FA8224-16-R-0026-00001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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.

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Is to update Sections L, CLIN 0002 language, and add "Attachment 30, CDRL LIST Shock Isolator Test Tow er (SITT)."

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 15

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 05-May-2016

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X FA8224-16-R-0026

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

03-May-2016

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer 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 1 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 ITEM 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 THE 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 copies to the issuing office.

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

05-May-2016

CODE

OL:H/PZIM

DAVID BRYAN 6038 ASPEN AVE BLDG 1289

HILL AFB UT 84056-5805

FA8224 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA8224-16-R-0026

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0002

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

The contractor will provide data in accordance with DD Form 1423, exhibit A001-A043 attached hereto. Reference the SOW, TRD and PS.

To:

The contractor will provide data in accordance with DD Form 1423, exhibit A001-A043 attached hereto. Reference the SOW, TRD and PS. Pricing for each CDRL is broken out in Attachement 30 referenced in Section J, "CDRL

List Shock Isolator Test Tower (SITT).".

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The Table of Contents has changed from:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 1 Statement of Work

(SOW)

20 21-APR-2016

Attachment 10 Core Sample Results 1 21-APR-2016

Attachment 11 Encryption Instruction 3 21-APR-2016

Attachment 12 TO 35M3-3-16-3_LER-

MSS

21-APR-2016

Attachment 13 S-133-128D 14-JAN-2015

Attachment 14 S-133-128D (Appendix

II)

14-JAN-2015

Attachment 15 S-133-112-1-56 (Fig A

1421) LCC SI W3-5

21-APR-2016

Attachment 16 S-133-10764 (FAB) 21-APR-2016

Attachment 17 S-133-10764 (DEV) 21-APR-2016

Attachment 18 s-133-10763_Part_2 21-APR-2016

Attachment 19 S-133-10763_Part_1 21-APR-2016

Attachment 2 Appendix A Technical

Requirements Data (TRD)

32 01-APR-2016

Attachment 20 Fig_A1241_16_May_201

4_S-112-1-159

21-APR-2016

Attachment 21 Drawing 25-73553 21-APR-2016

Attachment 22 Drawing 25-66751 21-APR-2016

Attachment 23 Drawing 25-66608 21-APR-2016

Attachment 24 35M3-3-16-3_LER-MSS

SI TO

21-APR-2016

Attachment 25 35M3-3-15-2_Preliminary

TO LCCWingIII_V

21-APR-2016

Attachment 26 35M3-3-13-1_Draft TO

LCCWing I

21-APR-2016

Attachment 27 25-37556 21-APR-2016

Attachment 28 25-37551 21-APR-2016

Attachment 29 1269 21-APR-2016

Attachment 3 Appendix B Purchase

Specification

5 21-APR-2016

Attachment 4 Appendix C Safety 5 21-APR-2016

Attachment 5 Appendix D Contract

Data Requirements List

(CDRL)

67 14-APR-2016

Attachment 6 Acronyms 3 21-APR-2016

Attachment 7 Foundation and Footing

Information

3 21-APR-2016

Attachment 8 Building 850 - Proposed

Layout

1 21-APR-2016

Attachment 9 Building 850 Bay G 1 21-APR-2016 to:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 1 Statement of Work

(SOW)

20 21-APR-2016

Attachment 10 Core Sample Results 1 21-APR-2016

Attachment 11 Encryption Instruction 3 21-APR-2016

Attachment 12 TO 35M3-3-16-3_LER-

MSS

21-APR-2016

Attachment 13 S-133-128D 14-JAN-2015

Attachment 14 S-133-128D (Appendix

II)

14-JAN-2015

Attachment 15 S-133-112-1-56 (Fig A

1421) LCC SI W3-5

21-APR-2016

Attachment 16 S-133-10764 (FAB) 21-APR-2016

Attachment 17 S-133-10764 (DEV) 21-APR-2016

Attachment 18 s-133-10763_Part_2 21-APR-2016

Attachment 19 S-133-10763_Part_1 21-APR-2016

Attachment 2 Appendix A Technical

Requirements Data (TRD)

