Amendment_0003_Q_and_A_and_updated_SOW.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to update the current Statement of w ork and to add Attachment 10 Questions and Answ ers.

A. Attachment 9, Revised Statement of Work dated 24 Nov 2014 has been added to FA4855-15-R-0007.

B. Attachment 10, Questions and Answ ers dated 24 Nov 14 has been added to FA4855-15-R-0007. This attachment includes question and answ ers that w ere emailed from potential offerors presented up until the suspense date of 18 Nov 14 aa w ell as questions posed at the site visit held on 12 Nov 14.

C. Section M Evaluation Factors, section B. (c) Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Plan has been revised.

P.O.C.- Connor DeJac, connor.dejac@us.af.mil, 575-784-6133

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 6

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 24-Nov-2014

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X FA4855-15-R-0007

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

31-Oct-2014

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE

RECEIVED AT THE 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 telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

24-Nov-2014

CODE

27 SOCONS/CC

110 E ALISON AVE, BLDG 600

CANNON AFB NM 88103-5321

FA4855 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA4855-15-R-0007

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The Table of Contents has changed from:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 1 Gantt Schedule 2 28-OCT-2014

Attachment 2 GCS Conversion Proof of

Concept and list of materials

16 24-OCT-2014

Attachment 3 GCS Room Layout 1 25-OCT-2014

Attachment 4 Government Furnished

Materials

4 24-OCT-2014

Attachment 5 Performance Reference

Form

2 28-OCT-2014

Attachment 6 Past and Present

Performance

Questionnaire

5 29-OCT-2014

Attachment 7 DD Form 254 2 29-OCT-2014

Attachment 8 Wage Determination 24 30-SEP-2014

Attachment 9 Statement Of Work 7 25-OCT-2014 to:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 1 Gantt Schedule 2 28-OCT-2014

Attachment 10 Ground Control Station

Q&A

7 24-NOV-2014

Attachment 2 GCS Conversion Proof of

Concept and list of materials

16 24-OCT-2014

Attachment 3 GCS Room Layout 1 25-OCT-2014

Attachment 4 Government Furnished

Materials

4 24-OCT-2014

Attachment 5 Performance Reference

Form

2 28-OCT-2014

Attachment 6 Past and Present

Performance

Questionnaire

5 29-OCT-2014

Attachment 7 DD Form 254 2 29-OCT-2014

Attachment 8 Wage Determination 24 30-SEP-2014

Attachment 9 Attachment 9 Statement of Work

7 24-NOV-2014

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M EVALUATION FACTORS

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a Trade-off IAW FAR 15.101, DFARS 215 and DoD Source

Selection Procedures, in which competing offers’ technical capability and past performance information, when combined, are approximately equal to price. By submission of its offer in accordance with the instructions provided by Section-L Instructions, conditions, and notices to offerors or respondents, 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. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

A. Price Evaluation: Offers shall initially be ranked according to lowest total evaluated price. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in the SF33 by the unit price for each item to confirm the extended amount for each CLIN.

B. Technical Evaluation: The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate all offerors’ technical proposals (Part I – Technical Capability) on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each factor. Any factor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the

Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion. The term “technical” as used herein, refers to non-price factors other than past performance. The purpose of the technical factor is to assess whether the offeror’s proposal will satisfy the government’s minimum requirements.

IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures Appendix A, paragraph A.2.1.1, Table 1, the Government will use the following table to assess the contractor’s technical acceptability:

The following Technical Capability factors will be evaluated:

(a) Quality Control Plan: The offeror will receive an acceptable rating for the factor if the written approach demonstrates a clear understanding of the SOW section 7.2 and adheres to the instructions provided in

Section-L Instructions, conditions, and notices to offerors or respondents. The approach shall not merely be an offer to perform the work in accordance with the SOW and, to the maximum extent practicable, shall outline and describe actual methods proposed to meet the requirements of the contract. The plan shall be a thoughtful presentation of the contractor’s quality control measures from project start to finish.

(b) Contract Schedule – The contractor will receive an acceptable rating if they can provide a schedule that meets the requirements of Section-L Instructions, conditions, and notices to offerors or respondents and; is realistic in terms of the milestones of each GCS conversions as detailed in the Gantt Schedule and; provides a rational approach associated with the conversions.

TABLE 1 - Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Description

ACCEPTABLE Proposal clearly meets minimum requirements of the solicitation

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

(c) Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Plan- The contractor will receive an Acceptable rating if the contractor clearly addresses all potential organizational conflict of interests and how they plan on avoiding them, also the plan must have evidence showing how personnel tasked against this effort will be required to be dedicated to perform work to it. If the Government determines the plan suffciently describes that no potential conflicts of interest exist, the contractors plan will be further evaluated on how the contractor plans to have personnel solely dedicated to this requirement.

C. Past Performance Evaluation: After the Government has completed an initial price ranking as described in paragraph A, Price Evaluation, and evaluated all proposals for technical acceptability IAW paragraph B, Technical Evaluation, the Government will conduct past performance evaluations. The Government’s past performance evaluation team shall only evaluate the past performance on offerors who have received an overall rating of acceptable for the technical evaluation. The Government will conduct past performance evaluations in order of lowest total evaluated price. The past performance team shall seek recent and relevant performance information based on (1) the references provided by the offeror, (2) completed questionnaires submitted to this office, and (3) data independently obtained from other government sources.

(a) Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past six (6) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(b) Relevancy Assessment. The Government will evaluate all recent performance information to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to this requirement. For each recent reference and/or past performance questionnaire reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will be assessed using the following ratings:

TABLE 2 - Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

VERY RELEVANT

Present/past performance has experience with the modification, infrastructure, and operations of Mobile Ground Control Stations and/ or Fixed Ground Control

Station to include interface with the MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper weapons systems and operations center infrastructures in Remote Split Operations configuration.

RELEVANT

Present/past performance has experience with the infrastructure and operations of

Mobile Ground Control Stations and/ or Fixed Ground Control Station and associated systems in Remote Split Operations configuration or any modification to those systems.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

Present/past performance experience with maintenance of Mobile Ground Control

Stations and/or Fixed Ground Control Station configurations.

NOT RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(c) Performance Confidence Assessments. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5, Performance Confidence Assessments. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be considered as highly as past performance information for the principal file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/1.%20%20Published%20Baseline/MP5315.3.doc offeror. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history or the offeror’s performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating “Unknown Confidence”, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

D. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to supply services described in the solicitation that meet users’ needs, based on the offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance. The past performance evaluation team will conduct recency and relevancy assessments as described when reviewing each offeror’s demonstrated record of performance.

In evaluating past performance, the government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation and to seek information on higher priced offerors if none of the lower priced offerors receive a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment rating.

E. If the lowest priced proposal was evaluated to be technically acceptable and the offeror is judged to have a

“Substantial Confidence”, that offeror 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.

F. If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment or until all offerors are evaluated. The Source Selection

Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

G. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in the proposal preparation instructions to permit a meaningful assessment of past performance. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal 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.

TABLE 5 - Performance Confidence Assessments

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.

LIMITED CONFIDENCE Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a 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 effort.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE

(NEUTRAL)

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.

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

(End of Summary of Changes)