FA461023R00010001 377 TEG LSS 20230817.pdf

R

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication 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 letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication 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 NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, 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.)

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

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

Previous edition unusable STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016) Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

The purpose of this amendment is to:Block 14 (Description of Amendment/Modification):

a) Revise FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Items and FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation - Commercial Items language

b) Replace Attachment 1, PWS dated 22 Jun 2023 with PWS dated 17 Aug 2023

c) Provide revised Attachment 2, CBA LIUNA and ATS

d) Replace Attachment 3, SCA WD 2015-5647 Rev 18 dated 27 Dec 2022 with SCA WD 2015-5647 Rev 19 dated 25 Jul 2023

e) Provide revised Attachment 5, Past and Present Performance Questionnaire

f) Provide revised Attachment 7, Price Sheet

g) All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

List of Attachments

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

Attachment 1: Performance Work Statement dtd 20230817 Attachment 2: CBA LIUNA and ATS 20190101 Attachment 3: SCA WD 2015-5647 Rev 19 dtd 20230725 Attachment 4: DD 254 Contract Security Classification Specification Attachment 5: Past and Present Performance Questionnaire 20230814 Attachment 6: Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan Template Attachment 7: Price Sheet 20230814 Attachment 8: Performance Information Form Attachment 9: Government Furnished Property List Attachment 10: Required Reports A001-A009

Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors or Quoters

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors--Commercial Items (Jan 2017)

Addendum to 52.212-1 Proposal Preparation Instructions

A. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certificates. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The response shall consist of three (3) separate parts; Part I - Technical Proposal, Part II - Price Proposal, and Part III - Past Performance.

B. The Contracting Officer is the Government's sole point of contact for this acquisition. Address any questions or concerns you may have to the Contracting Officer. Written requests for clarification may be sent to the Contracting Officer. The Government reserves the right to revise or amend the specifications, drawings, or the solicitation prior to the proposal closing time. Such revisions or amendments will be communicated by amendments to the Request for Proposal (RFP) and posted in the System for Award Management website (www.SAM.gov). If such amendments

FA461023R00010001

require material changes in quantities or prices, the proposal closing date may be postponed by enough days to enable offerors to revise their proposals. In such cases, the amendment will include an announcement of the new closing date and time. Offerors MUST acknowledge all amendments in their proposal by providing signed copies of the amendments with their proposal, or by separate letter which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. If an offeror believes that the 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 as well as the remedies the offeror is asking the Contracting Officer to consider as related to the omission or error. The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion. This reservation includes matters of additional or substitute pages of the initial proposal.

C. The contracting officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the contracting office will review this determination and if, in the contracting officer's opinion, adequate price competition exists no additional cost information will be requested . However, if at any time during this competition the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists; offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine the reasonableness and affordability of the price.

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

1. Requirements of the RFP and government standards and regulations pertaining to the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

2. Evaluation Factors for Award in section, 52.212-2, EVALUATION - COMMERCIAL ITEMS of this RFP.

3. Any limitation on the number of proposal pages. Pages exceeding the page limitations set forth in this section, FAR 52.212-1 - INSTRUCTION TO OFFERORS - COMMERCIAL ITEMS will not be read or evaluated and will be removed from the proposal.

4. Proposals shall be emailed to the address below by the date and time specified on page one of the SF 1449, Block 8. Submissions by hand-delivery or fax will NOT be permitted.

30 CONS/PKB

ATTN: Eileen Castro and Charles C. Richardson For: FA461023R0001 Contract Specialist: eileen.castro@spaceforce.mil Contracting Officer: charles.richardson.16@spaceforce.mil

5. Documentation requirements shall be as follows:

- The proposal shall be formatted in Letter (8.5 11 inches).

- A page is defined as one single-spaced sheet of paper containing information.

- Typing shall be Times New Roman Font, size 12.

