Attch 8 Solicitation Amendment FA469024R00050001 SF 30.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

1. The purpose of this Amendment to the subject solicitation is to include the following Block 14 (Description of Amendment/Modification):

changes:

a) Add a revised PPQ Letter that reflects the change in response due date from 2 August 2024 to 7 August 2024 (attachment 3).

b) Add Question and Answers (Attachment 7)

c) Revise Contract Clause Addendum to 52.212-1-Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items (July 2013).

d) Revise Contract Clause Addendum to 52.212-2-Evaluation- Commercial Items (Jan 1999)

List of Attachments

The following attachments were added:

Attachment 3_Past Performance Questionnaire Letter_Rev2 Attachment_6_Questions and Answers

The following attachments were deleted:

Attachment 3_Past Performance Questionnaire Letter

Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors or Quoters

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1 -- INSTRUCTION TO OFFERORS,

COMMERCIALCIALPRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES (SEP 2023)

Proposals received are subject to the requirements specified in FAR 52.212-1 unless otherwise tailored in the Addendum to the solicitation.

1. Proposal Preparation Instructions.

1.1. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of offers, offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, and representations and certifications, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. By submission of its proposal the offeror agrees to hold the prices firm for 180 calendar days from the closing date. Offerors shall submit only one proposal as the Government will review only one proposal per offeror.

1.2. All submissions shall reference the solicitation number: FA4690-24-R-0005.Proposals must be received no later than 4:30 pm Mountain Daylight Time, 7 August 2024. Failure to furnish complete proposal may result in the proposal being determined non-responsive by the government. Submission of the initial proposal packages will only be accepted via electronic mail. Proposal shall be submitted prior to the time set for proposal closing to:

CS: timeaki.mcphee@us.af.mil CO: brandon.montler.2@us.af.mil

1.3. Direct any questions or concerns you have to Timeaki McPhee and Brandon Montler. All questions must be in writing and will be accepted via email to and Requests For Information (RFI) will not be answered via timeaki.mphee@us.af.mil brandon.montler.2@us.af.mil.

phone. For verification that your written request was received, offerors may contact Timeaki McPhee at 605-385-1743. All questions must be submitted no later than 4:30 pm Mountain Daylight Time 2 August 2024.

FA469024R00050001

mailto:timeaki.mphee@us.af.mil

1.4. The offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table below. The title sand contents of the volumes will be as defined in this table, all which shall be within the required page limitation and with the number of copies as specified. Pages exceeding the page limitations indicated in this Section will be removed from the proposal and will not be read or evaluated and may render the proposal unacceptable.

The proposal organization shall be as follows:

V ol u m e N o.

Volume Title Maximum Number of Pages

I SF 1449, Six Month Extension Bid Schedule, Representations and Certifications, and any other fill-in clauses and provisions that are included in the different sections of this solicitation. Included all amendments in this volume.

As Required

II Past Performance, comprehensive list of recent and relevant contracts 6 (PPQ shall be sent directly to 28 CONS by the rater, PPQs will not count against the six-page limit.)

III Technical Capability 25

1.5. A page is defined as each face of a sheet of paper containing information. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages. Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, not including foldouts. Pages shall be single spaced with 1.5 spacing. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be no less than 10 point. Tracking, kerning, and leading values shall not be changed from the default values of the word processing or page layout software. Use at least 1 inch margins on the top and bottom and 3/4-inch side margins. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. These page size and format restrictions shall apply to responses to evaluation notices.

2. General Format and Content.

The offeror shall submit the following volumes of material. A complete proposal consists of three (3) separate volumes:

Volume I - Completed Request for Proposal (RFP)

Completed RFP shall consist of the completed and signed RFP (SF1449, Bid Schedule, Reps and Certs, and other fill-ins), to include any amendments issued, with a cover letter delineating any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions with accompanying rationale. However, offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP may cause their proposal to be determined unacceptable and therefore not considered eligible for award. Offerors shall ensure that all clauses and provisions that require "fill in" information are appropriately completed, including the proposed prices associated with the contract line items in the Schedule of the RFP.

Offerors shall fill out the Bid Schedule (Attachment 5) and transfer unit and yearly pricing to associated contract line items in the Schedule of the RFP. Offerors shall validate pricing on the Bid Schedule and RFP.

Volume II - Past and Present Performance

PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION - Only references for same or similar type contract desired.

(a) Quality and Satisfaction Rating for Contracts Completed in the Past Five (5) Years: Provide any information currently available (letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc.) which demonstrates customer satisfaction with overall job performance and quality of completed product for same or similar type contract. In addition, explain corrective actions taken in the past, if any, for substandard performance and any current performance problems such as cost overruns, extended performance periods, numerous warranty calls, etc.

(b) Comprehensive List of Recent and Relevant Contracts in the Past Five (5) Years: Provide a comprehensive list of recent and relevant contracts over the past five- (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. Include the following:

(1) Contract Number

(2) Total dollar value (original and final)

FA469024R00050001

(3) Contracting Agency

(4) Title of Contract

(5) Government program manager (name, address, phone number)

(6) Description of program/project

(7) Contracting Officer (name, address, and phone number)

(8) Period of performance

(9) Type of Contract (Firm Fixed Price, Fixed Price Incentive, Cost Plus Fixed Fee, Cost Plus Award Fee, etc.)

