Amendment_1.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

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:

(i) Technical Acceptability

(ii) Past Performance

(iii) Price

Proposals will be evaluated for acceptability but will not be ranked against non-price factors or subfactors.

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(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 (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of provision)

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2—EVALUATION—COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

A. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

1. The resulting contract from this solicitation will be a firm-fixed price (FFP) contract. The Government will use Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures as described in FAR 15.101-2. This is a competitive source selection in which only Offerors who are determined in Factor 1 (Technically Acceptable), Factor 2 (Past Performance) and Factor 3 (Price) whose price is determined reasonable are eligible for award. Failure to meet a technical requirement will result in a proposal being determined technically unacceptable. The LPTA evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

2. All proposals will be evaluated and ranked according to total overall price. The Government will evaluate Technical acceptability, past performance acceptability, and price and only those meeting all three evaluation factors will be considered for award.

3. The past performance rating will utilize questionnaires (RFP Attachment 5) on recent and relevant performance information based on past and present efforts provided by the Offeror’s proposal as well as data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources.

4. Award will be made to the lowest priced Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9.104. However, the Government reserves their right not to award a contract, depending on the quality of proposal(s) submitted and the availability of funds. Evaluation will be conducted as outlined in “Evaluation Factors.”

B. SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

By submission of its proposal in accordance with instructions provided in the FAR Clause

52.212-1 Addendum, 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 sub-factors. All technically acceptable proposals shall be treated equally except for the respective prices. Failure to meet a requirement will result in a proposal being determined unawardable.

C. EVALUATION FACTORS:

All technical acceptability sub-factors are weighted equally. Each sub-factor within the technical acceptability factor will receive either an acceptable or unacceptable technical acceptability rating. An unacceptable sub-factor assessment will render the entire proposal unawardable. The proposals will be evaluated against the following four technical acceptability sub-factors: 1) Equipment, 2) Program Management (Organizational Structure/Staffing Plan) 3) Experience and 4) Quality Control Plan/Transition Plan.

D. TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY RATINGS

Acceptable

Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable

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

Using the instructions provided below, provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology the Offeror would use for accomplishing/satisfying these sub-factors. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. By the Offeror’s proposal submission, the Offeror is representing that the Offeror’s firm will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation, but instead discuss how the Offeror plans to accomplish each of the requirements.

Volume II– Technical Acceptability Factor 1 (Maximum 20 pages) Tab 1. Table of Contents

Tab 2: Sub-factor 1 –Equipment

The offeror must include the list of equipment he/she proposes to use during the life of the contract. The list shall include as a minimum, the planned number and type of aircraft, the aircraft performance and technical characteristics, specifications and capabilities as IAW Performance Work Statement (PWS) para 1.0 – 1.4.9.1.

1. All contract aircraft and flight equipment used for performance under this contract is certified, operated, and maintained in accordance with applicable FAA regulations and directives? (PWS para 1.3.1)

2. Aircraft used for the performance under this contract meets the following aircraft performance characteristics PWS para 1.3.1.1 – 1.3.1.2

3. Offeror has submitted an aircraft fuel burn consumption computation along with the proposal to assist in estimating fuel costs to the government? (PWS para 1.3.2)

4. Each aircraft used for the performance under this contract meets the following aircraft technical characteristics and mission specific requirements? (PWS para 1.4)

a. Transmit & receive on the UHF radio frequency band (225 MHz to 399.975 MHz) to include simultaneous monitoring of 2.43.0 MHz. (PWS para 1.4.1)

5. Each aircraft used for the performance under this contract have additional seating immediately aft of the pilot and co-pilot seats, (for a minimum total number of four usable seats) (PWS para 1.4.9.1)

A rating of unacceptable in one or more of the technical sub-factors will constitute an overall rating of unacceptable for the technical evaluation.

Tab 2: Sub-factor 2 - Program Management

1. Organizational Structure: Provide an acceptable organizational chart showing staffing positions with a title and location for each position. Describe the process to recruit, hire, and retain personnel necessary to meet PWS requirements. Describes the way the offerors structure will interface with the Government.

2. Staffing Plan: Provide an acceptable staffing plan, with proposed workforce resumes to meet following requirements below:

i. All contractor employees shall have the following current and valid professional certifications before starting work under the contract:

a. Maintenance Supervisor: FAA Airframe and Propulsion (A&P) License (PWS para 4.1.2.2.1)

b. Pilots: Commercial Pilot License with instrument ratings. (PWS para 4.1.2.2.2)

ii. All aircrew personnel are:

a. Certified in accordance with the applicable FAA directives for their respective duties (PWS Para 4.1.3.1.1)

b. Able to operate aircraft within FAA, USAF, and host unit regulations (PWS para 4.1.3.1.2)

c. Able to operate aircraft within FAA flight time and crew duty time limitations (PWS para 4.1.3.1.3)

A rating of unacceptable in one or more of the technical sub-factors will constitute an overall rating of unacceptable for the technical evaluation.

Tab 3. Sub-factor 3 – Quality Control and Transition Plan

The quality control and transition plan is acceptable when the Offeror has provided an effective and complete approach that adequately addresses requirements of the PWS IAW 4.16 and 1.13 to ensure services provided meet the performance objectives and thresholds identified in the services summary (paragraph 2.0 of the PWS).