6. Submit proposal information in PDF, Word or Excel format, as applicable.

7. Electronic files shall be consistent and uniformly named to allow for easy distinction between Volume, Tab, etc. Inclusion of company name or abbreviation is acceptable. No picture shots of Excel spreadsheets shall be included. Any and all excel spreadsheet and formulas shall be accessible for review if submitted. The documents submitted in electronic format should be formatted to match an original paper copy, if printed in Letter format.

8. Offer Acceptance Period: Offerors must agree to hold the proposal prices in response to this solicitation as "firm" for 120 days after the proposal due date.

9. Potential offerors are reminded they must be registered in the System for Awards Management (SAM) at www.sam.gov with the current registration to be eligible for award.

E. Specific Instructions:

1. PART I - FACTOR I: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

1.1 Subfactor 1 - Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan

Page Limits. Subfactor 1 is limited to twelve (12) pages.

The Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan, in accordance with DFARS 252.237-7024, Continuation of Essential Contractor Services, will address how mission essential missile launch refurbishment and maintenance services will be provided during periods of crisis, defined as essential contractor service per DFARS 252.237-7023. The plan must adequately demonstrate a sound, logical approach, and must address each element identified in the Mission Essential Contractor's Services Plan Template (Attachment 6, as specified).

1.2 Subfactor 2 - Demonstrated Experience

Page Limits. Subfactor 2 is limited to ten (10) pages.

Offerors (to include Teaming arrangements, Joint Ventures, or Protege Mentors established per 13 CFR 125.8), shall provide up to three (3) projects, performed either as a stand-alone contract or task order, completed by the offeror within the last ten (10) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation that, in aggregate, reflect the offeror's ability to perform the requirements similar to this acquisition. Within the three (3) project submissions the offeror shall provide a narrative highlighting their experience in the following discriminators. Each project submission shall identify those areas where the offeror has organic/internal capabilities to perform as well as those areas where the offeror will utilize subcontractor support.

Each provided project shall include a contracting and technical point of contact along with email address, and phone number. The Government may contact these POCs to verify/validate the information provided by offerors. The Government may supplement the experience information provided with information concerning your experience from any other reliable source including its own experience with your company.

Submittal requirements:

1.2.1 (PWS 1.2.) Refurbishment of Launch Facilities

a) Experience performing operation and maintenance refurbishment tasks.

b) Experience with pre-launch component build-up and post-launch component tear down.

c) Experience performing launch equipment component functional tests.

d) Experience suspending workers in a work basket by use of crane.

e) Experience with maintenance site work IAW Air Force Technical Orders.

1.2.2 (PWS 1.3.) Corrosion Control Services

a) Possession of State of California Department of Health Lead Related Construction "Worker" certificate.

b) Experience executing preventative maintenance procedures.

1.2.3 (PWS 1.5.) Vehicle Issue and Control

a) Experience managing and controlling a fleet of assigned vehicles IAW applicable Air Force Instructions.

b) Ability to provide personnel with State of California Dept. of Motor Vehicles, Class "A" (3 Axle) Driver License.

1.2.4 (PWS 1.6.) Equipment Issue and Control

a) Experience maintaining a centralized equipment issue program including general tools and tracking of calibration equipment.

b) Experience accurately managing inventory.

c) Experience managing tool and equipment inventory within the Integrated Maintenance Data System database.

d) Experience inspecting and performing minor equipment repairs.

1.2.5 (PWS 1.8.) Squadron Environmental Program

a) Experience in managing Collection Accumulation Point (CAP) facility for hazardous materials.

1 PART II - FACTOR 2: PRICE PROPOSAL

1.3 Complete SF 1449 Blocks 12, Discount Terms; 17a, Contractor Name, Address, Cage Code, Telephone No., Fax No.; 30a, Signature of Offeror /Contractor; 30b., Name and Title of Signer; 30c, Date Signed, and applicable Reps and Certs (online Reps and Certs if available, are sufficient). In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP.