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE - Only references for same or similar type contract desired.

Questionnaires shall be sent directly to the 28th Contracting Squadron, Ellsworth Air Force Base.

(a) Performance Questionnaires: 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 performance. Using the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 6) provide no more than six (6), of the most relevant contracts performed for Federal agencies and commercial customers within the last five (5) years. Relevant contracts include comprehensive data processing in a production environment that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude and complexity than the effort described in the Performance Work Statement. The evaluation of past performance information will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition.

(b) If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent past/present performance information on previous teaming arrangements with same partner. If this is a first time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of past and present relevant contracts.

(c) Subcontractor Consent: Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor's consent. Provide with the proposal a letter from all subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor.

(d) The Present/Past Performance Questionnaire (see RFP Attachment 4) will be one means used by the Government to obtain present/past performance information. The Government reserves the right to change, alter, and/or supplement the questionnaire without further notice to the offeror(s). The offeror shall send out and track the completion of the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires (See RFP Attachment 4) to each of the offeror's, joint venture members and/or critical subcontractors. The responsibility to send out and track the completion of the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires rests solely with the offeror - i.e., it shall not be delegated to any other entity. Exert your best effort to ensure that at least two POCs per relevant contract submit a completed Present/Past Performance Questionnaire directly to the Government not later than the date established in the RFP for receipt of proposals. POCs may submit their completed Present/Past Performance Questionnaire electronically. If sending electronically, email to: timeaki.mcphee@us.af.mil and brandon.montler.2@us.af.mil.

Volume III - Written Technical Proposal

(a) General: The written technical proposal shall be clear, concise, and include all the information required by this provision in sufficient detail for effective evaluation. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume the Government has no prior knowledge of their capabilities, work processes, facilities, and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror's technical proposal.

(b) Format and Specific Content: The following information shall be provided in the written technical proposal and will be evaluated to assess technical acceptability in accordance with Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation - Commercial Items, Basis for Award. Note: The object of the technical factor is to focus in on a significant discriminator (or discriminators) that will allow the Government to assess technical acceptability.

Here you will need to identify your technical discriminators. If technical subfactors are used, they should be kept to a minimum. The written technical proposal shall address each of the following subfactors to describe the offeror's proposed approach to performing the requirements set forth in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

Subfactor One: Quality Control Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable).

The Offeror shall provide a Quality Control Plan outlining their approach, including the following:

(1) The offeror shall propose a quality control plan that adequately evaluates how the contractor will provide quality control and the submittal of a feasible quality control plan suitable as a compliance document upon award. The quality control plan, as mentioned in the Paragraph 2.2 of the PWS, will be evaluated based upon the proposed approach of accountability for all work and shall include all applicable areas of the PWS.

: Staffing Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable).Subfactor Two

The Offeror shall provide a Staffing Plan outlining their approach, including the following:

(1) The offeror shall propose a staffing plan that identifies the method for hiring and retaining skilled manpower needed for this requirement IAW PWS Paragraphs 2.1 and 3.0 thru 3.1.2. Provide resume clearly demonstrating the firm's capability to provide one Program Manager with a minimum of 1 year experience managing a staff of 18+ personnel in a production-based environment. The 1 year experience shall be within the past 5 years. The resume shall not exceed four pages in length.

(End of Provision Addendum)

Evaluation Factors for Award

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION -PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES (NOV 2021)

1. Basis for Contract Award.

a. Source Selection Methodology:

This acquisition will utilize the procedures in FAR Part 13 and be awarded on a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) basis as described in paragraph 2a below.

2.Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows:

a. General

The Government intends to award a firm fixed price contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, will be most advantageous to the Government.

Offers submitted without documentation that will allow for evaluation and determination to be made that all requirements have been met in the offer will be deemed not acceptable.

Step 1 - Review all submitted quotes for responsiveness (Responsiveness is met when all Instructions to Offers have been followed and completed by the offer due date). All quotes deemed responsive will be moved to step 2.

Step 2 - Order all submitted offers from lowest to highest by Total Evaluated Price (TEP) (Total Evaluated Price includes all pricing combined to provide this requirement, including the -8 6-monthextension).

Step 3 - Submit the offer that is found to be the Lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for Technical Evaluation (see paragraphs b-d below). This evaluation will continue until an offer is found technically acceptable. Once an offer is found technically acceptable the step 3 technical evaluation process will stop. The lowest offer found technically acceptable will move to Step 4.

