) Submits a plan that addresses methodologies for developing/using metrics to track performance trends for key processes and outcomes.

3) Provides a customer complaint methodology for communication with customers and resolution of complaints.

4) Identifies how corrective actions will be taken to ensure timely acceptable performance in accordance with the PWS.

5) Submits a plan that identifies a sound partnering approach with the Government to ensure mission objectives are met.

Phase In Plan - Describes a sound approach for the assumption of work from the incumbent service providers.

1) Submits a plan which specifies how the offeror plans to start up, mobilize, train, and meet Appendix 16 certification requirements in order to meet phase-in requirements in the PWS with minimal disruption of services.

2) Submits a plan that provides a sufficient number of fully qualified employees with required clearances.

3) Provides an adequate acceptance/inventory plan supporting the proper transfer of Government equipment and facilities.

4) Submits a plan that addresses turn-over of work-in-progress.

5) Provides a chronological sequence of events that describes actions from contract award to assumption of full responsibility.

b. SUBFACTOR : Staffing Approach

The Government will evaluate each proposal to determine the extent to which it reflects a clear understanding of the work by furnishing sufficient personnel resources. The staffing matrix should identify all labor categories and proposed labor hours for each category. You may use the same matrix referenced in Volume 1, Section 4 - Pricing Support Documentation. State the basis for your labor hour estimates. Provide a separate personnel matrix that identifies the personnel resources supporting 24 X 7. This matrix should cover weekdays, weekends and holidays. This personnel matrix should also cover on-call support. This personnel matrix should correlate personnel resources back to the organizational components. Measures of merit for this subfactor are reached when the offeror:

Staffing Plan -- Describes a sound approach for accomplishing all tasks in the PWS and submits a personnel matrix.

1) Submits a plan that identifies personnel resources and an organizational structure to include any subcontracting and teaming arrangements necessary to perform the requirements of this solicitation.

2) Provides an adequate number of employees in each proposed labor category.

3) Identifies the appropriate key positions, with generic resumes or position descriptions which identify the educational and experience level and requisite security clearances of any individuals who will perform in key positions and other qualifications showing the key individual’s ability to comply with the minimum requirements in the solicitation.

4) Identifies “Span of Authority” for key on-site positions (i.e., number of personnel under supervision or number of projects being managed).

5) Provides accurate job descriptions/position descriptions for each labor category which identify the educational and experience level as it relates to each area of service provided.

6) Identifies security clearances required to fill those positions in relationship to the organizational structure.

7) Identifies all positions filled by subcontractors and any temporary or part time employees.

8) Provides evidence of quick response capability, site supervision, and quality control of any teaming partners or subcontractors. This includes defining actions to be taken if surge in requirements occur due to real world events or exercise contingencies.

9) Provides evidence of their ability to successfully recruit/retain/replace personnel who have the adequate knowledge, experience, training, certification, and security clearances to perform in the positions designated, inclusive of the utilization of existing Federal Employee work force (Right of First Refusal) and an alternate procedure if Federal employees have accepted other positions.

10) Provides proper training, qualifications, and certification of all contract employees IAW the PWS during phase-in and throughout the life of the contract.

11) Provides a strike plan/employee walkout plan which indicates their ability to provide uninterrupted and adequate support with minimal disruption.

12) Provides contingency plan that describes a sound approach for contingency planning of services in the event of a) Off-Duty/Active Duty Military recall commitments, holidays and down days, b) increased security levels on base due to unforeseen events, exercises, and inclement weather and c) possible prolonged surge in requirements due to real world or exercise contingencies. This includes identification, by position, of the personnel who shall be responsible for performing services.

(2) Price (Cost) Each price proposal will be evaluated but not rated. The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to determine completeness and reasonableness, as defined below.

· Completeness. The proposals and other information will be reviewed to determine the extent to which cost elements of the offer have been addressed. The service provider’s price proposal and other information will be evaluated to ensure continuity and traceability of prices to the technical proposal and between the initial proposal and any revisions thereto. The review will determine the adequacy of the service provider’s proposal in addressing and fulfilling the solicitation requirements. In addition, Subsection 8013(a)(3) of the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-289) prohibits conversion to contractor performance if the contractor received an advantage for a proposal that would reduce costs for the DoD by either not making an employer-sponsored health insurance plan available to the workers who are to be employed in the performance of the activity, or offering to such workers a plan that requires the employer to contribute less towards the premium or subscription share of an employer-sponsored health insurance plan than the amount paid by the DoD for health benefits for civilian employees. OMB has established the DoD percentage contributed to health benefits for civilian employees at 7.0% of employee basic pay. Therefore, based on the data received from the private sector service provider in response to addendum 52.212-1 (Private Sector Health Insurance Costs in Public-Private Competition), an additional adjustment of up to7.0% will be made based on direct labor costs and added to the total evaluated cost for those offerors whose contributions do not meet or exceed 7.0%. Also, Section 322 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 prohibits conversion to contractor performance if the contractor received an advantage for a proposal that would reduce costs for the DoD by either not making an employer-sponsored retirement plan available to the workers who are to be employed in the performance of the activity, or offering to such workers a plan that requires the employer to contribute less towards the premium or subscription share of an employer-sponsored retirement plan than the amount paid by the DoD for retirement benefits for civilian employees. OMB has established the DoD percentage standard civilian retirement benefit cost factor is 26.1%. Therefore, based on the data received from the private sector service provider in response to addendum 52.212-1 (Private Sector Retirement Costs in Public-Private Competition), an additional adjustment of up to 26.1% will be made based on direct labor costs and added to the total evaluated cost for those offerors whose contributions do not meet or exceed 26.1%.

· Reasonableness. The proposal and other information will be reviewed to determine the reasonableness of cost and the service provider’s understanding of the work and ability to perform the solicitation requirements.

(End of Summary of Changes)