FA6656-15-R-0002_0009.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 provide quantities for labor hours. Attachment 12 w ill be updated to accomplish this change. RFP

Section M, paragraphs 2, 4, and 6 w ere changed.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 7

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 08-Dec-2015

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 FA6656-15-R-0002

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

30-Sep-2015

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

07-Dec-2015

CODE

910 MSG/CONF OPERATIONAL CONTRACTING OFF

YOUNGSTOWN ARS

3976 KING GRAVES RD UNIT 31

VIENNA OH 44473-5931

FA6656 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA6656-15-R-0002

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The following have been modified:

DOCUMENTS/EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENTS

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGE DATE

Attachment 1 Performance Work Statement Rev 2 284 13 Nov 2015 Attachment 2 DD Form 254 2 19 Jun 2015 Attachment 3 Department of Labor Wage Determination 10 08 Jul 2015 2005-3013, Rev 19 Attachment 4 Department of Labor Wage Determination 39 21 Aug 2015 OH150002, Mod 18 Attachment 5 Reserved Attachment 6 Department of Labor Wage Determination 6 14 Aug 2015 OH150122, Mod 7 Attachment 7 CBA – U.S. A.F.B Employees Division 28 26 Jan 2013 UFCW Local 1459, Amended 22 Jan 2015 Attachment 8 Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hire 1 N/A Attachment 9 Service Contract Act Rates 1 N/A Attachment 10 Davis Bacon Act Rates 1 N/A Attachment 11 Over and above Rates 1 N/A Attachment 12 Pricing Matrix (Excel Spreadsheet) Rev 2 6 7 Dec 2015 Attachment 13 Past Performance Transmittal Template 1 N/A Attachment 14 Performance Questionnaire 3 N/A Attachment 15 Past Performance Fact Sheet 2 N/A Attachment 16 Consent Letter 1 N/A Attachment 17 GFE/GFP Spreadsheet 4 29 Oct 2015

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

M-1 EVALUATION FACTORS

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. INTRODUCTION. This section outlines the basis for evaluation of the offeror’s capabilities and proposals submitted in response to the solicitation, after evaluation of offeror’s minimum requirements is completed. The evaluation criteria describe the scope of the evaluation to be performed on each proposal. Section L of the RFP describes the proposal content and format requirements.

2. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

a. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions: Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or sub factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The

Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

b. This acquisition is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with the Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement (FAR) 15.101-2, Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Source Selection Process.

The Government will select the offeror based on an integrated assessment of the offerors technical proposal, past performance and proposed price information. The first step of the evaluation process will be to accomplish a price analysis and all offerors that will be ranked from lowest to highest evaluated price.

The second step is determine if their technical proposal and past performance are acceptable or unacceptable in accordance with the evaluation criteria. If during this phase the lowest price offeror is determined to be 1) technically acceptable, 2) price is determined reasonable and balanced, and 3) past performance is determined to be acceptable, award will be made to that offeror without further consideration of any of the other offerors. If the lowest priced offeror is not found to be acceptable, then the next lowest bidder will be evaluated by the same criteria. This process will continue until a lowest price offer is identified that is technically acceptable with an acceptable past performance.

c. While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) 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. Proposals will be evaluated based solely on the factors contained in this solicitation.

d. The Government reserves the right to:

(1) Award a contract or make no award depending upon the quality and/or affordability of proposals received in response to the solicitation;

(2) Reject proposals which, upon initial review, are deemed noncompliant with the proposal requirements of the RFP;

(3) Consider, throughout the evaluation process, the correction potential of a proposal” when a deficiency is identified;

(4) Discussions are Conduct – 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.; and/or

(5) Award without conducting discussions.

3. EVALUATION FACTORS

Evaluation Factors and Sub factors: The following evaluation factors and sub factors will be used to evaluate proposals. The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability, but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors or sub factors.

Factor 1: Technical

Sub factor 1: Quality Control Plan

Sub factor 2: Resource/Personnel Management

Factor 2: Past performance

Factor 3: Price

4. TECHNICAL EVALUATION:

The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each sub factor. Any sub 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 proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical sub factors for each of the PWS functional tabs (A-

I) listed in paragraph c. below:

Sub factor 1: Quality Control Plan

Description: The Government will assess the offeror’s proposed Quality Control Plan (QCP). Offeror’s are required to present all the information as stated in Section L – Instruction to Offerors (ITO).

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the QCP demonstrates that the offeror will provide oversight ensuring acceptable performance in accordance with the PWS and service delivery summery.

Sub factor 2: Resource/Personnel Management

Description: The Government will assess the offeror’s proposed resource/personnel management approach.

Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in Section L – Instruction to Offerors (ITO).

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal clearly explains the following:

i. A manning process which ensures the offeror will successfully maintain a capable workforce to accomplish the entire scope of effort and successfully handle surges/variables in workload requirements IAW PWS.

ii. An organization approach and management structure which ensure an appropriately qualified, sufficiently staffed workforce to perform all PWS requirements and skill sets. In addition, the offeror’s approach must ensure successful management of all subcontractor performance.

iii. An inventory management approach which ensures all inventory requirements will be met to include the joint inventory at start up. In addition the plan includes how inventory of materials will be tracked and charged to the workorders in Tab C and

Tab F.

c. Functional Tabs:

Tab A – General

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL 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.

