FA820315R01421_0002.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE Page 1

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

FA8203-15-R-01421-0002

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

31 AUG 2015

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

FD20201501421

5. PROJECT NO (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, DIRECTORATE OF CONTRACTING

AFSC PZAAB2

6050 GUM LANE BLDG 1215

HILL AIR FORCE BASE UT 84056-5825

BUYER: Christian S. Barwick/AFSC christian.barwick@us.af.mil Phone: (801) 775- 4631 No Collect Calls

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6) CODEFA8203

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

CODE

X

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

FA820315R01421

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

18-AUG-2015

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not extended. Offers 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 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 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 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 1 copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

ROUTINE

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

BY ________________________________________________________

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED

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

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BY ____________________________________________________

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

FACILITY CODE

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE

30-105 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

PRESCRIBED BY GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

X

X X

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.

Amendment/Modification FA8203-15-R-01421-0002

Continuation of block 14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

The purpose of this amendment is to change the Section L. The amendment is to limit the number of pages per past performance submissions to one page per submission.

Request for Proposal FA8203-15-R-01421-0002

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION L

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR RESPONDENTS

14. Instructions to Offerors (Section L)

15. Proposals consist of a Technical Approach and the offeror's labor category schedule (representing the price proposal). The offeror is also required to submit a Statement of Work (SOW), which can be included in the Appendices and is not counted towards the proposal page count.

16. The SOW will be incorporated into the contract as an Attachment and should clearly define those portions of the proposal that are to become contractual requirements for the contract Tasks. The SOW should also include a concise description of the work to be performed in each contract Task. The manner of organization for the SOW is left to the contractor's discretion. Regardless of the approach, the intent is that the Government will have a clearly identified statement of work that will capture contractual requirements, separate from the additional data that is necessary for proposal evaluation. This will alleviate confusion in the event that there is later conflict regarding contractual requirements.

17. The Technical Approach should define the contractor’s projected SOW, along with information pertinent to the proposed solution (such as discussion regarding deliverables, a detailed discussion of the offeror’s proposed technical approach and methodology for contract Tasks;

including design, analysis, testing, and implementation planning, program management, assumptions and unknowns, risks, coordination with expected organizations, and demonstration of capabilities that are germane to the proposed solution, etc…). The proposal should also outline in detail the offeror’s proposed key personnel with which it will execute the contract, their qualifications, roles, and responsibilities, per PWS Table 5.0, and current and projected workload capacity.

The proposal shall address the problem statement and objectives presented in the SOO, providing the Government with a detailed explanation of its proposed approach to meeting contract objectives. The offeror is encouraged to organize its Technical Proposal in a logical progression that demonstrates how it complies with the grading criteria of the Modified Delphi, per Section M. The Technical Proposal should address its technical approach from the Operational Safety, Suitability, and Effectiveness (OSS&E) perspective and address support for program review activities and allow for Engineering Review Boards and Project Folders IAW 417 SCMS/GUEB policy and business practices.

At its own discretion, the offeror may propose additional efforts, above and beyond the SOO requirements, if such efforts may be considered beneficial to the Government. Any additional Over and Above (O&A) efforts that are separately priced options in the cost proposal will not be evaluated as a part of the offeror’s technical score in the Modified Delphi (IAW Section M – II) and also will not be included in the overall total price for purposes of the TEP calculation. O&A efforts that are not separately priced, are within the scope of the SOO, and that complement the offeror’s proposed approach may be used at the offeror’s discretion in an attempt to improve its Delphi score. However, the addition of O&A efforts is not a guarantee of a higher score and the exclusion of O&A from the basic SOO requirements efforts will not penalize the offeror.

Font shall be no smaller than Times New Roman 12 point (font 9 acceptable, within reason for graphs and charts), with margins of at least one-inch. Table of Contents and cover pages are not included in the total page count. Past performance information, draft IMS, draft IMP, draft Risk Management Plan, and SOW are not included in total page count. Assumptions for the offeror’s proposed Tasks should be provided as well and are included in the total page count.

18. The offeror shall provide an Integrated Master Schedule (identifying critical paths) in addition to the Technical Proposal. The IMS shall immediately follow the offeror’s Technical Proposal and will form the basis upon which contract period of performance and CLIN delivery dates are determined. The IMS should explain solution’s time-frame and relate the schedule to the problem, objectives, and deliverables; emphasize critical tasks, paths, and key moments. An Integrated Master Plan (IMP) is not required in the Technical Proposal, but may be used at the offeror’s discretion to demonstrate its compliance with contract objectives. The offeror’s Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) is also not counted towards the proposal page count.

19. Past Performance: The offeror shall provide past performance information on a minimum of one

(1) but no more than three (3) “recent” and “relevant” contracts with U.S. Government Agencies. This shall include (1) the contract/task order number, (2) contract period of performance, (3) contract pricing arrangement, (4) your organization's performance as Prime or Subcontractor, (5) initial contract cost, (6) current/final contract cost, (7) reasons for difference between initial and final contract costs, (8) description of work provided and an explanation on what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate, and (9) current agency Program Manager's contact information (name, office, phone number, email). The Government may contact personnel to determine similarity, technical capability, and performance. The offeror’s Past Performance section is included in the overall page count.

“Recent” is defined as an effort that has been performed, in full, or in part, within the past 4 years preceding the solicitation date, such that the Government can expect similar capability, personnel, and program management methods and performance during the execution of this contract. This will be scored as outlined in Section M –II, 1, c.

“Relevant” is defined as performance of efforts involving landing gear engineering that are 1) similar or greater in scope, magnitude, complexity, and deliverables to the effort described in the SOO, and 2) have since completed and either implemented to the Government’s benefit or have resulted in sufficient derivative benefits that the Government has mitigated technical or logistical risk for that weapon system.

Submit information on contracts that are recent and that you consider most relevant in demonstrating your ability to perform the proposed effort. Include rationale supporting your assertion of relevancy. 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.

The Contractor(s) shall clearly identify the workload breakdown between the Prime Contractor and any applicable Subcontractor(s) for this effort. The evaluation team will evaluate the past performance and outlined technical capability and capacity for prime/sub(s) that the offeror submits based on the role that prime/sub(s) will actually perform on the contract. Submit your best and most relevant contracts. Limit your submission of contracts to not more than 3 contracts total.

Past Performance submissions shall include contract number, contract value, and current POCs:

program manager, contracting officer, technical lead, and shall consist of one page per submission.. Performance rating will be determined using the definitions for past performance ratings outlined in Section M – II, 1, c, in this document by considering all information the evaluation team gathers on your submitted contracts, including CPARS, if such information is available, and/or by contacting and interviewing POC's for those prior contracts. Relevancy for each contract will also be assessed by the team based on the relevancy definitions in this document.

20. The Technical Approach is limited to a total of 40 pages and should address the problem statement and objectives in the PWS and PWS Task SOO, along with the offeror’s proposed approach, labor categories and labor mix, and hours proposed to mitigating the Safety of Flight (SOF) problems with C-130 Nose Ski Rigger Strut Assembly.

21. Offerors are encouraged to direct questions to the Buyer if clarification on the RFOP is needed.

Offerors are allotted 5 business days from the receipt of the RFOP in which to submit questions;

the Government response should then be expected within the next 10 business days. Note that it is not expected that the proposal due date will be extended due to this question and answer period, so it will be prudent for the contractor to develop its proposal in parallel with the question and answer process.