FA4855-17-R-0008-0003.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provi ded herei n, all t erms and condit ions of t he document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remai ns unchanged and in ful l force and effect .

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

ST ANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescr ibed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of amendment 03 to FA4855-17-R-0008 is to:

a. Revise Attachment 13 - "Questions and Answ ers" document to the RFP. The revised document incorporates industry questions on the RFP that w ere answ ered by the Government since the RFP release date of 22 May 2017.

b. Revise addendum to 52.212-2 f or the purpose of clar ifying and correcting the Government's past performance evaluation methods.

c. Revise Attachment 3 - Price Proposal Workbook for the purpose of clar ifying and correcting the Government's pr ice evaluation methods.

d. The proposal due date has been extended f rom 1400 MST 21 June 2017 to 1400 MST 26 June 2017.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE P AGE OF P AGES

J 1 13

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

16C. DAT E SIGNED

BY 13-Jun-2017

16B. UNITED ST AT ES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contract ing Officer)(Signature of person author ized t o sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, Count y, Stat e and Zip Code) X FA485517R0008

X 9B. DAT ED (SEE IT EM 11)

22-May-2017

10B. DAT ED (SEE IT EM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITAT ION NO.

11. THIS IT EM ONLY APPLIES T O AMENDMENT S OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered soli cit ati on i s amended as set forth in It em 14. The hour and date specified for rece ipt of Offer X is ext ended, is not extended.

Offer must acknowl edge rece ipt of t his amendment pri or to the hour and date specified in the sol ici tat ion or as amended by one of t he fol lowing methods:

(a) By compl eti ng Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copi es of the amendment ; (b) By acknowledgi ng recei pt of thi s amendment on each copy of t he offer submit ted;

or (c) By s epara te let ter or t elegram whi ch i ncludes a refe rence t o t he s olic ita tion and amendment numbers . FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE P LACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS P RIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SP ECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of thi s amendment you desire t o change an offer already submit ted, s uch change may be made by t elegram or let ter, provided each t elegram or l ett er makes re ference to the sol ici tat ion and this amendment , and is received prior to the openi ng hour and dat e speci fi ed.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DAT A (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 FORT H IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONT RACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. T HE ABOVE NUMBERED CONT RACT /ORDER IS MODIFIED T O REFLECT THE ADMINIST RATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORT H IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO T HE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. T HIS SUPPLEMENT AL AGREEMENT IS ENT ERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OT HER (Specify type of modification and authorit y)

E. IMPORTANT: Contract or is not, is required to sign this document and return copies t o the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/cont ract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/ MODIFICATION NO. 5. P ROJECT NO.(If appli cable )

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

12-Jun-2017

CODE

27 SOCONS/CC

110 E ALISON AVE, BLDG 600

CANNON AFB NM 88103-5321

FA4855 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other t han item 6)

4. REQUISITION/P URCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See I tem 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA485517R0008

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 21-Jun-2017 02:00 PM to 26-Jun-2017 02:00 PM.

The following have been modified:

EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT TABLE OF CO

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 1 Contractor Team Organization 1 22-May-17

Attachment 2 Financial Responsibility Questionnaire (rev. 01) 2 07-Jun-17

Attachment 3 Price Proposal Workbook (rev. 01) 3 12-Jun-17

Attachment 4 Past Performance Information Reference 2 22-May-17

Attachment 5 Past Performance Questionnaire (rev. 01) 6 07-Jun-17

Attachment 6 Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Letter 1 22-May-17

Attachment 7 Client Authorization Letter 1 22-May-17

Attachment 8 DD 254 2 22-May-17

Attachment 9 Performance Work Statement 126 9-May-17

Attachment 10 Wage Determination 15-5457 11 3-Jan-17

Attachment 11 Government Furnished Property 75 27-Apr-17

Attachment 12 CBA 2015 43 22-May-17

Attachment 13 Questions and Answers (rev. 01) 15 12-Jun-17

SSP Attachment 4 52.212-2 - Evaluation Factors for Award

*** THIS SECTION IS FOR SOLICITATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS SECTION WILL BE PHYSICALLY

REMOVED FROM ANY RESULTANT AWARD, BUT WILL BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY

REFERENCE. ***

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 PROGRAM STRUCTURE

The resulting contract from this acquisition will be a Firm Fixed Price single award contract. The Government will use a Tradeoff source selection to conduct a 100% 8(a) set-aside competition. The resulting contract will consist of a 1-year base period and up to three 1-year option periods. When questions arise between proposals where the same teaming partner or subcontractor is listed on multiple proposals, written documentation of teaming and subcontracting arrangements required as part of the management plan submission (see 3.1.1) will determine which of the proposals will be evaluated. If all proposals have written documentation of teaming or subcontracting arrangements, none of the proposals will be evaluated. If only one proposal has written documentation of teaming or subcontracting arrangements, the proposal with the written documentation will be evaluated. If none of the proposals have written documentation of teaming or subcontracting arrangements, none of the proposals will be evaluated.