Step 4 - Price Analysis will be performed on the lowest technically acceptable offer. If pricing is determined to be fair and reasonable, then contract award will be made to that lowest technically acceptable offeror. If pricing is determined to not be fair and reasonable or unbalanced, the process will start again at step 3 until a determination of price fair and reasonableness can be reached. If no submitted quote can meet all 4 required steps, the Government will review the solicitation criteria and make a determine if clarification is required through a Solicitation amendment or if the solicitation should be cancelled.

b. Volume I

(1) Completed RFP

Proposals will be reviewed for responsiveness. A responsive proposal shall consist of the completed Bid Schedule and signed RFP, to include any amendments issued, with a cover letter delineating any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions with accompanying rationale. However, offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP may cause their proposal to be determined unacceptable and therefore not considered eligible for award. Offerors shall ensure that all clauses and provisions that require "fill-in" information are appropriately completed, including the proposed prices associated with the contract line items in the Schedule of the RFP.

(2) Price

The Government will evaluate prices using the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) method. The TEP will include the base period, all option periods, and the option extension period per FAR 52.217-8 when combined will equal the TEP.

Reasonableness. Price analysis will be used to determine if prices are too high.

The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the CLIN prices are significantly unbalanced, and the offer may be excluded. An mathematically unbalanced if prices in the offer are significantly less than prices for some contract line items and significantly overstated offer is in relationship to price for others.

c. Volume II, Technical Factor

(1) General:

The technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the Performance Work Statement, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements.

The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail.

Subfactor One: Quality Control Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable). This subfactor is met when the offeror provides an approach to providing quality control and the submittal of a feasible quality control plan suitable as a compliance document. The quality control plan, as mentioned in the

2.2 of the PWS, will be evaluated based upon the proposed approach of accountability for all work and shall include all applicable areas Paragraph of the PWS.

Measure of Merit: Provide a Quality Control Plan that addresses performance trends, problem areas, and the corrective actions that would be taken performance becomes unacceptable. Identify the position/personnel that will be assigned to monitor Quality Control.before

Subfactor Two: Staffing Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable). This subfactor is met when the offeror provides a Staffing Plan outlining their approach and identifies the method for hiring and retaining skilled manpower needed for this requirement IAW PWS Paragraphs 2.1and 3.0 thru 3.1.2.

Offeror provides a resume clearly demonstrating the firm's capability to provide one Program Manager with a minimum of 1 year experience managing a staff of18+ personnel in a production-based environment. The 1 year experience shall be within the past 5 years.

Measure of Merit: Provide a resume demonstrating one Program Manager with a minimum of 1 year experience managing a staff 18+ personnel in a production-based environment. The three years' experience shall be within the past 5 years.

(2) Technical Rating:

The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror's technical approach for meeting the Government's requirement. The offeror's proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an "acceptable" rating in every subfactor.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

a. Volume III, Past Performance Factor

(1) General:

The past performance assessment will assess the offeror's/joint venture members' ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror's demonstrated present and past work record. The Government will evaluate the offeror's/joint venture members 'demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying services that meet users' needs, including cost and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor's performance will be considered. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past five (5) years from the issuance

. The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used),date of this solicitation affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror's past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort. direct and

(2) Past Performance Assessment:

In assessing present and past performance in accordance with FAR Part 13.106-2, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

A) Other Sources of Information:

Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror's Present/Past Performance volume and Past Performance Questionnaires. Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government's Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other Federal sources or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

B) Adverse Past Performance:

Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and /or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

C) Key Personnel:

The evaluation of the offeror's/joint venture members' present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any key personnel even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

(3) Relevancy Definitions:

The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent six (6) submitted contracts. The Government is not bound by the offeror's opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror's Volume II of its proposal:

* RELEVANT: Present/past performance includes comprehensive data processing in a production environment that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude and complexity than the effort described in the Performance Work Statement.

* NOT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the above definitions not only includes the technical complexities identified for each effort, but also considerations including but not limited to dollar values, type, and complexity for each effort. When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical complexities, and the scope and magnitude of effort as separate aspects. If both of these aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract effort, the overall relevancy rating assigned to that contract will be affected. For example, if the submitted contract meets essentially the same technical complexities but involves only some of the scope and magnitude of effort, a lesser relevancy rating will be assigned.

The Contract Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities to be used in the relevancy evaluation are based on expected magnitude of work and complexities for the instant acquisition, Travel-pay Processing Services. They are as follows:

(3.1) Expected Magnitude of Work and Complexities:

* Estimated Total Dollar Value: The Government's estimated acquisition value is not releasable; however, the offeror's efforts will be evaluated against the Government's estimate.

* Scope and Complexities: Comprehensive data processing in a production environment that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude and complexity than the effort described in the Performance Work Statement.

(4) Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor.

Past Performance Evaluation Ratings:

Adjectiv al Rating

Description

Accepta ble

Based on the offeror's performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror's performance record is known. (See note below)

Unaccep table

Based on the offeror's performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not readily available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or "neutral") past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered "acceptable."

(End of Provision Addendum)

1000 ELLSWORTH ST STE 1200, CP 605 385 1746

ELLSWORTH AFB, SD 57706-4947

UNITED STATES

TIMEAKI MCPHEE, Email: timeaki.mcphee@us.af.mil Telephone: 605-385-1743 AdminBy:

SCD: PAS: