fuel_oil_solicitation_amendment..docx

FA812518R0017

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by reference:

52.212-2

(End of Summary of Changes)

The following items are applicable to this modification:

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 -- EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

(a) 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:

1. Basis for Contract Award:

Award will be conducted and evaluated under the provisions of FAR Part 12 -- Commercial Items and FAR Part 13 -- Simplified Acquisition Procedures. This acquisition will utilize best value In Accordance With (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 13.106. For this solicitation, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the best value analysis and potential trade-off between Past Performance and Price. Award will be made to the Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by FAR 52.212-1) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Contracting Officer reasonably determines that the technically acceptable proposal and superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference with lower priced offerors. For all technically acceptable proposals, Factor 2 (Past Performance) will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important to Factor 3 (Price).

The Contracting Officer will base the best value decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against the criteria as denoted in this solicitation. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the best value decision, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

The Oklahoma City‐Air Logistics Center (AFSC/PZIMA) at Tinker Air Force Base Oklahoma intends to issue a commercial firm fixed price contract for this acquisition.

2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded:

The Government intends to select one contractor for the award. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all; depending on the quality of the proposals, prices submitted and the availability of funds, or other factors identified by the Contracting Officer.

3. Rejection of Unreasonable Offers:

The Government may reject any evaluated proposal that fails to adequately address a significant portion of the requirement or contract terms and conditions.

4. Correction Potential of Proposals:

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any proposal 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 competitive range.

5. Evaluation Factors:

Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination of factors deemed most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

Factor 1—Technical Proposal Factor 2—Past Performance Factor 3—Price

No additional credit will be given for exceeding the technical evaluation criteria.

a. Evaluation Methodology:

The Government will evaluate the technical, past performance, and price factors concurrently for all proposals. Technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the best value analysis.

b. Technical Factor:

Technical acceptability will be based on an evaluation of proposals against the criteria stated below and other technical specifications in the Statement of Work, Performance Work Statement, and/or Item Description. The Technical factor will receive one of the follow ratings:

Acceptable – Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable – Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instructions to Offerors, FAR 52.212-1. The minimum technical evaluation requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal thoroughly substantiates all the following essential criteria:

“Contractor must provide a written statement to explain how they are meeting the technical evaluation criteria listed below. A statement of “I concur” or “concur” will not be accepted and could deem your proposal technically unacceptable. The written statement is essential for your quote to be responsive and be referred for technical review.”

TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. Demonstrate/describe your technical approach and capability to satisfy Section 5, Warranty.

1. Demonstrate/describe your technical approach and capability to satisfy Section 7.5, Safety and Health.

1. Demonstrate/describe your technical approach and capability to satisfy Section 7.8, Maintainability.

1. Demonstrate/describe your technical approach and capability to satisfy Section 12.3, capabilities.

Proposal shall include schematics, separated by circuit (e.g. fuel circuit, oil circuit, high pressure, low pressure, etc.) with major functioning component specifications included: including but not limited to pumps, tanks, and valves

1. Demonstrate/describe your technical approach and capability to satisfy Section 12.9, 12.12, Equipment Layout.

1. Demonstrate/describe your technical approach and capability to satisfy Section 14.2, Site Preparation Drawings.

1. Demonstrate/describe your technical approach and capability to satisfy a Section 16.6, proposed Integrated Master Schedule with personnel from Section 7.1 highlighted on schedule.

8.The contractor shall demonstrate, by project resumes and references, the following minimum personnel criteria. Resumes with letters of intent are not acceptable.

1. Evidence of at least one mechanical engineer with ten (10) years of experience in test stand construction and configuration. Brief description of how they will be assigned to this project, shall prove they will be intimately involved and their expertise will be applied directly to this project.

1. Evidence of at least one (1) technician with ten (10) years of experience with LabVIEW and PLC systems. Evidence shall at a minimum provide proof that this technician has had at least 3 past projects as a LabVIEW and PLC subject matter expert. Brief description how they will be assigned to this project, shall prove they will be intimately involved and their expertise will be applied directly to this project.

1. Evidence of at least one National Instruments Certified LabVIEW Architect. Evidence shall at a minimum provide proof that this technician has had at least 3 past projects as a National Instruments Certified LabVIEW Architect. Brief description how they will be assigned to this project, shall prove they will be intimately involved and their expertise will be applied directly to this project.

1. Evidence of personnel with ten (10) years of experience in the design, fabrication and installation of aircraft component testing equipment. Brief description how they will be assigned to this project, shall prove they will be intimately involved and their expertise will be applied directly to this project.

c. Past Performance:

The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs. The past performance evaluation will be based on one or more of the following:

1. Information provided by the Offeror IAW 52.212-1;

1. The contracting officer’s knowledge of and previous experience with the supply or service being acquired;

1. Customer surveys, and past performance questionnaire replies;

1. The Governmentwide Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) at www.ppirs.gov; or

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the follow ratings:

Satisfactory Confidence – The Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence – No performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence – The Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence – The Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance.

The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine relevancy. Relevant past performance information involves at least some of the scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities of this solicitation.

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. With regards to the best value award decision, all offerors rated as “Satisfactory Confidence” will be considered equal for the Past Performance Factor.

d. Price Factor:

Price Evaluation:

The offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes by adding the total price for basic requirements (basic award).

Total Evaluated Price: Price analysis will be performed to determine the reasonableness of the offeror’s price proposal.

Price Reasonableness: The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. Reasonableness must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 13.106-3(a)(2).

Price Realism: The Government intends to determine price realism based on adequate price competition. In the event the Government can not determine price realism based on adequate price competition, the Government reserves the right to conduct a more detailed price realism evaluation using one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 13.106-3(a)(2). The Government may also use other evaluation techniques, as needed. To be realistic, the proposed price must demonstrate an adequate understanding of the requirement.

Unbalanced Pricing: Offerors’ proposals will be reviewed for unbalanced pricing. The Government will evaluate any supporting information provided by the Offeror explaining variances that appear unbalanced. Evaluated offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be deemed ineligible for award by the Contracting Officer if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total price, the price of one or more line items (including sub line items) is significantly over or understated as demonstrated by application of price analysis techniques, such that:

a) There is reasonable doubt the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the Government, even though it is the lowest priced offer; or

b) The offer is so grossly unbalanced; its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advanced payment.

6. Determination of Contractor Responsibility:

To be eligible for award, an offeror must be determined responsible. A Determination of Contractor Responsibility will be conducted in accordance with FAR 9.1 (SAM and FAPIIS). The responsible offerors must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) database (available at: https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/) and submit a completed copy of the Offeror Representations and Certifications – Commercial Items with their response. Lack of registration in SAM will disqualify the vendor and declare them ineligible for award. Additionally, an offeror who receives a determination of non-responsibility will not be eligible to receive the contract award.

7. Discussions:

It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions; therefore, it is imperative that offerors submit their best terms initially. However, if during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, those discussions will be considered in making the best value decision.

8. 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 evaluation factors or sub-factors, and all technical specifications of the item description. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. In the case that a discrepancy exist between the Instruction to Offerors (ITO) and the evaluation factors for award, the evaluation criteria in 52.212-2 will take precedence.

(End of provision) image1.wmf