2.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This acquisition will use the Tradeoff source selection procedures to make a best value award decision.

This is a competitive best value source selection whereby offerors with technically acceptable proposals will have their past performance evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price considerations. The evaluation process will proceed as follows:

Evaluate all proposals for technical acceptability and assign ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable as discussed in 3.1. Only those technical proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The Government intends to award without discussion, however, in the event the Contracting Officer determines it in the government’s best interest to enter into discussions, any offeror which was originally rated as Unacceptable could become Acceptable;

Evaluate the price of all technically Acceptable proposals. The Government will determine the offeror‘s total evaluated price using the Attachment 3 Price Proposal Workbook. All technically Acceptable proposals will be evaluated for price reasonableness in accordance with paragraph 3.2.1 and 3.2.2;

Assess performance confidence for each technically Acceptable offeror using questionnaires on recent and relevant performance information based on past and present efforts provided by the offeror proposal as well as data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources as discussed in 3.3.2.

The Government seeks to award to the offeror whose technically acceptable proposal demonstrates satisfactory or better past performance, and indicates fair and reasonable prices. In order to make the final selection the Government will start with the lowest priced, technically acceptable, offeror and move up the list in order of price ranking to determine the tradeoff described in this section. In making the award decision, the Government intends to give more weight to a past performance record that produces a substantial confidence rating than those offers that present satisfactory confidence ratings.

The Government also intends to give more weight to a substantial confidence rating than to price;

although an exceptional pricing structure and/or individual aspects of an offeror's satisfactory past performance (e.g., scope, complexity, and magnitude) may be traded off against substantial confidence.

This may result in an award to a higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the higher past performance confidence rating of a higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference. (For example, an offeror with a higher priced, substantial confidence rating may be selected over a lower priced, satisfactory confidence rating.); however, price carries significant weight. The SSA performs a best value assessment of the evaluated offerors to determine contract award. Award will be made to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required in the FAR 52.212-1 addendum of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors to represent the best value to the Government.

While the Government source selection evaluation team and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

2.1 Award Without Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial proposal should contain the offeror‘s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government may make a final determination as to whether the offerors’ proposals are acceptable or unacceptable solely on the basis of the initial proposal as submitted. Based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation factors and subfactors, the Contracting Officer may establish a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals, unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2). The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines discussions are necessary. 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 (EN‘s) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the Source Selection Decision.

Clarifications and communication exchanges may be conducted after receipt of proposals for the reasons identified in FAR 15.306(a) and (b) and the Contracting Officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision if awarding without discussions.

2.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Air Force anticipates awarding one (1) firm fixed price contract. The Air Force reserves the right to award more or fewer if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines it is in the Government's best interest based on a consideration of one or more of the following items: available funding; the need to sustain adequate competition; and the availability of best value proposals received after the proposal evaluation process.

2.3 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any proposal rated as Unacceptable. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If any aspect of an offeror's proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the offeror will be eliminated from the competitive range. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information, and in the format specified in the FAR 52.212-1 addendum.

Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (e.g., 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.

2.4 Solicitation Requirements

By submission of its proposal, 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 subfactors. All technically acceptable proposals shall be treated equally except for the respective prices and performance records. Failure to meet a requirement may result in a proposal being determined unawardable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

2.5 Financial Responsibility Questionnaire

The offeror shall provide a completed Attachment 2 Financial Responsibility Questionnaire in Tab 5 of Volume V, Contract Documentation to demonstrate the offeror‘s ability to obtain required resources. A contract may only be awarded to an offeror who has sufficient resources to perform on this contract;

therefore, the completed Financial Responsibility Questionnaire will serve as acceptable evidence to the Contracting Officer that the offeror has sufficient financial resources to cover startup expenses for this acquisition IAW FAR 9.104-3(a). The questionnaire shall be completed by a financial institution and include contact information of the issuing organization.

3 EVALUATION FACTORS

3.1 Volume II - Technical Capability Factor

All Technical Capability subfactors are weighted equally. Each subfactor within the Technical Capability factor will receive one of the ratings described in Table 4, Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method. An Unacceptable subfactor assessment will render the entire proposal unawardable. The following technical rating definitions will be used in the assessment of technical capability:

Table 4. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating

Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

The proposals will be evaluated against the following technical capability subfactors: Management Plan and Technical Approach.

