OTES_RFP_Amendment 2 - 14 Oct 11.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION H - SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

The following have been modified:

H-150 BASE SUPPORT (MAR 2008)

(a) Base support shall be provided by the Government to the Contractor in accordance with this clause. Failure by the Contractor to comply with the requirements of this clause shall release the Government, without prejudice, from its obligation to provide base support by the date(s) required. If warranted, and if the Contractor has complied with the requirements of this clause, an equitable adjustment shall be made if the Government fails to provide base support by the date(s) required.

(b) Base support includes Government-controlled working space, material, equipment, services (including automatic data processing), or other support (excluding use of the Defense Switched Network (DSN)) which the Government determines can be made available at, or through, any Air Force installation where this contract shall be performed. All Government property in the possession of the Contractor, provided through the base support clause, shall be used and managed in accordance with the Government Property clauses.

(c) The Air Force installations providing the support shall be listed in subparagraph (f), and the Government support to be furnished by each installation under this contract shall be listed in subparagraph (g)

(d) Unless otherwise stipulated in the contract schedule, support shall be provided on a no-charge-for-use basis and the value shall be a part of the Government's contract consideration.

(e) The Contractor agrees to immediately report (with a copy to the cognizant contract administration office (CAO)) inadequacies, defective Government-Furnished Property (GFP), or nonavailability of support stipulated by the contract schedule, together with a recommended plan for obtaining the required support. The Government agrees to determine (within 10 workdays) the validity and extent of the involved requirement and the method by which it shall be fulfilled (e.g., purchase, rental, lease, GFP, etc.). Facilities shall not be purchased under this clause. Additionally, the Contractor (or authorized representative) shall not purchase, or otherwise furnish any base support requirement provided by the clause (or authorize others to do so), without prior written approval of the Contracting Officer regarding the price, terms, and conditions of the proposed purchase, or approval of other arrangements.

(f) Following are installations where base support will be provided at (to be identified in each task order).

(g) The Government support to be furnished under this contract is: On-site work space, support equipment, software, administrative equipment and supplies. Because of the nature and location(s) of the work performed, the value of such equipment is undeterminable. The Contractor shall not incur any cost resulting from nonsupport prior to Contracting Officer concurrence in accordance with this clause.

(End Clause)

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The following have been modified:

SECTION L

Attachment 2, Section L, Instruction to Offerors – revised in Amendment 2, 14 Oct 11

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M1.0 INTRODUCTION

This section defines the criteria the Government will consider in its evaluation of an offeror’s proposal submitted for the Operational Test and Evaluation Services (OTES) acquisition. The Government intends to award a multiple award, Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity contract, with a five (5) year ordering period. This is a 100% small business set-aside competitive acquisition. Attention is directed to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerer’s -- Competitive Acquisition, which provides the Government’s intent to award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror(s) whose proposal(s) represents the best value in accordance with the factors and subfactors of this solicitation. The Government intends to award approximately two contracts but reserves the right to award more or fewer contracts, or to not award any contracts, depending on the quality of proposals submitted and availability of funds. The offeror’s proposal shall be composed of the Executive Summary & Contract Documentation, Technical, Past Performance, and Cost/Price volumes. Responses to any additional information requests from the Government will also be evaluated.

1.1 Rejection of Proposals

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated and determined to be unacceptable, fails to comply with the contract terms and conditions, or is excessively high or low in cost/price.

1.2 Competitive Range

The competitive range, if discussions are to be conducted, will be established solely on the basis of the assessments of the initial proposals submitted. In accordance with FAR 15.306(c) (2) the competitive range may be reduced for purposes of efficiency to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition. Offerer’s excluded or otherwise eliminated from the competitive range will be notified in writing and may request a debriefing (see FAR 15.505 and 15.506).

1.3 Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions. The Government reserves the right, however, to conduct discussions if determined to be necessary and/or in the best interest of the Government in accordance with FAR 15.306(a) (3). Offerer’s may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Communications conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions, and the Government reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

M2.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government will conduct a best value source selection of offeror’s proposals in accordance with FAR Part 15, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 215, and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force FARSite (http://farsite.hill.af.mil). This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing offeror’s’ technical proposals will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. All technically acceptable proposals will be assessed for technical risk on a low, moderate, or high-risk basis. All technically acceptable proposals will be evaluated for past performance on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. All proposals determined to be acceptable for both technical and past performance factors will be evaluated for cost/price reasonableness and realism.

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any deficiency or uncertainty. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror’s proposal not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competition.

While the Government source selection evaluation board 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.

The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror’s proposed use of Government-Furnished Property (GFP), other than the GFP listed in the solicitation.

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 or subfactors.

M3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS FOR AWARD

Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon the best value assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors. The Government will evaluate proposals based upon the following factors and subfactors:

Factor 1 – Technical

· Subfactor 1 – Knowledge of Technical Capabilities

· Subfactor 2 – Management Approach

Factor 2 – Past Performance

Factor 3 – Cost/Price

3.1 Evaluation Of Factors And Subfactors

3.1.1 In arriving at the best value decision, the Government will do the following:

a.

