FA820315R01421______0003.pdf

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

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

FA8203-15-R-01421-0003

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

17 SEP 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-01421-0003

Continuation of block 14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

The purpose of this amendment is to change the Section M past performance scoring. The change is

FROM: Contracts will be evaluated as a composite of a vendor's performance on the contracts considered and the relevancy of each contract/negotiated agreement/task or delivery order, as outlined in in Section L – I, E. The offeror’s consistency of performance & relevancy will also be weighted, giving preference to offerors that reliably perform on contracts that are germane to the subject requirements. Performance and relevancy scores are weighted as one half of the rating for a given portion, the combination of which results in the composite score for that contract. Weighting for consistency will be the product of (1) the composite score between performance and relevancy and (2) the inverse of the difference between the performance and relevancy score for that contract.

Scoring and weighting is as follows:

Performance: (PScore * 0.5) = Perf Relevancy: (RScore * 0.5) = Rel Composite: (Perf + Rel) Weighted Score = Composite * (1 / Difference(Perf-Rel))

Thus, a contractor that provided Past Performance that was deemed as “Exceptional” in performance, but only “Somewhat Relevant” could expect a composite score of 3.0 for that contract (Exceptional Performance = 5 * (1/2) = 2.5; Somewhat Relevant = 1 * (1/2) = 0.5; Composite Score = 2.5 + 0.5 = 3.0).

However, the highly inconsistent score would result in a reduction of the overall weighted score by a factor of one-half because the overall weighted score is a product of the composite score times the inverse of the difference between the composite scores: 3.0 * (1 / (2.5 – 0.5) ) = 1.5

TO: Contracts will be evaluated as a composite of a vendor's performance on the contracts considered and the relevancy of each contract/negotiated agreement/task or delivery order, as outlined in in Section L – I, E.

Performance and relevancy scores are weighted as one half of the rating for a given portion, the combination of which results in the composite score for that contract. The final composite scores for the contracts provided will then be averaged to get the overall past performance score.

Scoring and weighting is as follows:

Performance: (PScore * 0.5) = Perf Relevancy: (RScore * 0.5) = Rel Composite: (Perf + Rel)

Thus, a contractor that provided Past Performance that was deemed as “Exceptional” in performance, but only “Somewhat Relevant” could expect a

Amendment/Modification FA8203-15-R-01421-0003 composite score of 3.0 for that contract (Exceptional Performance = 5 * (1/2) = 2.5; Somewhat Relevant = 1 * (1/2) = 0.5; Composite Score = 2.5 + 0.5 = 3.0).

Request for Proposal FA8203-15-R-01421-0003

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

14. Evaluation Criteria for Award (Section M)

Modified Delphi Criteria will be used to evaluate each proposal as laid out in the Modified Delphi Spreadsheet. Both category weighting (for Technical, Past Performance, and Price) and individual criterion weighting are set forth in the attached Modified Delphi Spreadsheet according to the priorities of the Government program office.

After proposal receipt, individual criterion scoring for each proposal will be accomplished in accordance with the ratings provided in the sections below. Such individual criterion scores will then be multiplied by the applicable individual criterion weightings (i.e. Scored Weighting Factor (SWF)) and then added together to obtain a total criteria score for the category. This total criteria score is then converted to a percentage of the maximum possible criteria score, and then multiplied by the category weighting to obtain the overall category score. The three overall category scores are then summed to obtain a total Modified Delphi score which will be used to make the award decision as set forth in the attached Modified Delphi Spreadsheet.

Award will be made to the offeror with the highest Modified Delphi score at an affordable & reasonable price (the definitions for “affordable” and “reasonable” are provided later in Section 1.d.ii). In the event the highest Modified Delphi score offeror is not affordable & reasonable, then a best-value award will be made to the next highest Modified Delphi score offeror at an affordable & reasonable price.

13. Modified Delphi Criteria will be used to evaluate the offerors' proposals. The SOW and Technical Approach will be evaluated and assigned a technical score utilizing the methods in paragraph (a). Risk will be evaluated and assigned a risk score utilizing the schedule in paragraph (b). Past performance scoring will be in accordance with paragraph (c). Price will be evaluated and receive a score consistent with paragraph (d).

