FA7014-09-R-0035-0003.docx

FA7014-09-R-0035

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 1001

DELETED

CLIN 1002

CLIN 2001

CLIN 2002

CLIN 3001

CLIN 3002

CLIN 4001

CLIN 4002

DELIVERIES AND PERFORMANCE

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 0001 has been changed from:

POP 01-JUL-2009 TO

30-JUN-2010

JAMES WHITCRAFT

1500 WILSON BLVD

ROSSLYN VA 22209

703-588-0080 FOB: Destination

F1AF29

To:

POP 01-JUL-2009 TO

30-JUN-2014

JAMES WHITCRAFT

1500 WILSON BLVD

ROSSLYN VA 22209

703-588-0080 FOB: Destination

F1AF29

The following have been modified:

52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JUN 2008)

ADDENDUM 1

This section is for solicitation purposes only. This section will be physically removed from any resultant award, but will be deemed incorporated by reference.

BEST VALUE ACQUISITION

(IAW FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION FAR PART 12)

1. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of a Commercial Solicitation, the offeror must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all Commercial Solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representation and certifications, and technical requirements. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the Commercial Solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

2. The Contracting Officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the contracting officer will review this determination and if, in the Contracting Officer’s opinion, adequate price competition exists no additional cost information will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required. However, if at anytime during this competition, the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists; offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the Contracting Officer to determine the reasonableness and affordability of the price.

3. Proposal Instructions. This section provides general guidance for preparing proposals as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the proposal. The offeror’s proposal must include all data and information stated herein and in accordance with these instructions. Nonconformance with the instructions provided may result in an unfavorable submission/proposal evaluation. All claimed technical and past performance capabilities to meet the requirements shall be and are subject to verification by the Government. The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Performance Work Statement.

4. Detailed instructions to offerors for proposal requirements begin below at paragraph 4A.

A. The following introductory information (letter format is acceptable) is required on the first page of Volume III of your offer:

(1) Solicitation Number: RFP FA7014-09-R-0035

(2) Name and address of offeror;

(3) Name and telephone number of your point-of-contact;

(4) Name of your contract administration office (if available);

(5) Confirmation of type of contract action;

(6) Total proposed/evaluated price;

(7) Whether you will require the use of Government property in the performance of the agreement, and, if so, what property;

(8) Contract type: FFP + Cost Reimbursable Travel/Other Direct Costs CLINS Contract Vehicle: IDIQ Firm Fixed Price Contract_

(9) Date of submission; and,

(10) Name, title and signature of authorized representative.

B. General Instructions: This is a Performance Price Tradeoff best value source selection acquisition. Technical Capability will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis. Of the remaining factors, Past Performance is more important than price. Award will be made based on an integrated assessment of the Evaluation Factors. It is our intent to award one contract. The Air Force reserves the right to award more than one contract if clearly warranted by the integrated best value assessment. The proposal instructions in this section are designed to assist offerors in preparing a complete response that reflects a full understanding of the approach proposed to accomplish all work required herein.

(1) The Government reserves the right to make award without discussions. 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. If the Government awards without discussions, the offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of proposals (e.g., the relevance of an offeror’s past performance information and adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor clerical errors.

(2) The offeror's proposal shall include all data and information requested and shall be submitted in accordance with these instructions. The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Performance Work Statement. Non-conformance with the instructions provided may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation, rendering it ineligible for award.

(3) The proposal shall not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume that the government has no prior knowledge of their experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror's proposal. The offeror’s proposal must convey to the Government that the offeror is capable; possesses sufficient technical expertise and experience; possesses sufficient resources; and is able to plan, organize, and use those resources in a coordinated and timely fashion such that technical requirements will be achieved and costs will be controlled.

(4) Offerors should address questions, concerns, or requests for clarification in writing via email only. Questions received via telephone, fax or letter will not be answered. All questions, concerns, or requests for clarification must be received by the point of contact(s) (POCs) listed below by no later than Tuesday 20 Apr 2009 at NOON EASTERN STANDARD TIME (EST). Please e-mail all questions to all recipients at the email addresses indicated below. You may confirm receipt of your questions by calling Lisa Martin at (202) 767-7946. AFDW Acquisition assumes no responsibility for non-delivery due to problems with email servers, and no extensions will be granted for these matters. AFDW/A7KS will post an amendment to this solicitation to the FedBizOpps site answering questions when received. We will not post duplicate questions.