1.3.1 Part II has no page limit.

1.3.2 Electronically fill out all attachments and then insert proposed unit and extended prices in the Schedule for each Contract Line-Item Number

(CLIN).

1.3.3 The Offeror shall detail their direct, and indirect pricing assumptions and rationale for their (FFP) submission. The Government reserves the right to request other than certified cost and pricing data in order to establish fair and reasonable price IAW with FAR 15.404-1(b) and unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g).

1.3.4 Complete all the necessary fill-ins in the SF 1449 - Continuation Sheet.

2 Part III - FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

2.3 Page Limits and Contract Submission Limits.

2.3.1 Page Limits. Limited to no more than 6 pages per contract submitted.

2.3.2 Contract Submission Limits. Submit Performance Information Forms (see Attachment 8 of the RFP) on no more than three (3) contracts that are current, recent, and relevant to demonstrate their ability to supply the required services. Refer to 52.212-2 EVALUATION - COMMERCIAL ITEMS for determining if the contracts you proposed to submit meet the definitions of current, recent, and relevant.

2.3.3 Contract Submission Limits for Subcontractors, Teaming, and Joint Venture (JV). Submit Performance Information Forms (see Attachment 8 of the RFP) on no more than three (3) contracts, for each major, or critical subcontractor, (as well as prior teaming/joint venture if not part of the current offeror) that are current, recent, and relevant to demonstrate their ability to supply the required services. Refer to 52.212-2 EVALUATION - COMMERCIAL ITEMS for determining if the contracts you proposed to submit meet the definitions of current, recent, and relevant.

2.4 Specific Performance Information Form Content

2.4.1 Offerors are required to thoroughly explain what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the required services. Specifically relate them to sections and paragraphs within the PWS.

2.4.2 Offerors are required to thoroughly explain corrective action taken in the past, if any, for substandard performance and any current performance problems such as exceeded performance periods.

2.5 Format. Use the Performance Information Form (Attachment 8 of the RFP) for submitting current, recent, and relevant (reference Attachment 8, 52.212-2 EVALUATION - COMMERCIAL ITEMS) contract past performance information. Provide a separate form for each contract submitted.

This information is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform a major portion of the proposed services. The evaluation of past performance information will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement. For Offerors proposing as a joint venture and/or mentor-protege joint venture, past performance reference citations for any joint venture member may be submitted as the capabilities and past performance of the joint venture. The Government will use information provided by the offeror and information obtained from other sources in the evaluation of the Past Performance Factor (reference Addendum to 52.212-2 EVALUATION - COMMERCIAL ITEMS).

2.6 Partnership Agreements. If any of the contracts you identify were performed as teaming or joint venture partners, offerors must thoroughly explain the relationship of each partner, e.g., managing partner under the contract submitted, and include copies of the teaming and/or joint venture agreement for these contracts. Does not apply to page limitations listed in this section.

2.7 Subcontractor Consents. Past Performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor's consent. Contractors must provide, with the proposal, a signed letter of consent from all subcontractors consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor.

2.8 Subcontractor Certifications. If subcontractor experience is submitted for consideration as part of the proposal, the offeror should include a commitment signed by offeror and subcontractor certifying that if a contract is awarded resulting from the proposal, the parties commit to joint performance as proposed. If the signed commitment is not fully executed by both parties and provided with the Past Performance Proposal, subcontractor references will not be evaluated or considered.

2.9 Past Performance Questionnaire. The offeror shall send out and track the completion of the Past Performance Questionnaire in Attachment 5 for each contract point of contact identified in the Performance Information Forms. The responsibility to timely send out and track the completion of the Past Performance Questionnaire rests solely with the offeror. The offeror shall exert its best efforts to ensure the points of contact submit completed Past Performance Questionnaires directly to the Contract Specialist as specified on the last page of the Past Performance Questionnaire by no later than 24 Aug 2023 at 12:00PM PST.

