FA4890-12-R-0012_Amendment_0002.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 w ording in paragraph 4.2. "Factor 2 - Technical Capability" of Section 7 Evaluation Criteria.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 7

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 02-Nov-2012

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 FA4890-12-R-0012

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

16-Oct-2012

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

02-Nov-2012

CODE

ACC AMIC/PKB

11817 CANON BLVD. STE. 306

NEWPORT NEWS VA 23606-4516

FA4890 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA4890-12-R-0012

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 7 - EVALUATION CRITERIA

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2

Section 7 - Evaluation Factors for Award

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (Jan 1999)

1.0 BASIS OF AWARD

This competitive best value source selection will be conducted using the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable

(LPTA) source selection process in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by

Negotiation, Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures effective 1 July 2011 and Air Force

Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5315.3 for Source Selection as revised 4 Aug 2011. Award will be made to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9, whose proposal conforms to the solicitations requirements, is the lowest evaluated price with an “Acceptable” rating in all technical subfactors and past performance. If an offeror fails to meet all solicitation requirements, the

Government may not make an award to that offeror. The LPTA source selection process does not permit tradeoffs between price and non-price factors. Only one award will be made as a result of this solicitation.

IAW FAR 15.306, Exchanges With Offerors After Receipt of Proposals, and 52.215-1, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR

15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

This is a best value procurement. The Government reserves the right to incorporate into this contract, by reference or full text, portions of the successful offeror’s proposal submitted in response to this solicitation and as revised and supplemented through the date of Final Proposal Revision (FPR). The Performance Work Statement (PWS) and the terms and conditions of this contract take precedence over any ambiguity in the contractor’s proposal. In those areas where the contractor’s proposal exceeds the stated PWS requirements, the contractor’s proposal is binding and prevails. The contractor is expected and required to adhere to their proposed approach in meeting the contract requirements.

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.

2.0 FINAL PROPOSAL REVISION (FPR)

The Government reserves the right to award without discussion based on the initial proposals submitted. Therefore, offerors are cautioned to submit their best proposal initially. However, discussions may be held and result in Final

Proposal Revisions (FPRs). The intent of FPRs is for price changes only. Any technical revision or non-concurrence to contract terms and conditions submitted in the FPR may not be subject to further discussion or negotiation, and may render the offer unacceptable to the Government. This provision is not intended to restrict the offeror’s opportunity to revise figures (i.e., prices, discounts, percentages, rates, etc.) Rather, it is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government, which could result if new or revised terms and conditions are submitted in the FPR that have not been fully disclosed, discussed and understood during discussions or negotiations. Hence, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the FPR, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government. The Government intends to award without obtaining any further revisions or conducting any further discussions.

3.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The award decision will be made on the basis of Lowest Price Technically Acceptable. In order to be eligible for award, offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions; representations and certifications; evaluation factor requirements; and be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9. If an offeror fails to meet all solicitation requirements, the Government may not make an award to that offeror.

Proposals will be evaluated using three Factors: (1) Price, (2) Technical Capability, and (3) Past Performance.

There are four subfactors under the Technical Capability factor. They are (A) Manning Requirements and Analysis,

(B) Training Management and Approach, (C) Courseware Development Approach, Instructional Systems

Development Management Plan (ISDMP), and Quality Program Plan (QPP), and (D) All Other Plans and

Contractor-Furnished Equipment. All subfactors are equal in importance in regard to technical acceptance.

Proposals will be evaluated by Technical, Past Performance, and Price. After technical and past performance acceptability has been determined, proposals will be ranked by price from lowest to highest. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions or to establish the competitive range IAW FAR 15.306(c). The competitive range may be further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2). If discussions are utilized, ENs will be issued to those offerors in the competitive range allowing them the opportunity to revise their proposals. Once the SSEB determines that all ENs have been satisfactorily answered, discussions will be closed. Once discussions have concluded, if an offeror’s proposal has an “Unacceptable” rating for any non-price subfactor, this proposal will be unawardable.

4.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

4.1 Factor 1 – Price

Price will be evaluated using techniques established in FAR 15.404-1 to ensure the Government receives a fair, reasonable and balanced price. If the Government cannot determine the proposed pricing to be fair and reasonable, other than cost and pricing data will be obtained from the offerors. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all CLINS including phase-in, basic period, option years, and fifty percent

(50%) of the last option period price to cover the option to extend services IAW clause 52.217-8. There is a great expectation of competition for this requirement; offerors are cautioned to present their best price proposal up-front.

The offeror’s price proposal shall represent the offeror’s best effort to respond to the solicitation. The burden of proof as to price credibility rests solely with the offeror.