32 01-APR-2016

Attachment 20 Fig_A1241_16_May_201

4_S-112-1-159

21-APR-2016

Attachment 21 Drawing 25-73553 21-APR-2016

Attachment 22 Drawing 25-66751 21-APR-2016

Attachment 23 Drawing 25-66608 21-APR-2016

Attachment 24 35M3-3-16-3_LER-MSS

SI TO

21-APR-2016

Attachment 25 35M3-3-15-2_Preliminary

TO LCCWingIII_V

21-APR-2016

Attachment 26 35M3-3-13-1_Draft TO

LCCWing I

21-APR-2016

Attachment 27 25-37556 21-APR-2016

Attachment 28 25-37551 21-APR-2016

Attachment 29 1269 21-APR-2016

Attachment 3 Appendix B Purchase

Specification

5 21-APR-2016

Attachment 30 CDRL List Shock Isolator

Test Tower (SITT)

04-MAY-2016

Attachment 4 Appendix C Safety 5 21-APR-2016

Attachment 5 Appendix D Contract

Data Requirements List

(CDRL)

67 14-APR-2016

Attachment 6 Acronyms 3 21-APR-2016

Attachment 7 Foundation and Footing

Information

3 21-APR-2016

Attachment 8 Building 850 - Proposed

Layout

1 21-APR-2016

Attachment 9 Building 850 Bay G 1 21-APR-2016

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTION TO CONTRACTORS

SECTION L: INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFEROR (ITO) FOR PROPOSAL

PREPARATION USING LOWEST PRICE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE (LPTA)

PROCEDURES

1. General Instructions

1.1 Instructions to Offerors (ITO): This section of the ITO provides general guidance for preparing proposals as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the proposal to design, fabricate, assemble, test, install, start up, qualify and document a Shock Isolator

(SI) Test Tower (SITT) per the Statement of Work (SOW), Technical Requirements

Document (TRD) for Shock Isolator Test Tower (SITT), Purchase Specification (PS) for the

Shock Isolator Test Tower (SITT) as the basis for preparing a proposal, Contract Data

Requirements Lists (CDRL), Integrated Master Schedule (IMS), Section B –Supplies or

Service and Price, and Section F Deliveries or Performance. The Offeror’s proposal must include all data and information requested by the ITO and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. Non-conformance with the instructions provided in the ITO may result in rejection of a proposal.

1.2. In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.8 (Government Contract Files), the Government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals. Unless the Offeror requests otherwise, the

Government will destroy any extra copies of unsuccessful proposals.

1.3. The Government intends to award one (1) Contract requirement in accordance with the paragraph 1.1 stated above; however, the Government reserves the right to split the award or cancel the solicitation.

1.4. The Government reserves the right to award some, none or all of the line items in the solicitation.

1.5. The Government intends and reserves the right to award a contract without discussions;

therefore, it is imperative that offerors submit its best pricing and proposal terms initially.

However, 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.

2. General Information

2.1. Points of Contact: The Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) and the contract buyer are the sole points of contact for this acquisition. Written requests for clarification shall be sent to the PCO. Address any questions or concerns to the individual identified on Page 1 of this

2.2. Distribution of Proposals: the "original" proposal shall be so designated and signed by the Offeror’s authorized representative. Any electronic copies must be received by the due date identified on the front page of the RFP, while hard copies must be postmarked by the due date. Proposals shall be delivered to:

OO-ALC/PZIMB

David Bryan

Contracting Officer

6038 ASPEN AVE, Bldg 1289

Hill AFB, Utah 84056-5838 David.bryan.8@us.af.mil

Or

OO-ALC/PZIMB

Tyler Fitz

Contracting Specialist

6038 ASPEN AVE, Bldg 1289

Hill AFB, Utah 84056-5838 tyler.fitz@us.af.mil

2.3. The Offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization

Table (Table 1). The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in the following table.

mailto:David.bryan.8@us.af.mil mailto:tyler.fitz@us.af.mil

Table 1 - Proposal Organization

VOLUME VOLUME TITLE COPIES

*(see note)

PAGE

LIMIT

FILE SIZE

I Technical Proposal (Factor 1) (consists of the following appendices)

1 Electronic, 1 hard copy

> 10MB break files in to smaller sizes

Appendix 1 - Sub-factor A: Preliminary

Concept Design

Appendix 2 - Sub-factor B: Quality

Program Plan (QPP)

Appendix 3 – Sub-factor C: Integrated

Master Schedule (IMS)

Appendix 4 – Sub-factor D: Site

Preparation

Appendix 5 – Sub-factor E: Data Rights 5

II Price Proposal (Factor 2) – must be entered in the model solicitation to be considered responsive.

1 Electronic, 1 hard copy same as schedule B

III Past Performance (Factor 3) 1 Electronic, 1 hard copy

END

Note: Hard copies must be postmarked NLT solicitation closing date and time.

2.3.1 Each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated without cross-referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation that is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal. Cross-referencing within a proposal volume is permitted.