3.1.1 Subfactor 1: Management Plan

The Government will evaluate the offeror‘s Management Plan to ensure it describes how the offeror satisfies the following requirements. The management plan will be evaluated on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis.

3.1.1.2. Teaming/Organization Structure

Description: The offeror’s proposal describes the organizational structure using Attachment 1 Contractor Team Organization which identifies the company name, address, contact telephone number and service categories, for the prime Contractor and all teaming partners and subcontractors that will perform under this contract as the proposed organizational structure for conducting business operations.

The Teaming/Organizational Structure ensures the coverage of all service categories.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror demonstrates the capacity to provide the full range of service categories at MAFR from the submission of their proposed organizational structure in Attachment 1 Contractor Team Organization.

3.1.1.3. Qualifications of Employees

Description: The offeror‘s proposed methodology demonstrates the offeror's process to verify and validate qualifications against Government minimum requirement. The proposal thoroughly documents proposed placement and retainage plan for key personnel, provides a reasonable basis to manpower numbers, associated job positions and position utilization for each labor category. The proposal includes a reasonable description of the skill levels for each job position and includes the certifications, licenses, and other qualifications necessary to accomplish services of the PWS. The plan described for how the offeror will maintain worker qualifications before expiration without oversight, additional cost, or intervention is logical.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror demonstrates an overall approach that ensures sufficient number of qualified personnel are utilized to ensure the Government’s minimum requirements are met. The employment criteria, organizational charts, suggested shift schedules, and any other plan elements ensure the government’s minimum requirement will be met.

3.1.1.4. Essential Personnel Management

Description: The offeror‘s proposed methodology demonstrates the offeror's ability to continue to perform the essential contractor services listed in the PWS during periods of crisis.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror provides a reasonable Mission-Essential Contractor Services Plan that meets the requirements of DFAR 252.237-7023 and 7024 and includes:

(i) Challenges associated with maintaining essential contractor services during an extended event, such as a pandemic that occurs in repeated waves;

(ii) The time lapse associated with the initiation of the acquisition of essential personnel and resources and their actual availability on site;

(iii) The components, processes, and requirements for the identification, training, and preparedness of personnel who are capable of relocating to alternate facilities or performing work from home;

(iv) Any established alert and notification procedures for mobilizing identified “essential contractor service” personnel; and

(v) The approach for communicating expectations to contractor employees regarding their roles and responsibilities during a crisis.

3.1.1.5. Transition Plan

Description: The offeror’s proposed methodology demonstrates the offeror's ability to perform all necessary transition actions identified in PWS para 1.7.6 including organizing, planning, recruiting, training, and mobilization actions necessary prior to full performance start. The offeror demonstrates an understanding of the security investigation requirements to ensure all employees have appropriate security clearances and provides a reasonable Vehicle and Heavy/Agricultural Equipment Management Plan that describes reasonable controls for managing and maintaining vehicles IAW PWS para 1.7 and 2.8.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror demonstrates the ability to complete all transition actions necessary prior to full performance start through flowcharts, checklists, critical decision points, timelines, milestones, and tracking and monitoring of employment actions as well as provides a reasonable approach for managing vehicle and agricultural equipment maintenance.

3.1.2 Subfactor 2: Technical Approach

3.1.2.1 Grounds and Facility Maintenance.

Description: The offeror’s proposal demonstrates an approach that ensures proper grounds and facility maintenance and general maintenance operations.

Measure of Merit: The requirement is met when the offeror demonstrates a sound approach to ensuring grounds and facility maintenance and general maintenance operations that is supported through the description of processes and methods to meet the PWS requirements in 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 3.2.

3.1.2.2. Air and Ground Operations

Description: The offeror’s proposal demonstrates an approach that describes operations, maintenance and support (OM&S) processes to support ground training, bombing and gunnery operations activities, and maintenance of the MAFR complex.

Measure of Merit: The requirement is met when the offeror demonstrates a sound approach for ensuring OM&S processes to support ground training, bombing operations activities that is supported through the description of processes and methods to meet the PWS requirements in 3.1.9, 3.1.10, and 3.1.14.

3.1.2.3. Electronic Warfare /Electronic Systems

Description: The offeror’s proposal demonstrates an approach that provides a simulated electronic threat environment including EWR and other electronic systems setup, operations, and maintenance.