Evaluate the technical proposals on acceptable/unacceptable basis, assigning ratings of acceptable or unacceptable in accordance with Table 1 of this section. Unacceptable technical proposals will be eliminated.

b.

Evaluate all technically acceptable proposals for technical risk of each proposal as low, moderate, or high in accordance with Table 2 of this section.

c.

Evaluate all technically acceptable proposals for past performance on acceptable/unacceptable basis, assigning ratings of acceptable or unacceptable in accordance with Table 3 of this section, and relevancy will be evaluated in accordance with Table 4 of this section.

d.

The Government shall evaluate cost/price for all offers determined to be acceptable for both technical and past performance factors (and offers with correction potential), including any option prices if applicable. The cost/price evaluation will document the reasonableness and affordability of the proposed total evaluated cost/price.

3.1.2 Relative importance of Factors and Subfactors: Factor 1, Technical, will be of greater value than Factor 2, Past Performance. Factor 3, Cost/Price, will be of lesser value than both Factor 1 and Factor 2. Within the Technical Factor, the subfactors are of equal importance. In accordance with FAR 15.304(d), all evaluation factors other than cost/price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price; however, cost/price will contribute substantially to the selection decision.

3.2 Factor 1 – Technical

Each subfactor within the Technical Factor will receive a technical rating that reflects whether or not the subfactors are acceptable or unacceptable. Individual subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall technical rating for the Technical Factor. All technically acceptable proposals will be assessed a technical risk rating that determines the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach achieves the factor, may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

3.2.1 Technical Factor Acceptability

First, the government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a acceptable/unacceptable basis, assigning ratings of acceptable or unacceptable in accordance with Table 1 of this section. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated based on the offeror’s capability to fulfill the OTES technical subfactors. The offeror must be acceptable in both subfactors to be technically acceptable. The proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactors:

a. Subfactor 1 – Knowledge Of Technical Capabilities: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach based on the responses as follows :

1) Offerer provides an adequate approach to satisfying PWS 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6 requirements as applicable for each task order

2) Offerer demonstrates the offeror understands all developer and program office systems engineering and program management processes; capability to collect/analyze all program documentation; and how these processes will be applied to support early influence efforts

3) Offerer demonstrates processes exist for developing/supporting operational test design and how the processes/techniques will be applied to develop an operational test design

4) Offerer demonstrates a sound understanding for supporting operational test planning and the knowledge/techniques to develop an operational test plan, including data analysis planning and detailed test procedure development

5) Offerer demonstrates processes exist for the development and use of a wide variety of analytical and modeling and simulation capabilities, including live, virtual, and constructive models and how the models will be applied in a simulation environment. Offerer demonstrates that processes exist for the validation, verification, and accreditation of models

6) Offerer demonstrates a sound understanding for supporting operational test execution; including test range infrastructure, test instrumentation, and data collection

7) Offerer demonstrates processes exist for supporting operational test reporting and how the processes/techniques will be applied to develop an operational test report.

b. Subfactor 2 – Management Approach: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach based on the responses required in Section L as follows:

1) Offerer provides a sound staffing plan that identifies the specific staffing needs in each of the categories of engineering, test, and program management. The staffing profile clearly illustrates when the staffing positions must be filled and the clearance levels required for the positions

2) Offerer demonstrates a robust recruitment and retention plan that meets the specific staffing needs in each of the categories of engineering, test and program management, including the capability to meet workload surge requirements

3) Offerer demonstrates processes exist to effectively and efficiently manage quality control resources and personnel. Offerer demonstrates that processes exist to establish viable required quality control processes and structures

4) Offerer demonstrates a thorough understanding of the work and associated challenges to execute a transition plan between the incumbent contractor and the offeror for acceptance of ongoing tasks (see L7.2.2.5)

5) Offerer demonstrates processes exist to effectively and efficiently manage security resources and personnel. Offerer demonstrates processes exist to establish viable required security processes and structures

6) Offeror provide a sound QCP that meets all aspects of PWS 3.1.1.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATINGS

3.2.2 Technical Risk Rating

Second, the Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technically acceptable proposals for technical risk of each proposal as Low, Moderate or High in accordance with Table 2 of this section. The technical risk rating focuses on the identification of weakness (es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

TABLE 2 – TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

3.3 Factor 2 – Past Performance

For all proposals determined to be technically acceptable, the past performance team shall evaluate past performance on a acceptable/unacceptable basis as defined in Table 4. The past performance evaluation will result in an assessment of the offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertains to the services outlined in the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation will consider each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in providing services that meet the solicitations requirements.

The Government will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all recent and relevant performance data submitted and/or obtained. In conducting the past performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the offeror and data obtained from other sources, such as Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other data bases, questionnaires, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and other sources known to the Government (which may include commercial references).

The Government will evaluate each contractor’s performance on an individual basis and will assess the offeror’s entire past performance (including subcontractors) in aggregate. This takes into consideration joint ventures or teaming arrangements in which the proposing partners participated, either with each other or with other entities, in performing work similar to that which they are proposing to perform for the current effort.