Tab B – Supply

Tab C – Motor Vehicle Management

Tab D – Traffic Management

Tab E – Reserved

Tab F – Real Property Management

Tab G – Fuels Management

Tab H – Airfield Management

Tab I – Reserved

5. PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION:

a. The past performance evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing aspects of an offerors’ recent and relevant past performance, focusing on performance which is relevant to this acquisition. The past performance evaluation will be used as a means of determining the probability of the offeror to meet the performance requirements of the proposed contract.

b. The past performance assessment is a subjective assessment based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances. It is not based on absolute standards of acceptable performance. The Government is seeking to determine whether the offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to customer satisfaction and timely delivery of goods and services. Accordingly, this is a matter of judgment. The Government will consider the scope of the performance, source of the performance information, context of the data, general trends in offerors’ performance, and the size and complexity of the performance relative to this solicitation’s requirements.

c. Recency: Performance on contracts currently ongoing or completed within the last three

(3) years from issuance of the solicitation. Ongoing programs must have begun no less than

1 year from issuance of the solicitation. If contract performance does not meet the criteria for recency, the contract will not be evaluated further.

d. Relevancy: The Government will accomplish an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided by the offeror or obtained from other sources. Past performance information may be obtained through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System

(PPIRS), similar systems of other Government departments and agencies, questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition, interviews and any other sources known to the Government, including commercial sources. The Government is not bound by the offerors’ opinion of relevancy. Relevancy will be evaluated based on the scope, magnitude, and complexity of the contracts. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being reviewed and evaluated. The Government may consider the offerors’ past performance, including any of the companies which form a joint venture or other team partners in the aggregate rather than on an effort-by-effort basis. An overall relevancy determination will be made of the offerors’ past performance including, if applicable, the extent of its subcontractors’ and teaming partners’ involvement.

e. The Government will accomplish an overall past performance evaluation based upon the past performance information obtained through the PPIRS, similar systems of other Government departments and agencies, questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition, interviews and any other sources known to the Government, including commercial sources. An overall past performance rating determination will be made of the offerors’ past performance including, if applicable, the extent of its subcontractors’ and teaming partners’ involvement. The following rating scale will be used:

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 reasonably 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."

6. PRICE EVALUATION:

The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance. See paragraphs (a) and (b) below. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated in accordance with paragraph (c) below.

(a) Reasonableness: The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of

Government obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.4 may be required to support the proposed price.

(b) Balance: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of proposal analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced line items or sub-line items. Prices submitted will be compared and evaluated to assure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each offeror’s response to the pricing structure in Section B. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(c) Total Evaluated Price: A Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be used for evaluation purposes only and will be calculated as follows:

(1) The extended prices (unit price x quantity) for all of the firm, fixed price CLINs *001 - *013 and the corresponding option CLINs will be totaled.

TABLE 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the offerors’ performance record , the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offerors’ performance record is unknown. (See Note Below)

Unacceptable Based on the offerors performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

(2) The “Service Contract Act Labor” applicable to CLINs *014 - *018 will be calculated as follows:

The proposed fully-loaded labor rates set forth in the “SCA Labor Rates” worksheet in Attachment 12 shall be multiplied by estimated hours for both NDH and O/T hours for each labor category listed in all years. The number of hours used is based on historical data. The extended amounts (fully-loaded labor rate times the amount of hours) will be given a total for each contract period. The same estimated hours apply to all contract periods and are for evaluation purposes only. The fully-loaded rates proposed by the offerors need to be balanced as defined in paragraph 6(b). Labor categories by

NDH or O/T that are considered unbalanced as defined in paragraph 6(b) may be determined unacceptable.

(3) The “Davis Bacon Act Labor” applicable to CLIN *019 will be evaluated as follows: The proposed fully-loaded labor rates set forth in the “DBA Labor Rates” worksheet in Attachment 12 shall be multiplied by estimated hours for both NDH and O/T hours for each labor category listed in all years. The number of hours used is based on historical data. The extended amounts (fully-loaded labor rate times the amount of hours) will be given a total for each contract period. The same estimated hours apply to all contract periods and are for evaluation purposes only. The fully-loaded rates proposed by the offerors need to be balanced as defined in paragraph 6(b). Labor categories by

(4) The “Over & Above Labor” applicable to CLINs *025 - *030 will be evaluated as follows: The proposed fully-loaded labor rates set forth in the “O&A Labor Rates” worksheet in Attachment 12 shall be multiplied by estimated hours for both NDH and O/T hours for each labor category listed and in all years. The number of hours used is based on historical data. The extended amounts (fully-loaded labor rate times the amount of hours) will be given a total for each contract period. The same estimated hours apply to all contract periods and are for evaluation purposes only. The fully-loaded rates proposed by the offerors need to be balanced as defined in paragraph 6(b). Labor categories by

(5) For evaluation purposes only, an estimated lump sum dollar amount of $800,000 per year for reimbursable parts and materials will be used to determine the material-handling fee portion of the total evaluated price. The figure is based on historical data. Evaluation of the material-handling cost is based on the offerors proposed rate times the lump sum dollar amount of $800,000.

(6) The sums derived from Paragraphs (1), (2), (3) (4), and (5) above will be added together to develop each offeror’s “total evaluated price”.

(End of Summary of Changes)