2.4. If submission exceeds page limit, then excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal.

2.5. Labeling: Each volume of the proposal should be clearly marked as to volume number, title, solicitation identification, and the Offeror’s name. Be sure to apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(e), Restriction on

Disclosure and Use of Data, and 3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Offeror Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information.

2.6 Page Size and Format A page is defined as each face of a sheet of paper containing information. Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, shall not include any foldouts, and shall be printed on both sides. Sheets shall be double-sided which will count as two pages. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text shall be Times New Roman and font size shall be no less than 12 points and lines shall be single spaced. Tracking, kerning, and leading values shall not be changed from the default values of the word processing or page layout software. Use at least 1 inch margins on the top, bottom, and both sides. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. These page format restrictions shall apply to responses to ENs. These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals.

2.7 Format Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible and shall not exceed 11 x 17 inches in size. Foldout pages may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams and schematics; not for pages of text. For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 10 point; however, tables shall be used sparingly and shall not be used in place of text. Tables and Charts will not count against the page count. These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals.

2.8 Electronic Offers - The content and page size of electronic copies must be identical to the hard copies. In the event there is a discrepancy between the hard copy and electronic copy, the hard copy shall take precedence. For electronic copies, indicate on each CD the volume number and title. Use separate files for each volume to permit rapid location of all portions of the proposal, including subfactor required plans, exhibits, annexes, and attachments, if any. The offeror shall submit Volumes I - III in electronic format, using read only CDs (i.e. CD-R). Re-writable CDs (i.e. CD-RW) shall NOT be used. Each volume shall be on a separate CD. If files are compressed, the necessary decompression program must be included. The electronic copies of the proposal, as applicable, shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Word 2010, MS Excel 2010, and MS PowerPoint 2010, or in a “word searchable” PDF format. However, the Price volume tables and charts shall be in MS Excel 2010 format. Word documents - Set “save as type” to “Word Document

(*docx)” only. Excel spreadsheets - Set “Save as type” to Microsoft Excel Workbook

(*xlsx).” PowerPoint presentation - Set “Save as type” to “Microsoft PowerPoint 2010

Presentation (*.pptx).”

3. Volume I: Technical Proposal (Factor 1)

3.1. General: The technical proposal shall be clear, concise, complete, and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. The proposal shall not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather shall provide convincing documentation to address how the Offeror will meet these requirements.

There will be no reference to rates or price in this volume. Offerors shall assume that the

Government has no prior knowledge of their certifications, facilities and/or structural, mechanical, and electronics capabilities, and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror’s proposal. Offerors’ responses will be evaluated against the factors and sub-factor defined below. Using the instructions provided below, provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology the Offeror would use for accomplishing and satisfying the factors and sub-factor. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory.

By the Offeror’s proposal submission, the Offeror is representing that the company/firm will perform ALL the requirements specified in the solicitation (including all documents listed in paragraph 1.1 ITO); it is not necessary or desirable to tell us so in the proposal. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

3.1.1. If after award of a contract, it is discovered that changes made during discussions (if held) were not incorporated into the PS and/or technical proposal, such changes to the contract documentation shall be considered administrative and shall be made by unilateral modification to the order, at no change in cost or price or other terms and conditions.

3.2. Sub-Factor A: Preliminary Concept Design

3.2.1. The Government will assess the Offeror’s ability to meet the critical technical areas and failure mitigation requirements by providing a preliminary concept design and risk analysis detailed summary that allows the Government to determine acceptability. The Offeror shall include one PDF concept drawing for each of the four areas listed below and one total system

PDF concept drawing. The Offeror shall also include a detailed summary of the risks for each of the four areas below and how the concept provided mitigates those risks:

- SITT Failure Mitigation (PS 3.8.2)

Concept design drawing shall include sound engineering method to eliminate damage to the SI in the case of SITT failure.

- Weight handling (TRD 3.2.1.1.5, 3.2.1.1.6 and PS 3.6)

Concept design shall include sound engineering method for safely handling required weights.

- Floor Loading (PS 3.1.3)

Concept design shall include sound engineering method for safely loading

SIs from carts at ground level.

- Interchangeability (PS 3.10 and SOW 4.0)

Concept design shall include sound engineering method for allowing for interchangeability between different SI types with limited time allowed and prescribed number of technicians.

Concept design shall include sound engineering method for allowing for interchangeability that may need to occur between different tests done on one specific SI with limited time allowed and prescribed number of technicians.