2.10 IAW FAR Part 22.805, the PCO must request pre-award clearance on Prime contractors or Teaming Partners from the appropriate Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) regional office. If an Offeror is listed in OFCCP's National Pre- award Registry, located at http://www.dol-esa.gov/preaward/pa_reg.html, the Offeror shall provide the PCO a copy of the database registration for Government verification as part of the proposal submission. If an Offeror is not listed in the registry, include a statement providing this information and the PCO will request an EEO clearance review.

Evaluation Factors for Award

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

52.212-2 EVALUATION - COMMERCIAL ITEMS (Oct 2014)

A. The government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

1. TECHNICAL

2. PRICE

3. PAST PERFORMANCE

In the integrated assessment, upon which the award assessment will be made, Past Performance is approximately equal to Price when being evaluated.

Technical factor is rated on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis.

B. Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding all CLINs for the basic period, four (4) option periods, and the six-month extension period under FAR 52.217-8, to arrive at the TEP. The Phase-in CLIN is not included in the TEP, but shall be evaluated separately for price reasonableness. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated (Ref FAR 15.404-1(g). Evaluation of the FAR 52.217-8 option shall not obligate the government to exercise the option.

C. A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the government may accept an offer whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2: Proposal Evaluation

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive, best value source selection using the Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) source selection process IAW FAR 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Supplement (DFARS) and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Supplement (AFFARS) in which competing offerors past and present performance history will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to price. These regulations are available electronically at the US Government FAR Site, Acquisition.gov. By submission of its offer in accordance with the instructions provided in clause FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors, the offeror accedes to the terms of this model contract and all such offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the solicitation and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation. Unbalanced, inaccurate, or incomplete price proposals may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.

Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined non-responsive.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, offerors' initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary at its discretion.

Initially, offers shall be ranked according to price (lowest to highest). The evaluation process shall then proceed as follows:

A. Factor 1: Technical. The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposal submitted by the lowest-priced offeror on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable. Sub-factors shall be the primary determinant and will be evaluated separately. In the event the Government awards to the lowest price offeror, it may analyze other proposals for technical acceptability for the purpose of price fair and reasonableness. Failure to meet the requirements of either sub-factor will result in a Technical rating of Unacceptable. The technical proposal will be evaluated:

1. Sub-Factor 1: to ensure that the Mission Essential Services Plan reflects a sound, logical approach to the performance of mission-essential services during a time of emergency or essential contractor service as defined at DFARS 252.237-7023; and

2. Sub-Factor 2: that the contractor demonstrates technical capability and experience in executing projects consistent with the attached PWS, and the five project subfactors described in this solicitation;

The offeror's proposal will be rated Acceptable or Unacceptable as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table C-1. If the lowest priced offeror is deemed to be technically acceptable, they will advance to the Price Evaluation. If the lowest priced offeror is deemed unacceptable, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated for technical acceptability.

Table A-1. Technical Proposal Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

B. Factor 2: Price. The Government will evaluate technically acceptable offers for award purposes on a Total Evaluated Price basis, excluding CLIN 9999 Phase-in which will be evaluated separately. TEP will be evaluated for fair and reasonable price IAW FAR 15.404-1(b); and balanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g). Any offeror's TEP found to be unreasonable IAW FAR 15.404 and FAR 31.201-3 or unbalanced IAW FAR 15.404-1(g) may not be considered for award. If the Total Evaluated Price is determined reasonable and balanced, the proposal will advance to the Performance Confidence Assessment evaluation.