Measure of Merit: The requirement is met when the offeror demonstrates a sound approach for ensuring a simulated electronic threat environment including EWR and other electronic systems setup, operations, and maintenance that is supported through the description of processes and methods to meet the PWS requirements in 4.1, 4.2, 4.6, 4.7, and 4.8.

3.1.2.4. Wildland Fire Management

Description: The offeror’s proposal demonstrates an approach that ensures wildland fire management operations and includes mobilization and dispatch, fire prevention and detection, annual fuels mitigation plan and training and otherwise meets the requirements of PWS section 3.6

Measure of Merit: The requirement is met when the offeror demonstrates a sound approach for ensuring wildland fire management services are provided that is supported through the description of processes and methods to meet the requirements of PWS section 3.6

3.1.2.5. Paramedic Services

Description: The approach addresses paramedic services to meet the requirements in emergency medical response, patient treatment and stabilization IAW PWS section 3.8.

Measure of Merit: The requirement is met when the offeror demonstrates a sound approach for ensuring paramedic services are provided that is supported through the description of processes and methods to meet the requirements of PWS section 3.8

3.1.2.6. Range Scheduling

Description: The approach addresses range scheduling operations IAW the PWS section 3.3, to include coordinating and scheduling between Melrose Air Force Range and Cannon AFB and how the offeror will execute the three regimes of ground, air, and wing scheduling.

Measure of Merit: The requirement is met when the offeror demonstrates a sound approach for ensuring scheduler services are provided that is supported through the description of processes and methods to meet the requirements of PWS section 3.3.

3.2 Volume III - Price Factor

The Government will evaluate the price of all technically Acceptable proposals. In the event the Contracting Officer determines to enter into discussions, any offeror which was originally rated as Unacceptable could become Acceptable. An offeror‘s price proposal will be evaluated based on the total evaluated price (TEP), which is determined by evaluating Attachment 3, Price Proposal Workbook. The price evaluation will document reasonableness of the proposed TEP.

3.2.1 Unbalanced Pricing

The Government may determine a proposal unacceptable should the proposed prices, including labor rates and other prices, be materially unbalanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques.

3.2.2 Reasonableness

The proposed prices and all fully burdened hourly labor rates in the Attachment 3, Price Proposal Workbook will be evaluated for reasonableness. Price reasonableness will be determined through adequate price competition of the Offeror‘s total evaluated price and will also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in

FAR 15.404.

3.2.3 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the offeror‘s proposed prices for each CLIN and each option period in Attachment 3, Price Proposal Workbook. Although the TEP is shown in the TEP tab of the Attachment 3, Price Proposal Workbook, it is the offeror‘s responsibility to ensure the fully burdened hourly rates and CME numbers are complete and accurate throughout the different sheets in the workbook. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes and also represents known requirements which the Government will use to award the requirements using the fully burdened hourly rates as firm fixed prices. Therefore, the offeror is cautioned to provide reasonable and balanced pricing since it will form the firm fixed price of fully burdened hourly rates on those labor categories listed in Attachment 3. After contract award, the rates on Attachment 3 will also be used as the basis of price for additional operating hour (AOH) requirements using the procedures outlined in the PWS.

3.2.4 Price Analysis

A price analysis will be conducted in lieu of a cost analysis. This source selection is conducted with the expectation of adequate price competition and will rely on market forces and price analysis to ensure awarded prices are reasonable. Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation is the preferred and intended price analysis technique. Other techniques and procedures, if deemed necessary, may be used to ensure a fair and reasonable price, to include but not limited to the following: a comparison of all offerors proposed fully burdened hourly rates; comparison of previously proposed prices and previous Government and commercial contract prices with current proposed prices for the same or similar service/items; comparison with competitive market prices of similar services; or comparison of proposed prices with independent Government cost estimates.

3.3 Volume IV - Past Performance Factor

The Government will assess performance confidence on those offeror’s determined to be technically Acceptable.

3.3.1 Ratings

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments as shown in Table 6 Performance Confidence Assessment.

3.3.2 Evaluation Process

The Past Performance evaluation considers the offeror’s past and present work record that is recent and relevant to this acquisition to assess the Government‘s confidence in the offeror‘s ability of successfully performing as proposed. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror‘s present and recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to Technical Capability and Price. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror‘s Past Performance volume and information obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), interviews with program managers and Contracting Officers, and other known commercial sources. The past performance evaluation will include verification of dates of service for recency and type of work for relevancy. A past performance reference in Volume IV must be relevant and recent to be evaluated.