3.3 Sub-Factor B: Quality Program Plan (QPP)

3.3.1 The Government will assess the Offeror’s ability to provide quality control throughout the program. The Offeror shall provide a Quality Program Plan, describing the approach for quality control throughout the program including management, design control, purchasing, control of customer supplied products, process control, inspection and testing, and problem reporting and corrective action in accordance with (IAW), SOW 5.1.4 and 5.4.1.

3.4 Sub-Factor C: Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)

3.4.1 The Government will assess the Offeror’s ability to meet the Government’s schedule requirements. The Offeror shall provide an IMS that describes the approach to meet the

Government’s timeline and ensure all major milestones are met and critical reviews are addressed IAW SOW 1.0, 5.6.2, and 5.7.

3.5 Sub-Factor D: Site Preparation

3.5.1 The Government will assess the Offeror’s ability to meet the site preparation requirements. The Offeror shall provide a detailed plan addressing site preparation. (SOW

8.2)

3.6 Sub-Factor E: Data Rights

3.6.1 The Government will assess the Offeror’s ability to meet the requirements for required data rights. The Offeror shall complete and provide identification and assertion IAW DFARS

252.227-7013 and DFARS 252.227-7014 (SOW 7.0). If the Offeror does not intend to restrict the Government’s Use, Release, or Disclosure of Technical Data the Offeror shall include a statement that this sub-factor is inapplicable.

4. Volume II: Price Proposal (Factor 2)

4.1 General Instructions:

4.1.2 The price proposal will be the price information provided in Schedule B of the model solicitation. Prices for all CLINs must be filled in, including Attachement 30, “CDRL List

Shock Isolator Test Tower (SITT), unit and extended pricing in order to develop the Total

Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors should review Section M criteria to ensure the minimum requirements are met.

4.2 Total Evaluated Price:

4.2.1 Cost or Pricing Information Requirements – In accordance with FAR 15.402, 15.403-

1(b) and 15.403-3(a), “information other than certified cost or pricing data” may be required to support price reasonableness. If after receipt of proposals, the CO determines that there is insufficient information available to determine the reasonableness of the proposed pricing the

Offeror may be required to submit additional information other than certified cost or pricing data. If, during the source selection process, the CO determines that adequate competition no longer exists, then certified cost and pricing data may be required.

4.2.2 Pricing Assumptions - Summarize all significant pricing assumptions, scope limitations and/or qualifications of the Price proposal.

4.2.3 Estimating Techniques and Methods – Offerors shall use generally accepted estimating techniques to develop their estimates for the category rates in the TEP.

4.2.4 Balance - Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items or sub-line items. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

5. VOLUME III: Past Performance (Factor 3)

5.1 Offerors may submit recent, relevant contracts as defined in Section M. The government will consider this information, along with information obtained from other sources (e.g. Past

Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), customer interviews, etc.).

5.2 Offerors are encouraged to address any performance problems/issues that the

Government may identify and explain corrective action taken and current status. The

Government will consider this information in determining an Offeror’s past performance rating.

5.3 An Offeror’s failure to address performance problems/issues within this volume does not preclude the government from using such information in determining a past performance rating.

6. Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements

6.1 Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors should clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Each exception shall be specifically related to each paragraph and specific part of the solicitation to which the exception is taken. Provide rationale in support of the exception and fully explain its impact, if any, on the performance, schedule, cost, and specific requirements of the solicitation. This information shall be provided in the format and content of the following Table:

Solicitation Exceptions

SOLICITATION

Document

Page/

Paragraph

Requirement/

Portion

Rationale

PWS, Model

Contract/Solicitation, ITO, etc.

Applicable

Page and

Paragraph

Numbers

Identify the requirement or portion to which exception is taken

Describe why the requirement will not be met

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION CRITERA

SECTION M: EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. General Information

1.1. Basis for Award

1.1.1 This acquisition will utilize Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2, as supplemented. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. Award will be made to the acceptable Offeror with the lowest evaluated price, that is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements. The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by

Section L of this solicitation.

1.1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded:

The Government intends to select one Offeror to design, fabricate, assemble, test, install, start up, qualify and document two new Shock Isolator Test Towers (SITT). However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, if the SSA determines it is in the Government’s best interest.

1.1.3 Major Proposal Revisions:

If a proposal receives an “Unacceptable” rating after initial evaluation and will require major revisions in order to meet the technical requirement, the Government reserves the right to exclude the Offeror from the competitive range. 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.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P25_3805

1.2. Evaluation Factors and Sub-factor

The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used. Award will be made to the

Offeror whose proposal is deemed lowest price technically acceptable.

