Amendment_1.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

SECTION 7

Section 7 - Evaluation Factors for Award 52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (Jan 1999)

1.0 BASIS OF AWARD

1.1 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 5315.3 Source Selection Interim Change per Policy Memo 13-C-03 dated 5 Sep 2013. One award will be made as a result of this solicitation 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 the past performance factor respectively. 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.

1.2 IAW FAR 15.306, Exchanges With Offerors After Receipt of Proposals, and 52.215-1, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and reserves the right to open discussions, or to 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.

1.3 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.

1.4 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)

2.1 The Government reserves the right to open discussions, or to award without discussions 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, however, technical changes will be evaluated. The Government cautions offerors not to change material aspects of their technical proposals as this could render the offeror’s proposal technically unacceptable and therefore unawardable. 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

3.1 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.

3.2 Proposals will be evaluated using three Factors: (1) Past Performance, (2) Technical, and (3) Price. There are four subfactors under the Technical factor. They are (A) Manning Requirements and Analysis, (B) Training Management and Approach, (C) Courseware Development Approach, Instructional Systems Development Management Program (ISDMP), and (D) All Other Plans and Contractor-Furnished Equipment. All subfactors are equal in importance in regard to technical acceptability.

3.3 Proposals will be evaluated by Past Performance, Technical, and Price. Technical and past performance acceptability will be determined, and the price will be evaluated to determine if it is fair and reasonable. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions, open discussions, or to establish the competitive range IAW FAR 15.306(c). If discussions are utilized, Evaluation Notices (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. Proposals shall meet the PWS requirements and the evaluation criteria requirements.

4.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

4.1 Factor 1 - Past Performance. Past performance shall be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305 and DFARS 215.305. The Government will evaluate this factor to assess the offeror’s probability of successfully performing as proposed based on the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance.

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

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.

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.

4.1.1 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”.

4.1.2 The Government evaluators, known as the Past Performance Evaluation Board, will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all performance data either submitted by the offeror or obtained through other Government sources, to determine how closely the work performed under those efforts relates to the proposed effort. The evaluation will consider the recency, relevancy, and quality of each performance reference as it relates to this acquisition when assigning the past performance rating. The main purpose of the past performance evaluation is to appropriately consider each offeror’s demonstrated record of contract compliance by supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including business relations, management, schedule and performance quality constraints.

4.1.3 The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum solicitation requirements. It is important to remember that “past performance” and “experience” is not the same thing. Past performance evaluation is used to determine how well an offeror has performed previous efforts; experience is an indication of how often and the number of years (or months) an offeror has performed similar efforts, not necessarily how well the offeror performed.

4.1.4 For purposes of this evaluation, the terms “offeror” or “Prime contractor” are the same. Where the offeror proposes any subcontractor, joint venture or arrangement, the Government will consider the offerors’ performance information as a whole record. If an offeror is proposing as a sole entity, then the performance information will be evaluated on the individual basis. Each offeror will receive an integrated assessment. This assessment may include the recent and relevant present/past performance information relative to the amount and type of work to be performed by each entity of the offeror’s team.

4.1.4.1 Further, if proposing such arrangements/subcontractor(s), the offeror will be required to indicate scope of work the subcontractor(s) will perform (both nature of work, criticality of the work, and percentage of overall effort). In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort being proposed by the offeror, partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government will base the relevancy determination on the portion of the effort accomplished, compared to that portion of the proposed effort.

4.1.4.2 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 past performance information for each offeror.

4.1.5 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.

4.1.6 Sources of Past Performance Information for Evaluation. Past performance data may be obtained through sources such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition, through Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels, interviews with program managers and COs, or other sources known to the Government. Data from previous source selections or contractor capability assessments should be used if the data is recent and relevant. The past performance evaluation board will review the past performance information and determine the quality of the product or service provided 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.

4.1.7 Assessing Past Performance. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to determine whether the offeror’s performance information is recent and second, is the performance information relevant to the effort to be acquired (this acquisition). The third aspect is to determine how well the offeror performed on those contracts and 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:

4.1.7.1 Recency. Recency will be assigned a rating of “Recent” or “Not Recent” for each Past Performance Information (PPI) contract reference. Recency is defined as active contract performance (minimum of six (6) months) 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.