3.3.3 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 six (6) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. The past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

3.3.4 Relevancy Assessment

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. Consideration will be given to performance records consisting of information demonstrating experience with the major service categories relevant to the MAFR OM&S requirement. Higher relevancy will be assessed for contracts using criteria outlined in Table 5. The Government will consider relevant performance information of teaming partners and subcontractors. In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the Government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime or teaming partner.

A more relevant past performance record will be weighted more heavily than a less relevant performance record.

The Government will use the degrees of relevancy in Table 5 Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method when assessing relevant ratings to references.

Table 5. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description Very Relevant A very relevant past performance record is one which includes recent record of performance on one or more government or commercial contract in which the offeror (including teaming partners and subcontractors) provided ALL of the following service categories on a DoD training range:

1) facility management and maintenance/repair (including plumbing repair, minor electronic, grounds, and general equipment maintenance)

2) improved roads and landing areas maintenance

3) Burn Boss services

4) ground electronic combat/electronic warfare services

5) maintenance for all associated hardware and systems

6) OM&S for command, control, and situational awareness system

(C2SA)

7) paramedic services

8) Range Control Officer services

9) Wildland Fire Operations services

Relevant A relevant past performance record is one which includes recent record of performance on one or more government or commercial contracts in which the offeror (including teaming partners and subcontractors) provided at least 5 of the following service categories on a DoD training range:

1) facility management and maintenance/repair (including plumbing repair, minor electronic, grounds, and general equipment maintenance)

2) improved roads and landing areas maintenance

3) Burn Boss services

4) ground electronic combat/electronic warfare services

5) maintenance for all associated hardware and systems

6) OM&S for command, control, and situational awareness system (C2SA)

7) paramedic services

Somewhat Relevant A somewhat relevant past performance records is one which includes recent record of performance on one or more government or commercial contract in which the offeror (including teaming partners and subcontractors) provided at least 3 of the following service categories on a DoD training range or other DoD facility:

1) facility management and maintenance/repair (including plumbing repair, minor electronic, grounds, and general equipment maintenance)

2) improved roads and landing areas maintenance

3) Burn Boss services

4) ground electronic combat/electronic warfare services

5) maintenance for all associated hardware and systems

6) OM&S for command, control, and situational awareness system (C2SA)

7) paramedic services

Not Relevant Any past performance record that that does not meet the above descriptions.

3.3.5 IDIQ Contract References

The Contractor shall determine the mix of contracts to best represent depth and breadth of past performance through relevant contracts. References on indefinite delivery contracts submitted as individual task/delivery orders will be counted as one past performance reference. Likewise, references for the same contract but different option periods will be evaluated as a single past performance reference.

3.3.6 Past Performance References

The evaluation for the Past Performance section will ensure the offeror provided a record of relevant and recent past performance on no more than eight (8) previous/current contracts. The evaluation will ensure that past performance information is provided for each teaming partner/subcontractor identified on Attachment 1 Contractor Team Organization. The Government will use data provided by each offeror in this section and data obtained from other sources in the evaluation. If more than eight (8) past performance references are submitted, the Government will only consider information provided for the first 8 references (Tabs 1-8) of the past performance volume.

3.3.7 Joint Venture

If an offeror is a joint venture (JV) with no past performance information, the past performance record of all companies forming the JV will be considered and the past performance section must contain references from each company forming the JV. If the JV company, as the offeror, has a past performance record, the past performance record of the JV company will be considered for evaluation purposes.

3.3.8 Performance Quality Assessment

The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance (see FAR 15.304(c)(2)). The past performance evaluation conducted in support of the current source selection will not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment (see paragraph 3.1.3.3). A separate quality assessment rating is not required; rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent past performance reference reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed in the past performance questionnaire, PPIRS information, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), interviews with Government customers and commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government.

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 have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

3.3.9 Performance Confidence Assessment

As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating in accordance with Table 6. The resulting Performance Confidence Assessment is made at the Past Performance factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is similar to the technical capability subfactors and price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor. A past performance confidence rating of “Satisfactory Confidence” or above may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating. Also, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance. Consideration will be given to the business relationship between the offeror and teaming partners and subcontractors listed on Attachment 1, Contractor Team Organization. Teams that have demonstrated successful performance together in the past may receive a higher confidence rating and considered more favorably than past performance records of work performed by an offeror who previously acted as a subcontractor only or either with different teaming partners and subcontractors. For the offeror proposing to be the prime Contractor, past performance as a prime Contractor will be weighed more heavily than past performance as a subcontractor. Past performance regarding predecessor companies or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will not be weighted as heavily as past performance information for the prime Contractor.

Table 6 Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully

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 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.

(End of Summary of Changes)