NOTE: Evaluation of the option periods shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

4.1.1 Materially Unbalanced Offer. Unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal. Prices that are so low that the Government, in its sole discretion, determines cannot be executed will be reviewed to assess whether they indicate an error or disconnect with the offeror’s technical proposal (which should be discussed with the offeror).

4.1.2 Completeness. The price proposal will be evaluated for completeness in relation to the offeror’s proposed technical and management approach and to ensure that it reflects a clear understanding of the requirement.

4.2 Factor 2 – Technical Capability

The Technical Capability Rating reflects the degree to which the offeror's proposal meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements. The focus is on the ability of the offerors proposal to meet the minimum requirements of the PWS. Technical proposals will be assessed a rating of "Acceptable" or

"Unacceptable" at the subfactor level IAW the below Table A-1 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures effective 1

July 2011; an overall factor-level rating will not be assigned. To be eligible for award, offerors are required to receive an "Acceptable" rating in each technical subfactor. Proposals that exceed the evaluation criteria will not receive higher ratings. In assessing the acceptability of each subfactor, any weaknesses or deficiencies will be noted in accordance with the definitions located in, para. 3.4.3. and Chapter 5 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures.

Proposals that receive weaknesses in a subfactor may receive an "Unacceptable" subfactor rating. Proposals that receive deficiencies in a subfactor will receive an "Unacceptable" subfactor rating.

Table A-1: Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

4.2.1. Subfactor A - Manning Requirements and Analysis

Aspect I: Manning Requirements and Workload Analysis - The offeror’s proposed approach must provide adequate manning to successfully accomplish mission requirements. This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal thoroughly substantiates all of the following:

Proposal provides Workload Analysis that sufficiently demonstrates how manning levels are determined including all direct (PWS. Appendix 1), indirect and ancillary workload hours.

Proposal provides manning charts that outline sufficient labor categories, skill level, number of personnel per labor category and cross matrix of personnel if required for both CAT and CWD and are supported by contractor’s workload analysis (utilizing PWS Appendix I).

4.2.2. Subfactor B - Training Management and Approach

Aspect I: Training Management and Approach. The offeror’s proposal provides an effective Training Workload

Management Plan IAW PWS paragraph 1.4.2 and it will be evaluated on its management approaches, methods and policies for managing the training program proposed including methods for mitigating scheduling risks associated with workload fluctuations. This aspect is met when the offeror’s proposal thoroughly identifies and explains a thorough process and understanding of all of the following:

Proposal clearly demonstrates the contractor’s approach for managing the Training Program.

Proposal demonstrates a clear understanding and process for scheduling.

Proposal demonstrates a clear understanding and mitigation of scheduling risks associated with workload fluctuations.

Aspect II: Management of Personnel Resources. The offeror’s proposal provides for effective management of personnel resources. This aspect is met when the offeror’s proposal thoroughly demonstrates clear processes for all of the following:

Proposal demonstrates clear lines of authority and lines of communication between the key contractor and key

USAF personnel

Proposal clearly defines the qualifications, duties and responsibility of the Site Manager.

Proposal provides an organizational chart that clearly defines any prime and subcontractor/teaming partner(s) roles, duties and responsibilities.

Aspect III: Academic / Training Database. The offeror’s proposed database provides processes for Courseware control and accountability to successfully meet the objectives listed in PWS paragraph 1.7.10. This aspect is met when the offeror’s proposed system provides the following functions and capabilities:

Proposal clearly defines an Academic Training Database IAW PWS Para 1.7.10 requirements.

Proposed system complies with AFNIC computer standards and provides for data transfer during phase in and phase out with no loss of data.

Proposed system must be compatible with USAFWS LAN, compliant with government security regulations and provided with no additional workload on the USAFWS LAN and information management staff.

4.2.3. Subfactor C - Courseware Development Approach, Instructional Systems Development Management

Plan (ISDMP), and Quality Program Plan (QPP)

Aspect I: Courseware Development Approach and ISD Management Plan. The offeror’s proposal provides an

Instructional Systems Design Management Plan (ISDMP) IAW PWS 1.5.2 which demonstrates a thorough understanding of and application of the principles and processes outlined in the AF’s current model of ISD (AF

Handbook 36-2235, Information for Designers of Instructional Systems). This aspect is met when the offeror’s proposal thoroughly demonstrates an understanding of all of the following:

Proposal demonstrates a thorough knowledge of ISD principles and processes employed throughout the life cycle of the training system.

Proposal demonstrates a thorough knowledge of methods and procedures used in the application of the ISD process for tracking CWD milestones and methods of validating courseware effectiveness.