Lisa S. Martin Contract Specialist Lisa.Martin2@bolling.af.mil

Capt Timothy Karriker Contracting Officer Timothy.Karriker@afncr.af.mil

(5) Proposals shall be submitted electronically in volumes, text shall be no smaller than 12 point. Tables and figures may be single spaced. Margins on all four sides of each sheet will be at least one inch. All pages shall be printed on one side only. Special consideration will not be given for colors, pictures or unnecessary graphics.

(6) Provide the following on the cover page (not included in the page count) of each volume:

(a) Solicitation title and number; (b) Name, address, and contact information of offeror; (c) Name of volume; (Should be separate attachments electronically)

1. Date of proposal and validity date; and

1. PDF FORMAT

(7) Each volume shall have a table of contents. All attachments or appendices shall be identified in the table of contents. All attachments or appendices shall be included in the page count, unless otherwise specified. The Table of Contents will not be included in the page count.

(8) All volumes shall contain page numbers. Offeror shall use a standard page numbering system. All critical information from any appendices shall be summarized in the technical proposal.

(9) If page limitations are exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal.

(10) Pricing Information: All pricing information shall be addressed ONLY in the Price proposal volume.

(11) Classified Information: All information shall be unclassified.

C. Volume Instructions:

(1) Technical Capability Volume

(a) The Technical Capability Volume will be evaluated in accordance with Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation Criteria and Basis for Award.

(b) Offerors will demonstrate how they will accomplish the requirements of the Performance Work Statement as outlined below. This information shall be detailed, specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important.

(c) No more than 10 electronic pages.

(d) The Technical Capability Volume shall specifically address the following:

PROPOSALS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO:

Lisa S. Martin

Factor 1: Technical - Performance Price Trade Off, Technical Evaluation Factors (Pass or Fail)

- Contractor is required to articulate and explain contingent plans as necessary to execute each Critical Factor in full as well as incorporation of risk mitigation plan where applicable. Proposals omitting this portion to any SubFactor shall be deemed technically unacceptable.

Evaluate 4 areas in equal order of importance:

1. SubFactor 1.1: Mission Readiness

- Critical Factors 1-4

1. SubFactor 1.2: Student Safety and Well Being

- Critical Factors 5-6 & 16

1. SubFactor 1.3: Logistical/Quality of Life Capabilities

- Critical Factors 7-11

1. SubFactor 1.4: Program Objectives and Oversight

- Critical Factors 12-15 & 18

Factors Backup Information

1. Factor 1.1 Contractor must be able to fulfill 100% of contract and PWS requirements from the effective date of contract award. Any amount of “spin-up” time is unacceptable.

1. Factor 1.2 Contractor must have established network of in-country points of contact, pre-screened to ensure the safety and security of students

1. Factor 1.3 Contractor must have a 24/7 process in-place for providing last-minute return travel for any and all students. This process must guarantee the student will have started travel to his/her base of assignment within 24 hours of notification, 7 days a week

1. Factor 1.4 Contractor must have a 24/7 process in-place for providing last-minute schedule or program changes for any and all students. This process must guarantee the change will be implemented within 48 hours of notification, 7 days a week

1. Factor 1.5 Contractor must be available via phone 24 hours a day/7 method in-place for providing emergency air evacuation to transport any and all students to a U.S. military hospital. This evacuation must be able to occur within, 24 hours a day/7 days a week

1. Factor 1.6 Contractor must be available via phone 24 hours a day/7days a week and also inform the PM of any student or program issues, 24 hours a day/7 days a week.