Factor 1: Technical Proposal o Sub-factor A: Preliminary Concept Design o Sub-factor B: Quality Program Plan (QPP) o Sub-factor C: Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) o Sub-factor D: Site Preparation o Sub-factor E: Data Rights

Factor 2: Price Proposal

Factor 3: Past Performance

2. Evaluation Methodology

2.1. Price shall be evaluated on all offers and the proposals will be listed from lowest to highest price based on the total evaluated price. Then technical acceptability will be evaluated starting with the proposal with the lowest total evaluated price until one proposal is determined to be acceptable.

2.1.1. Acceptable – Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

2.1.2. Unacceptable – Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the

2.1.3 The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals by assigning ratings of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. The technical factor as a whole will be rated “Unacceptable” if any single subfactor is rated “Unacceptable.”

2.1.4 Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The offeror is reminded that the

Government intends to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions. However, the Government may hold discussions if necessary.

2.2. Volume I: Technical Proposal (Factor 1)

2.2.1.1. Technical Approach

The Government’s technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals against the following sub-factors. Failure to meet the minimum requirements for any one sub-factor will be will result in Offeror’s proposal deemed unacceptable.

2.2.1. Sub-factor A: Preliminary Concept Design

The Offeror has provided one PDF concept drawing for each of the four elements listed below and one total system PDF concept drawing.

ELEMENT 1: SITT Failure Mitigation (PS 3.8.2) o Concept design drawing includes sound engineering method to eliminate damage to the SI in the case of SITT failure.

o Risk analysis discussion provided that includes an assessment of the risks involved in this portion of the design and possible mitigation tactics.

ELEMENT 2: Weight handling (TRD 3.2.1.1.5, 3.2.1.1.6 and PS 3.6) o Concept design includes sound engineering method for safely handling required weights.

ELEMENT 3: Floor Loading (PS 3.1.3) o Concept design includes sound engineering method for safely loading SIs from carts at ground level.

ELEMENT 4: Interchangeability (PS 3.10 and SOW 4.0) o Concept design includes sound engineering method for allowing for interchangeability between different Shock Isolators (SI) types with limited time allowed and prescribed number of technicians.

o Concept design includes sound engineering method for allowing for interchangeability that may need to occur between different tests done on one specific SI with limited time allowed and prescribed number of technicians.

2.2.2 Sub-factor B: Quality Program Plan (QPP)

The Offeror has provided a Quality Program Plan, that describes the approach for quality control throughout the program including management, design control, purchasing, control of customer supplied products, process control, inspection and testing, and problem reporting and corrective action in accordance with (IAW), SOW 5.1.4 and 5.4.1.

2.2.3 Sub-factor C: Integrated Master Schedule (IMS).

The Offeror has provided an IMS that describes the approach to meet the Government’s timeline and ensure all major milestones are met and critical reviews are addressed IAW

SOW 1.0, 5.6.2, and 5.7.

2.2.4 Sub-factor D: Site Preparation

The Offeror has provided a detailed plan addressing site preparation. (SOW 8.2)

2.2.5 Sub-factor E: Data Rights

The Offeror has completed and provided identification and assertion IAW DFARS 252.227-

7013 and DFARS 252.227-7014. (SOW 7.0); or, has included a statement that this sub-factor is inapplicable.

2.3 Volume II: Price Proposal (Factor 2)

2.3.1 The pricing criteria used for evaluation are (1) completeness, (2) price reasonableness

2.3.2 Completeness – The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L of the RFP. Incomplete price submissions may not be evaluated and the proposal may be eliminated from the competition.

2.3.3 Price Reasonableness – The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 (Proposal Analysis Techniques). Based on the level of interest for this requirement, it is anticipated that adequate price competition will satisfy the criteria for price reasonableness.

2.3.4 Balance - Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The

Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items or sub-line items. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.4 Volume III: Past Performance (Factor 3)

2.4.1 Past performance information will be gathered from Offeror submissions, Government databases such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and/or through the use of Government and commercial customer interviews and questionnaires. Only recent and relevant past performance information will be considered.

2.4.1.1 Recency is defined as performance less than five years old. The Government will not consider performance on contracts/task orders where performance was concluded more than five years prior to this solicitation’s issue date.

2.4.1.2 Relevancy is defined as work that involves approximately the same types of services described in this RFP.

2.4.2 Past performance will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis using the following ratings.

Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the

Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below)

Unacceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the

Government has no reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: 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 (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the

Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “Acceptable.”

3.0 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, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs), and the Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

(End of Summary of Changes)