All Delphi scores are the product of the SWF and the Offeror’s Delphi rating for that subsection per Section M – 1, a - c. Thus, the maximum score possible for each Section is the sum of the discrete SWF values for each criteria multiplied by the maximum rating possible for each criteria. The offerors’ scores are summed for each Delphi section (Technical, Past Performance, and Cost) and divided by the total number possible for those sections, to obtain the ratio of the offeror’s score to the maximum possible, and then multiplied by the weight of that section in the proposal.

The equation is as follows:

(Offeror’s Score / Total Score Possible) * Delphi Weight

14. The offeror’s Technical Approach and SOW will be rated based upon a variety of factors, the discrete value of which will be determined as a Delphi SWF for each. These factors include, but are not necessarily limited to: satisfaction of SOO requirements, a rigorous engineering approach and sound IMP/S, understanding of milestones and compliance with airworthiness requirements, reasonableness and implementability of the offeror’s proposed solution, the offeror’s demonstrated understanding of the problem and of USAF logistical, fiscal, and technical constraints, confidence in the offeror’s understanding and ability to shepherd a program from concept through implementation with the Integrated Product Team, the offeror’s analysis and test capability, capacity, and approach, and so forth. Other factors also include the offeror’s proposed team of key personnel along with their qualifications, expertise and experience, and explanation of manpower with current and projected workload and how the key personnel relate to the workload, deliverables, schedule, and overall contract support, and so forth.

The Contractor's SOW and Technical Approach will be rated utilizing the following schedule:

0 = The proposal contains one or more significant weaknesses that would be detrimental to the Government, regardless of any consideration in the element which may exceed the objectives in a manner that could be beneficial to the Government. A score of “0” shall mean that the offeror’s proposal is not technically acceptable and not awardable.

1 = The proposal contains one or more minor weaknesses in the element that may be overcome with additional government oversight or risk mitigation;

and the proposal does not include any considerations which exceed the objectives in a manner that would be beneficial to the Government.

2 = All considerations in the element meet the objectives; alternately, the proposal may have considerations in the element which exceed the objectives in a manner that would be beneficial to the Government, but may also include minor weaknesses that may be overcome with additional government oversight or risk mitigation

3 = The preponderance of considerations in the element exceed the objectives in a manner that would be beneficial to the Government, while no considerations in the element exhibit significant weaknesses that would be detrimental to the government; alternately, the proposal may include minor weaknesses that may be overcome with additional government oversight or risk mitigation, but any over and above benefits are considered significantly more important.

4 = The preponderance of considerations in the element exceed the objectives in a manner that would be beneficial to the Government, while no considerations in the element exhibit any weaknesses.

15. The Risk Score represents the evaluator's rating of the SOW and Technical Approach to successfully complete the order in the areas of cost, schedule, or performance. Issues due to: (A) unmitigated or unaddressed risk elements; or

(B) unmitigated or unaddressed foreseeable risk (should have been addressed but wasn't); and the impact on objectives will also be considered. Risk scores encompass both programmatic and technical risks for their proposed solution and will be evaluated on the offeror’s understanding of reasonable mitigations or work-arounds for personnel, non-personnel, technical, fiscal and procurement, sub-subcontractor, implementability, schedule, and other plausible risks.

Risk will be rated utilizing the following schedule:

0 = High risk – High probability and/or consequences in the area(s) of cost, schedule, implementation support, or performance exists

1 = Moderate risk – Moderate probability and/or consequences in the area(s) of cost, schedule, implementation support, or performance exists

2 = Low risk – Low probability and/or consequences in the area(s) of cost, schedule, implementation support, or performance exists

16. Past performance will be scored by considering both the contract performance and the relevancy of the past performance contracts. The Government shall seek past performance information based on (1) the past and present efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources (note that contracts that do not satisfy the recency requirement outlined in Section L will not be considered).