1. Factor 1.7 All Travel for LASIs and RASIs

1. Factor 1.8 All Lodging for LASI and RASIs

1. Factor 1.9 All meals for LASIs, and RASIs

1. Factor 1.10 All Language Training for LASIs and RASIs

1. Factor 1.11 All Cultural Excursions and Tours for LASIs and RASIs

1. Factor 1.12 All Area Studies Instruction for LASIs and RASIs

1. Factor 1.13 During LASIs, Contractor must contact students once per week via email or telephone and inform government PM of said contact

1. Factor 1.14 During RASIs, Contractor must contact students once every two weeks via email or telephone and inform government PM of said contact

1. Factor 1.15 For RASIs Contractor must inform government PM when student(s) depart and arrive in any country

1. Factor 1.16 Security for all students is a top priority

1. Factor 1.17 Contractor must comply with all requirements listed under LASI In-Country Immersion and RASI In-Country Immersion

1. Factor 1.18 Contractor must describe how they would address a government request for an immersion to a country they do not currently offer.

(2) Past Performance Volume

(a) The Past Performance Volume will be evaluated in accordance with Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation Criteria and Basis for Award.

(b) This information shall be detailed, specific, and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important.

Each offeror shall submit a past performance proposal, containing past performance information on relevant and related references of the same or similar work in terms of size and scope within the past five (5) years with at least 6 months of performance;

Provide the information requested in Attachment 3 [two (2) pages per reference; exempt from double-spaced 12-point requirement] for all performance references. The contractor shall provide information on references and subcontractor consent letters (Sample provided, Attachment 2– Not included in the page count) for this part of the Past Performance submission – Maximum of 5 Pages;

Offerors shall distribute the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment) to the reference POC’s identified in the Past Performance Section. The reference POCs shall complete and deliver the questionnaire (Attachment) to the Contracting Officer identified on the questionnaire.

OFFERORS SHALL NOT SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES ON BEHALF OF REFERENCES. QUESTIONNAIRES MUST BE RECEIVED FROM REFERENCES NO LATER THAN 20 Apr 2009 AT 1200 EASTERN STANDARD TIME (EST).

OFFERORS ARE CAUTIONED THAT THE GOVERNMENT WILL USE DATA PROVIDED BY EACH OFFEROR IN THIS SECTION AND DATA OBTAINED FROM OTHER SOURCES IN THE EVALUATION OF PAST PERFORMANCE

(c) The Past Performance Volume shall specifically include/address the following:

1. Table of Contents (not included in the page count);

1. Completed Past Performance Information Form(s) Provide a completed copy of the attached Past Performance Information form for each contract/program being described. Provide frank, concise comments regarding your performance on the contracts you identify. Past performance information shall be submitted on past performance references that you consider most recent and relevant in demonstrating your ability to perform the proposed effort. You may also include information on contracts performed by your subcontractors that you consider most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort. Include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance. Each contract shall be considered a separate contract for purposes of this evaluation. Each Past Performance Information Form shall contain one contract citation;

1. Summary Explanation: Offerors are required to explain what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort, and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate. This may include a discussion of efforts accomplished by the offeror to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risk. Merely having problems does not automatically equate to a little or no confidence rating, since the problems encountered may have been on a more complex program, or an offeror may have subsequently demonstrated the ability to overcome the problems encountered. The offeror is required to clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions, in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. This may allow the offeror to be considered a higher confidence candidate. For example, submittal of quality performance indicators or other management indicators that clearly support that an offeror has overcome past problems is required. The Summary Explanation is to be incorporated into each Past Performance Information Form.

1. Completed Subcontractor Consent Form(s): Consent letters executed by each subcontractor authorizing release of adverse performance information, so the offeror can respond to such information. A sample consent letter is attached.

1. Specifically address:

3. Demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying services that meet the user's needs, including quality, schedule, cost control, business relations, performance and management of personnel relevant to Technical Capability;

3. Service similarity, service complexity, contract type, and magnitude comparisons; and

3. History of forecasting and controlling costs, adhering to schedules (including the administrative aspects of performance), reasonable and cooperative behavior, commitment to customer satisfaction, and generally, the contractor's business-like concern for the interest of the customer.

(d) Offerors shall distribute the Past Performance Questionnaire to the reference POCs identified in the Past Performance Volume for completion and return to the Contracting Officer.