Proposal ISDMP content meets requirements IAW PWS paragraph 1.5.2.

Aspect II: Contractor’s Quality Program Plan (QPP). The offeror’s proposed QPP provides effective internal controls to successfully accomplish the PWS requirements paragraph 1.5.2.8. This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposed plan demonstrates the following:

Proposal QPP provides a clearly defined process for identifying and resolving deficiencies.

Proposal QPP provides a clearly defined process for continual process improvements.

Proposal provides a clearly defined process for enforcing compliance with published technical data in response to major block or system changes.

Proposal provides a clearly defined process and understanding of security processes and controls.

4.2.4. Subfactor D - All Other Plans and Contractor Furnished Equipment

Aspect I: Transition Plan. The offeror’s proposed approach provides an executable Transition Plan and sufficiently addresses Phase-In and Phase-Out referenced in PWS paragraph 1.7.8. This aspect is met when the offeror’s proposed plan thoroughly identifies the following:

Proposal provides transition milestone chart with phased implementation timelines to ensure contract transition is completed to support on time performance.

Proposal identifies key personnel to interface with the incumbent contractor.

Provides detailed list of Contractor Furnished Equipment that is compliant with Air Force network Integration

Center approved products list and sufficiently meets Base Communication Squadron system integration requirements.

Aspect II: Training and Certification Plan. The offeror’s proposed approach provides for personnel that are qualified, trained and certified to successfully accomplish PWS 1.8.2.1 requirements. This aspect is met when the offeror’s proposed plan demonstrates clear processes for the following:

Proposal training plan clearly demonstrates how employees will be trained and certified and how continuation training will be conducted to meet mission requirements.

4.3 Factor 3 - Past Performance

The contracting officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information based on (1) the references provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources. Relevant present/past performance efforts involve scope and magnitude of effort and complexities similar to those stated in the PWS for this solicitation. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to supply the CAT/CWD services described in the PWS that meet users’ needs, based on the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance.

Past performance shall be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305 and DFARS 215.305. However, the comparative assessment in FAR 15.305(a) (2) (i) does not apply. Past Performance will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis at the overall factor level using the ratings shown below as outlined in the DoD Source

Selection Procedures, Table A-2.

Table A-2: Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Rating Definition

Acceptable

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 unknown (See note below).

Unacceptable

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no 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 available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonable assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a) (2) (iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have “Unknown” past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “Unknown” shall be considered “Acceptable”.

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 offeror.

When a relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness.

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to determine whether the offeror’s performance information is recent and relevant to the effort to be acquired (this acquisition). The second aspect is to determine how well the offeror performed on those contracts or, the quality of product or service provided. Past performance shall be evaluated and assessed based on the whole record and not solely on the number of records submitted. Past performance will be evaluated by examining references determined by the Government to be the most recent and relevant in relation to this requirement and the assigned NAICS code (611512) for aircrew training.

The Government will use the following definitions in assessing each past performance reference either submitted as part of the proposal or obtained through other means:

4.7.1 Recency. Recency is defined as active contract performance (minimum of six (6) months duration) during the three (3) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation. References for contracts with less than six (6) months of performance will not be considered.

4.7.2 Relevancy. In evaluating relevancy, the Government will assign a rating of “Relevant” or “Not Relevant” for each PPI contract reference. Each PPI must meet at least one of the subsections of the relevancy definition.

Relevancy is defined as:

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY CRITERIA

Criteria Description

1 Managed an aircrew training program supporting DoD agency involving essentially the same level of complexities as this solicitation, where cost, schedule, and performance were measured and evaluated.

2 Performed aircrew training (academic and simulator instruction) for a

DoD agency at CONUS or OCONUS locations.

3 Performed courseware development utilizing an industry Instructional

Systems Development (ISD) model with personnel having the appropriate security clearance at the same magnitude of effort as this solicitation.

4.7.3 Performance Quality. The Government will evaluate the quality of work performed for each performance citation reviewed. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet user’s needs, including quality, cost and schedule.

Sources of Past Performance Information for Evaluation.

- Past performance information provided by the offeror, as solicited

- Past performance questionnaires

- Past performance information obtained from any other sources available to the Government to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or other databases; through Defense Contract Management Agency channels, through interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, or other sources known to the Government

The Government reserves the right to obtain more past performance data from any source that it deems appropriate.

The Government may use all of this information in making its performance confidence assessment. The past performance evaluation team will review this past performance information and determine the quality of the product or service as it applies to the performance assessment. While the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of demonstrating relevancy and providing current, accurate, and complete performance information rests solely with the offeror. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy.

(End of Summary of Changes)