1. Provide a Quality Assurance Plan in accordance with FAA regulations for all services and materials rendered in addition to the following criteria: (PWS para 4.15)

a. Flight and ground safety program (PWS para 4.15.2)

b. Training program for aircrew and ground crew (PWS para 4.15.3)

c. Maintenance procedures and inspection schedule (PWS para 4.15.5)

d. Emergency procedures (PWS para 4.15.6)

2. Provide a Transition Plan and describe how the transition plan meets the objective of becoming one hundred per cent self-sufficient by contract start date (PWS para 1.13.4.1)

A rating of unacceptable in one or more of the technical sub-factors will constitute an overall rating of unacceptable for the technical evaluation.

Tab 4. Sub-factor 4 – Experience (Offeror)

1. The experience sub-factor is technically acceptable when the Offeror provides an acceptable description of recent Battle Management Command and Control training, live fire training, weapon system evaluation and directed development test and evaluation. Experience can be demonstrated either as a prime contractor or team effort, and either through a single prior or current contract or by a combination of prior and/or current contracts. Experience information consists of activities performed within the previous 3 years from the issue date of this solicitation. The experience will include as a minimum:

a. Documentation of previous work that demonstrates experience in tasks required to perform Flight Services IAW PWS para 1.6.

b. Documentation of previous work that demonstrates experience in tasks required to perform Contractor Instructional Services IAW PWS para 1.7.

Tab 5. Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

Volume III – Past Performance Factor

Tab 1: Table of Contents

Tabs 2: Past Performance References

E. PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS

Rating

Description

1. All past performance references in Volume IV must be relevant and recent to be evaluated.

2. Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, a current effort must be ongoing for at least six (6) months prior to the date of issuance of this solicitation. A completed effort must have been performed during the past three (3) years with at least six (6) months of that effort in the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

3. Relevancy Assessment. Relevancy includes performance of efforts involving requirements that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity than the effort described in the solicitation. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts most closely resemble the scope, magnitude, and complexity of this solicitation. Scope considers the range of service categories provided. Complexity considers the contract type. Magnitude considers the overall dollar value of the effort. Consideration will be given to business relationships between the Offeror and teaming partners.

4. Performance Quality Assessment. For each recent past performance reference reviewed, the

Government will consider the performance quality of the work performed. In addition to evaluating the extent to which the Offeror’s past performance met basic contract PWS and technical requirements, the assessment will consider things such as reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction, and generally, the contractor’s business-like concern for the interest of the customer. The performance quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. The Offeror will be afforded the opportunity to respond to any adverse information which has not been previously addressed. For adverse information identified, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

5. Past Performance References. Past Performance References. Provide the past performance questionnaire, Attachment 2 to the RFP, to your references and ensure they complete the assessment and forward no later than 10 calendars days prior to the date set for the receipt of proposals to: 325th Contracting Squadron, Attn: Ms. Nell Matchkus/Ms. Deborah Williams, 501 Airey Ave, Suite 5, Tyndall AFB FL 32403-5526, or email to nell.matchkus@us.af.mil or deborah.williams.3@us.af.mil. Teaming partners should also ensure past performance information is provided.

Volume IV – Price Factor – FACTOR 3 (Maximum 12 pages) Tab 1: SF 1449 and All Amendments

E. PRICING EVALUATION PROCESS

1. The Government will evaluate the price information submitted in each Offeror’s price proposal, as required by the FAR Clause 52.212-1 Addendum, to determine if proposed prices are fair and reasonable using one or more of the proposal analysis techniques defined in FAR 15.404. If the proposal information provided is insufficient to make a determination of price reasonableness, the CO may request data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, and/or may use other proposal analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404 to make a determination of price reasonableness. A contract will not be awarded to an Offeror whose price is not determined to be fair and reasonable. Any other information provided by the Offeror not required by the FAR Clause 52.212-1 Addendum will not be considered or evaluated.

2. Complete blocks 12, 17a, and 30a, b, and c of the SF 1449. In doing so, the Offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the SOLICITATION, with attachments. The SOLICITATION constitutes the model contract.

3. Price proposals will be evaluated on the total evaluated price (TEP). The TEP will be calculated as follows: The FFP fully burdened unit price for each line item for CLINs 0001, 0002, and X001s will be multiplied by the corresponding months for each CLIN for a total amount. The sum of the total amounts will calculate the TEP for the basic and all option periods.

4. FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, is included in the RFP and will be incorporated into the resultant contract; upon exercise, the clause will extend the terms and conditions of the contract period being extended at the rates specified in the contract, the evaluation of which will be considered and included in the initial evaluation of the proposal (to include the base period plus all option periods) as demonstrated herein. Proposed pricing for the 6-month extension will be based on fifty percent (50%) of ANY option period where the 6-month extension may be used to cover the option to extend services IAW clause 52.217-8. Offerors shall not include pricing in their proposals for this clause as pricing will be based on the monthly rate of each option period in which FAR 52.217-8 may be exercised. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

(End of Addendum) (End of Summary of Changes)