(e) Recency, Relevancy, and Quality: The Government may look at recency, relevancy, and the quality of the offeror’s performance history on the past performance information submitted. Recency as it applies to this solicitation is defined as on-going contracts/sub-contracts or contracts/sub-contracts that have been completed within the last five years from the date of the issuance of this solicitation. Relevancy as it applies to this solicitation is defined as the characteristic of performance history work items as being the same as or similar in nature, complexity, and magnitude to that identified in the PWS (Government may not necessarily agree with offeror as to relevancy). Quality is part of the evaluation to help determine “how well” the offeror performed.

(3) Price Volume

1. The Price Volume will be evaluated in accordance with the Evaluation Criteria and Basis for Award. Those rates will be evaluated for balance and resaonableness.

1. Provide:

0. Signed Cover Letter; and addendums if applicable

0. Provide fully completed Base and all Option Year Periods;

0. Provide Representations & Certifications; and

0. Complete the necessary fill-ins and certifications in this solicitation and return them with your proposal, in their entirety.

No page limit.

0. Provide signed Cover Letter;

0. ALL SIGNATURES SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH FAR 4.102

D. Additional Information

1. Notice of Award: 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 agreement 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. Discrepancies: If an Offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer in writing with supporting rationale.

3. Adequate Responses: Cursory responses or responses which merely reiterate or reformulate the PWS (with all of its attachments/addendums) and instructions will not be considered as being responsive to the requirements of the solicitation. Assurance of experience, capability and qualifications, which clearly demonstrate and support the offeror’s claim are essential. The absence of such evidence will adversely influence the evaluation of the proposal and render its proposal ineligible for award.

4. Competitive Range: The Contracting Officer may determine that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted. The Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

5. Final Proposal Revisions: If discussions are conducted, final proposal revisions may be required at the Governments discretion.

6. Debriefings: If a competitive range determination is made, the contracting officer will promptly notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range, whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505. The contracting officer will notify unsuccessful offerors within the competitive range of the source selection decision, in accordance with FAR 15.506. Upon such notification, unsuccessful offerors may request and receive a debriefing. Offerors desiring a debriefing must make their request in accordance with the requirements of FAR 15.505 or 15.506, as applicable.

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

EVALUATION CRITERIA

EVALUATION

52.212-2 ADDENDUM - 2

This section is for solicitation purposes only. This section will by physically removed from any resultant award, but will be deemed incorporated by reference.

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JAN 1999)

This is a FAR Part 15.101-1 competitive source selection using FAR Part 12 Commercial procedures and AFFARS 5315.3 Performance price trade off (PPT) Source Selection procedures. The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

(a) This is a competitive Performance-Price Trade-off w/technical proposal best value source selection in which competing technically acceptable offerors' past performance history will be evaluated on a basis more important than price considerations. However, as the performance confidence assessments of the Offerors become more equal in past performance ratings; cost may become a determining factor in award selection. By submission of its offer, 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. All technically acceptable offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. Failure to meet a solicitation requirement may result in an offer being nonresponsive. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation overview and criteria are detailed below:

0. Evaluation Overview: This is a competitive Performance-Price Trade-off best value acquisition. We intend to evaluate Technical Capability, Rank by Price, and then Assess Past Performance using the following process:

0. Technical Capability. Technical Proposals submitted by offerors shall be evaluated against the evaluation criteria listed below. The government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable. Failure to meet this criteria may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable.

0. The government shall then rank all technically acceptable offers by their Total Evaluated Price offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated in order to determine if it is complete, fair and reasonable, and balanced. The Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest priced offeror based on a tradeoff between past performance and price.

0. Proven Past Performance is key to determining future success. Past performance will be evaluated and receive one of the following confidence ratings: Substantial, Satisfactory, Limited, Unknown, or No Confidence ratings.

1.1.4 Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

0. Evaluation Criteria: Technical Capability is a pass/fail requirement. The remaining evaluation factors are listed below where Past Performance is more important than Price. Within the Technical Capability, subfactors are of equal importance. The factor ratings and assessments focus are described below:

Factor 1: Technical - Performance Price Trade Off, Technical Evaluation Factors (Pass or Fail)

- Contractor is required to articulate and explain contingent plans as necessary to execute each Critical Factor in full as well as incorporation of risk mitigation plan where applicable. Proposals omitting this portion to any SubFactor shall be deemed technically unacceptable.