The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the offeror's ability to perform the effort described in this RFOP, based on the offeror's demonstrated present and past performance. The offeror’s Past Performance section of its proposal will be evaluated based upon a weighted score of elements that involve past contract performance, relevancy (as described in Section L – I, E), and consistency.

Contracts will be evaluated as a composite of a vendor's performance on the contracts considered and the relevancy of each contract/negotiated agreement/task or delivery order, as outlined in in Section L – I, E.

Performance and relevancy scores are weighted as one half of the rating for a given portion, the combination of which results in the composite score for that contract. The final composite scores for the contracts provided will then be averaged to get the overall past performance score.

Scoring and weighting is as follows:

Performance: (PScore * 0.5) = Perf Relevancy: (RScore * 0.5) = Rel Composite: (Perf + Rel)

Thus, a contractor that provided Past Performance that was deemed as “Exceptional” in performance, but only “Somewhat Relevant” could expect a composite score of 3.0 for that contract (Exceptional Performance = 5 * (1/2) = 2.5; Somewhat Relevant = 1 * (1/2) = 0.5; Composite Score = 2.5 + 0.5 = 3.0).

Scoring for contract performance and relevancy will be rated utilizing the following schedule:

0 = Unsatisfactory and/or Not Relevant – Performance 1) did not meet contract requirements and critical aspects of the program suffered and/or 2) past/present performance efforts did not involve any of the magnitude of effort, complexities, scope, implementation requirements, and/or qualification requirements that this solicitation requires.

1 = Marginal and/or Somewhat Relevant – Performance 1) met some contract requirements; critical deliverables were provided but aspects of the program suffered and/or 2) past/present performance efforts involved only some of the magnitude of effort, complexities, scope, implementation requirements, and/or qualification requirements that this solicitation requires.

2 = Neutral – No performance history 3 = Satisfactory and/or Relevant – Performance 1) met all contract requirements; program execution was successful and/or 2) past/present performance efforts involved much of the magnitude of effort, complexities, scope, implementation requirements, and/or qualification requirements that this solicitation requires.

4 = Very Good and/or Very Relevant – Performance 1) generally met all contract requirements, but certain elements of the contractors performance exceeded contract requirements in a manner that was beneficial to the Government and/or 2) past/present performance efforts involved much of the magnitude of effort, complexities, scope, implementation requirements, and/or qualification requirements that this solicitation requires. The past/present effort has also implemented and/or resulted in mitigation of technical or logistical risk for the weapon system. The effort also addressed landing-gear needs that are applicable to USAF landing gear and/or resulted in demonstrated cost avoidances.

5 = Exceptional and/or Especially Relevant – Performance 1) generally exceeded contract requirements in a manner that was significantly beneficial to the Government and/or 2) past/present performance efforts involved essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexities, scope, implementation requirements, and/or qualification requirements that this solicitation requires. The past/present efforts have also implemented and/or resulted in substantial mitigation of technical or logistical risk for the weapon system while meeting all other requirements. The past efforts also addressed USAF landing gear specific needs and/or resulted in substantial, demonstrated cost avoidances.

17. TEP Calculations:

18. CLIN’s:

19. The TEP Calculation will consist of all CLINs (i.e. the total proposed price), which will be used to evaluate the best value to the Government.

20. Definitions:

21. A price must be both reasonable and affordable. A price is reasonable if the proposed labor price doesn't exceed the vendor's ceilings ($/hr./LC on vendor's original proposal) and the labor category schedule was submitted utilizing competitive procedures. In the event a negotiated labor category schedule was obtained the hours will be determined reasonable utilizing applicable statues and/or regulations.

22. A price is considered affordable it is within or below the cost range provided by the Government with the RFOP. Separately priced O&A options proposed by the offeror may be considered beyond the RFOP cost range, but the SOO objectives must be able to be accomplished without the O&A options being considered.

23. TEP Points Calculation

24. The offeror with the lowest price will receive a maximum score of five, and the other (higher priced) offeror will receive a score proportional to the price difference between its offer and the low price offer. Specifically, the score for the high price offeror will be calculated by:

• Score = 5 x (low price/high price)