4.1.7.2 Relevancy. In evaluating relevancy, the Government will assign a rating of “Relevant” or “Not Relevant”. Relevant performance for this acquisition is to have effectively managed an aircrew training program that consists of academic or simulator instruction or courseware development which utilizes an Instructional Systems Development (ISD) model where cost, schedule, and performance were measured/evaluated.

4.1.7.3 Performance Quality. The Government will evaluate the quality of work performed for each PPI contract reference 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. Performance assessed as “Satisfactory”, “Very Good”, or “Exceptional” in CPARs or PPQs shall be considered compliant with contract requirements. Any CPAR or PPQ performance area assessed as “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” shall be considered unfavorable and subject to rebuttal per Section 6 (52.212-1), para 7.5(E.3) of this solicitation.

4.2. Factor 2 – Technical. The technical 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 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 Chapter 5 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures. Proposals that receive a deficiency or a weakness in a subfactor will receive an “Unacceptable” subfactor rating.

Table A-1: Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

4.2.1. Technical Subfactors

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 and calculations 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).

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 RC/OC-135/E-4B Training Program.

( Proposal demonstrates a clear understanding and process for scheduling as well as 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 duties, responsibilities and qualifications, of the Site Manager to include their active involvement in the training program.

( Proposal demonstrates prime and subcontractor/teaming partner(s) roles, duties and responsibilities to include an organizational chart depicting the various responsibilities associated with the training program.

( Proposal provides manning levels, specialty mix, and work locations to accomplish student training and courseware development requirements represented in the workload tables in Appendix 1.

Aspect III: Academic / Training Database. The offeror’s proposed academic training database provides processes for Student/Faculty administration and Courseware control and accountability to successfully meet the objectives listed in PWS paragraph 1.6.14. 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 1.6.14 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.

Subfactor C - Courseware Development Approach, Instructional Systems Development Management Program

Aspect I: Courseware Development Approach and ISD Management Program. The offeror’s proposal 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) and provides an thorough explanation of the contractors courseware development program and processes with regard to Instructional Systems Design IAW PWS 1.6.4 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 and how it supports the delivery of PWS required documents.

( 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 ISD processes meet requirements IAW PWS paragraph 1.6.4.

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 1.6.11. This aspect is met when the offeror’s proposed plan thoroughly identifies the following:

( Proposal provides detail how the contractor shall meet Phase-In/ Phase-Out requirements IAW with PWS 1.6.11.

( Proposal provides a transition milestone chart and identifies key personnel to interface with the incumbent contractor.

( Provides detailed list of any 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 1.7.2 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 to be RC-135/E-4B I/SME and courseware personnel and how contractor’s continuation training will be conducted to meet mission requirements.

Aspect III: Quality Control Plan (QCP). The offeror’s proposed QCP provides effective internal controls to successfully accomplish the PWS requirements paragraph 1.8.2. This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposed plan demonstrates the following:

( Proposal QCP describe the inspection system used to cover all services listed in the SDS (PWS Section 2)..

( Proposal QCP describe the records to be kept to document inspections and corrective or preventive actions taken.

( Clearly explains the records documenting inspections and corrective or preventive measures taken and how these records will be maintained and made available to the Government.

( Proposal provides a clearly defined process and understanding of security processes and controls demonstrating the contractor's control procedures for Government-provided cipher combinations, keys, lock combinations, and safe combinations (PWS 1.9).

4.3 Factor 3- Price

4.3.1. Price will be evaluated using techniques established in FAR 15.404-1 to ensure the Government receives a fair, reasonable and balanced price.

4.3.1.1. In addition to the price analysis as described at FAR 15.404-1(b), price proposals will be analyzed to identify any potential unbalanced pricing (See FAR 15.404-1(g)). If the Government sees a wide variation in proposed contract line item prices, the technical evaluation board will be informed as soon as possible during the initial evaluation of proposals so the appropriate personnel may seek clarity through offeror exchanges. Absent any issues related to the stated requirement, unbalanced pricing may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal.

4.3.1.2. There is a great expectation of competition for this requirement; thus 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. In instances where an offeror receives acceptable technical and past performance ratings, yet proposed prices appear exceptionally low, offerors may be requested to address this disparity, providing evidence of their capability and/or experience providing similar service(s) at similar price(s). An exceptionally or unrealistically low offer may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal.

4.3.1.3. 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 This clause allows for up to an additional 6 months of continued contract performance if required. Offerors shall not include pricing in their proposal for this clause.

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

(End of Summary of Changes)