Evaluate 4 areas in equal order of importance:

1. SubFactor 1.1: Mission Readiness

- Critical Factors 1-4

1. SubFactor 1.2: Student Safety and Well Being

- Critical Factors 5-6 & 16

1. SubFactor 1.3: Logistical/Quality of Life Capabilities

- Critical Factors 7-11

1. SubFactor 1.4: Program Objectives and Oversight

- Critical Factors 12-15 & 18 Factors Back-up Information

1. Factor 1.1 Contractor must be able to fulfill 100% of contract and PWS requirements from the effective date of contract award. Any amount of “spin-up” time is unacceptable.

1. Factor 1.2 Contractor must have established network of in-country points of contact, pre-screened to ensure the safety and security of students

1. Factor 1.3 Contractor must have a 24/7 process in-place for providing last-minute return travel for any and all students. This process must guarantee the student will have returned to his/her base of assignment within 24 hours of notification, 7 days a week

1. Factor 1.4 Contractor must have a 24/7 process in-place for providing last-minute schedule or program changes for any and all students. This process must guarantee the change will be implemented within 48 hours of notification, 7 days a week

1. Factor 1.5 Contractor shall have a 24/7 method in-place for providing emergency air-evacuation to transport any and all students to a U.S. military hospital. This evacuation must be able to occur within 24 hours of notification, 7 days a week

1. Factor 1.6 Contract mus be available via phone 24 hours a day/7 days a week and also inform the PM of any student or program issues, 24 hours a day/7 days a week

1. Factor 1.7 All Travel for for LASIs and RASIs

1. Factor 1.8 All Lodging for LASIs and RASIs

1. Factor 1.9 All meals for LASI and RASIs

1. Factor 1.10 All Language Training for LASIs and RASIs

1. Factor 1.11 All Cultural Excurions and Tours for LASIs and RASIs

1. Factor 1.12 All Area Studies Instruction for LASIs and RASIs

1. Factor 1.13 During LASIs, Contractor must contact students once per week via emailor telephone and inform government PM of said contact

1. Factor 1.14 During RASIs, Contractor must contact students once every two weeks via email or telephone and inform government PM of said contact

1. Factor 1.15 For RASIs, Contractor must inform government PM when student(s) depart and arrive in any country

1. Factor 1.16 Security for all students is a top priority

1. Factor 1.17 Contractor must comply with all requirements listed under LASI In-Country Immersion and RASI In-Country Immersion

1. Factor 1.18 Contractor must describe how they would address a government request for an immersion to a country they do not currently offer.

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 3: PRICE

1.3 Basis for Award: The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Evaluation Criteria. This section outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the offeror’s capabilities and proposals. The government will compare each offeror’s capabilities and proposal elements using the following criteria. Technical Capability is a pass/fail requirement. Within the Technical Capability, subfactors are equal in order of importance:

TECHNICAL CAPABILITY: Initially, the government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings as either technically Acceptable or Unacceptable (see rating definitions below). Each offeror will be evaluated on its merits in terms of the Technical Capability Subfactors. The technical evaluation shall focus on strengths and deficiencies in offeror's proposal. If an offeror's proposal demonstrates a material failure to meet a Government requirement, it will be considered a deficiency in offeror's proposal resulting in an Unacceptable rating – thus making the proposal not awardable. An unacceptable rating at any subfactor level will render a proposal not awardable. Submission for this part is limited to a 10 pages. The Government will evaluate the degree to which the offeror understands and adequately addresses the requirements. Technical Capability should comprehensively address the following:

FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE. Under the Past Performance factor, the Performance Confidence Assessment represents the evaluation of an offeror’s work record to assess the Government's confidence in the offeror’s probability of successfully performing as proposed. The Government will evaluate the offeror's demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying services that meet the user's needs, including quality, schedule, cost control, business relations, performance and management of personnel. The Past Performance Evaluation is accomplished by reviewing aspects of an offeror's relevant and recent past performance, focusing on and targeting performance which is relevant to the Technical Capability.

2.1 “Recent” -- Recent is defined as performance occurring within the last five years, with at least six (6) months of performance. Performance that is more recent will usually have greater impact than less recent performance. Current performance (performance taking place now, with at least six (6) months of performance) will generally have greater impact in the performance assessment than recent performance.