C. Factor 3: Past Performance Information - Performance Confidence Assessment. Finally, the Government will seek recent and relevant performance information on the lowest priced, technically acceptable offeror based on (1) the past efforts provided by the Prime Offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources in order to determine the offeror's Performance Confidence Assessment, which is comprised of three (3) factors: Recency, Relevancy, and Quality. This relevancy portion of the evaluation will consider the Offeror's performance as a prime contractor or as a subcontractor. For Offerors proposing as a joint venture and/or mentor-protege joint venture, past performance reference citations for any joint venture member may be submitted as the capabilities and past performance of the joint venture. Contract Submissions for Subcontractors, Teaming, and Joint Venture (JV) will not be treated as highly as the submissions for the prime offeror. Offerors who submit past performance and experience information of a parent, sister, predecessor or other affiliated company must describe what involvement such company will have on the instant acquisition. The proposal should clearly indicate how the resources (its workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) of the affiliate company shall be provided or relied upon for contract performance such that the parent, sister, predecessor or affiliate will have meaningful involvement in contract performance.

1. Recency: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. Performance that is more recent will have more impact than less recent performance. Recent contracts are: (a) contracts, which have been completed within the last ten (10) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation, or (b) contracts that are currently being performed (with a performance record of at least six (6) months from the date of issuance of this solicitation).

2. Relevancy: Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities this solicitation requires (See DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4). Scope is more important than magnitude; magnitude is more important than contract type and contract environment and contract type are equal. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror's probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the offeror's demonstrated past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, or No Confidence as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5. Offerors with no recent/relevant performance history or if the offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating "Neutral Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably (neutral).

Char t C-1.

Relev ancy Defin itions

Asses sment

Area

Very Relevant Relevant Somewhat

Relevant

N o t

R el e v a n t

Scop e / Co mple xity

Contractor has performed as a prime contractor on a missile launch facility refurbishment and maintenance contract

Contractor has performed as a prime contractor on a launch facility refurbishment and /or maintenance contract

Contractor has performed as a contractor on a launch facility refurbishment and/or maintenance contract

Magn itude

$2M or greater per year. $1M or greater per year.

$250K or greater per year.

Contr act Type

Performance under a Multi-Year, Firm-Fixed Price Contract

Performance under a Multi-Year, Firm-Fixed Price Contract or Task Order

Performance under any contract type other than a Fixed Price Contract, Task Order, or Purchase Order

Contr act E nviro nmen t

Contract Performance on a United States Space Force, Air Force, or Air Reserve

Base (CONUS)

Contract Performance on a DoD installation

Contract performance at a Federal, State, County, or City facility within the United States.

Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

3. Quality: The Government will consider the performance quality of relevant efforts that are recent. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, and CPARS information. It may include interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials, interviews with commercial clients, and interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of correction actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The quality rating definitions are as follows:

E EXCEPTIONAL - Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements to the Government's benefit. The contractual performance being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

V VERY GOOD - Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements to the Government's benefit. The contractual performance being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

S SATISFACTORY - Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

M MARGINAL - Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

U UNSATISFACTORY - Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

N NEUTRAL - Performance was not observed or not applicable to the current effort being reported against.

4. In evaluating past performance, the government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed more relevant to the effort described in this solicitation.

5. If the lowest priced offer receives an Acceptable rating on the Technical evaluation, and is judged to have a "Substantial Confidence" performance confidence assessment, that offer represents the best value for the government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

6. If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have a "Substantial Confidence" performance confidence assessment, or receives an Unacceptable rating on the Technical evaluation, the next lower priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order from lowest to highest) until an offeror is judged to have a "Substantial Confidence" performance confidence assessment, or until all offerors are evaluated in which case the Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision to award to an offeror with other than a "Substantial Confidence" performance confidence assessment or not award at all.

Table 5.

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Method

Adjective Rating Description

Substantial Confidence

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the has a Government low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required efforts.

D. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information in the format specified in 52.212-1 - Instructions to Offerors. Offeror's may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, 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. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

E. The Government anticipates adequate price competition and intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

1515 ICELAND AVE RM 150, VANDENBERG SFB CA 93437-5212

VANDENBERG SFB, CA 93437-5212

UNITED STATES

Eileen Castro, Email: eileen.castro@spaceforce.mil Telephone: 805-606-2480