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to consider the recency of the past performance data provided. The second is to evaluate whether the offeror’s past performance is relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration will be given to those aspects of an offeror’s contract history which give the most confidence the offeror will satisfy the current procurement.

3.3.1 Recency

In determining recency the Government will only consider contracts completed or ongoing within the past three (3) years from the formal release date of this RFP. Additionally the Government will not consider any contract where performance began within six (6) months prior to the release date of this RFP.

3.3.2 Relevancy

The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. For the past performance evaluation to be an effective predictor of future success, the past performance history being evaluated must be relevant to this proposal’s requirement. Relevance is defined by the degree of similarity between the offeror’s past performance and the current OTES requirement. A contract will be determined to be relevant if it is similar to the OTES effort, or portion of the effort. For the purpose of this evaluation, the term “offeror” includes the prime offeror and/or teaming members and major subcontractors. In order to be considered relevant, the effort must have been by the same business unit that is being proposed to perform the OTES requirements. Relevance of an effort in which the offeror participated under a joint venture or subcontracting arrangement will be determined based on the work performed by the offeror. If a third party or customer cannot discern what work the offeror performed, this effort will not be considered relevant.

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. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” past performance shall be considered “acceptable.” Assessments of relevancy will be based on the definitions in Table 3.

TABLE 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

3.3.3 Acceptability

Past performance will be rated on an acceptable or unacceptable basis as defined in Table 4.

TABLE 4 – ACCEPTABILITY RATINGS

Past Performance

Evaluation Ratings Rating Description

3.3.5 Adverse Performance Information

When relevant performance records indicate adverse past performance information, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the offeror’s overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends. If adverse performance information is provided to the Government, and the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to comment on the finding(s), the offeror will be given the opportunity to provide clarifications concerning the adverse information.

3.3.6 Confidentiality of Performance Information

Past performance information, including CPARS, questionnaires, etc., is confidential and is not to be released to anyone outside the Government source selection process. Offerer’s are cautioned that contacting or seeking out source(s) of past performance information is strictly prohibited. Any attempts to influence past performance ratings will be perceived negatively and could impact the overall performance rating. Any questions regarding source selection information should be addressed directly to the source selection PCO only and not to any other individual(s). Offerer’s are responsible for ensuring that all their subcontractors and teaming partners are aware of this information and are in compliance.

3.3.7 AFOTEC Safety Requirements

For OSHA violations, the contractor must have zero willful violations, no more than 1 serious violation per year and no more than 8 other-than serious violations per year to be determined acceptable for the NAICS code 541712

3.4 Factor 3 – Cost/Price

Lastly, the Government will evaluate all technically acceptable offers (and offers with correction potential) for cost/price. The price evaluation will document the reasonableness and affordability of the proposed total evaluated price on each task order. Cost/Price will be a tradeoff factor for technical risk.

The offeror’s proposal must demonstrate and clearly describe an effective and efficient cost approach for accomplishing the stated requirements. The offeror’s Cost/Price Proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1, in order to determine if it is reasonable and realistic.

The Government’s best value determination will consider the sum of the probable Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) for all task orders. Prime offeror’s are permitted to propose whatever mix (prime vs. subcontractor) they choose on each task order provided the offeror meets the requirements of FAR 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting. To meet the requirements of FAR 52.219-14 the offeror must meet the percentage on all issued task orders and not necessarily on individual task orders.

3.4.1 Cost/Price Reasonableness

The techniques and procedures described under FAR 15.404-1(b), and as supplemented, will be the primary means of assessing proposal reasonableness. The evaluation techniques described under FAR 15.404-1(c), as determined appropriate, may also be performed in further determining the reasonableness and affordability of the proposal. The burden of proof for cost/price realism and reasonableness rests with the offeror.

3.4.2 Cost/Price Realism

The cost/price realism analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d) and as supplemented. A Government calculated Probable Cost (PC) analysis may be performed in the realism evaluation. This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed costs are sufficient for the work to be performed, reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements, and consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal (FAR 15.404-1(d)(1) and 2.101). The Cost/Price Realism Assessment (CPRA) will consider technical/management risks identified during the evaluation of the proposal and associated costs. Cost information supporting a cost judged to be unrealistically low and technical/management risk associated with the proposal will be quantified by the Government evaluators and included in the CPRA for each offeror. When the Government evaluates an offer as unrealistically low compared to the anticipated costs of performance and the offeror fails to explain these underestimated costs, the Government will consider, under the technical risk evaluation, the offeror’s lack of understanding of the technical requirements of the technical factor.

M4.0 PRE-AWARD SURVEY

The Government may conduct a Pre-award Survey (PAS) as part of this source selection. Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be evaluated to determine each offeror’s capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M5.0 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerer’s 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 subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerer’s must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale in the appropriate volumes in addition to the Executive Summary & Contract Document volume.

(End of Summary of Changes)