2.2 “Relevant” means the performance being considered must have a logical connection to the work described in the solicitation. Relevance includes such aspects as service similarity, service complexity, contract type, and magnitude. Each past performance contract submission will receive one of the relevancy ratings listed in the table below:

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY ASSESSMENT

2.3 Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical Capability, the resulting Performance Confidence Assessment is level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance.

2.4 In addition to evaluating the extent to which the offeror's performance meets technical requirements, the assessment will consider things such as the offeror's history of forecasting and controlling costs, adhering to schedules (including the administrative aspects of performance), reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction, and generally, the contractor's business-like concern for the interest of the customer.

2.5 Adverse past performance is considered any rating below Satisfactory on any questionnaire, survey or Government evaluation. Offerors with adverse past performance will be afforded an opportunity to address alleged deficiencies, if the offeror has not already been provided an opportunity to comment on the deficiencies. Where 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.

2.6 As a result of an analysis of those risks and strengths identified, each offeror will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment rating, which is the rating for the Past Performance factor. Each offeror will receive one of the ratings described below for the Past Performance factor:

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

An Unsatisfactory Performance Confidence Assessment rating (Limited or No Confidence) will render a proposal not eligible for award.

2.7 Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor. For offerors with no relevant performance record, the Government may consider relevant performance information regarding personnel.

2.8 More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of similar favorable performance.

2.9 Past performance information may be obtained through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting Systems (CPARS), Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), similar systems of other Government departments and agencies, questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), interviews with program managers and contracting officers, and other sources known to the Government, including commercial sources.

2.10 Offerors are to note that, in conducting this assessment, the Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the offeror and data obtained from other sources.

FACTOR 3 – PRICE:

3.1 The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated as follows:

3.1.1 The approach to the source selection for this procurement will be pursuant to a best value concept. The objective is to select the proposal that offers the best value for the Government, not necessarily the lowest price. However, as the performance confidence assessments of the offerors become more equal in past performance ratings, cost may become a determining factor in award selection.

3.1.2 Although the Price is least in importance, it will contribute to the source selection decision. While price will not be rated, as are Volumes I and II, it will be evaluated in terms of completeness, balanced, and fair and reasonableness. After an evaluation of Volume I and II has been completed and rankings have been established, the price to the Government will be compared against these rankings to determine the combination most advantageous to the Government.

3.1.3 The following Price evaluation factors will be considered in choosing the proposal that provides the best value to the government, when combined with the evaluation of technical factors:

3.1.3.1 For the purposes of price evaluation, the Sample Task Order Price Tables shall be used to calculate the offeror’s grand total that will be used for evaluation purposes (Total Evaluated Price).

3.1.3.2 The contractor should provide cost for 1 person on a 1 month LASI and 1 person on a 6-month RASI as described in the PWS (to include 4” mini-immersions”) Contractor must provide immersions in the countries listed. Where a country is not specified, contractor should provide the country, and cost, for immersion they can provide with the region. Contractors must still complete the comprehensive pricing table, providing the cost for all countries where they can perform immersion training . Price Table #2 (Total Evaluated Price). Price will also be determined by reviewing the total evaluated price (TEP) inclusive of the prices submitted into the “Sample Task Order Pricing Chart” attached.

3.1.3.3 Pricing tables should be submitted for each year of the contract (5 years). Also, if the period of performance on any given Task/Delivery Order spans two pricing years, the Task/Delivery Order will lock in the current year pricing for the remainder of the period of performance under the correlating Task/Delivery Order.

3.2 The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated in order to determine if it is complete, fair and reasonable, and balanced as follows:

3.2.1 Complete: Pricing.

3.2.2 Fair and Reasonable:

3.2.2.1 The Rates will be compared to our market research information.

3.2.3 Balanced: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an unbalanced offer. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to Base and subsequent year(s) Pricing. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected and determined unawardable. An offer is unbalanced if the base year or subsequent year prices are less than future Periods.

3.3 Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

3.4 To be considered responsive to the solicitation requirements, all offerors shall include the following with their proposal:

(b) 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.

PROPOSALS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO:

Lisa S. Martin

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf