FA852516R0002_______0002.pdf

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

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

FA8525-16-R-0002-0002

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

11 DEC 2015

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

N/A

5. PROJECT NO (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE

GALAXY (C-5), AFLCMC/WLSK

235 BYRON ST STE 19A

BLDG 300 CML PHN 478 926 6501

ROBINS AFB GA 31098-1670

BUYER: Valerie L.Evans/WLSK valerie.evans.1@us.af.mil Phone: (478) 222- 1225 Fax: (000) 000-0000 No Collect Calls

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6) CODEFA8525

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

CODE

X

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

FA852516R0002

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

11-DEC-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 copies to the issuing office.

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

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

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 FA8525-16-R-0002-0002

Continuation of block 14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

1. Sections L and M are hereby updated and attached.

2. PWS is hereby updated as of 01 Dec 2015 and attached.

Request for Proposal FA8525-16-R-0002-0002

PART III - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS, AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

SECTION J

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Form Number Description/File Name Date Number of Pages Performance-based Work Statement (PWS) Revision 1.0

01DEC2015 32

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION L

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR RESPONDENTS

L-900 Section L- Instruction, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors A. The following instructions cover the preparation and submittal of the offeror’s proposal for this solicitation. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the Request for Proposal (RFP) may cause their proposal to be determined to be unacceptable and therefore not eligible for award. If a joint venture arrangement exists for this acquisition, the offeror shall provide a copy of the joint venture agreement that is signed and dated by all joint venture members as part of the proposal submission. Proposals shall be submitted to the Government in 4 separate volumes as set forth below:

VOLUME PAGE

LIMITS

NUMBER

OF

COPIES

DESCRIPTION

I N/A 1 Completed RFP, Total Compensation Plan, Voluntary Protection Program Information, & Health and Safety Plan

II 40 2* Written Technical Proposal III N/A 3** Past Performance IV N/A 2*** Cost/Price Proposal (Completed Excel Price Model-Attachment

8 to the RFP)

* Written Technical Proposal information shall be submitted in written form (2 copies) and CD-R or DVD-R (write once/read only) (1 copy) that is “closed” so that no further writes can be made to the media. CD-R/W or DVD-R/W media types are not acceptable. Media must be virus scanned by the offeror prior to submitting to the Government.

**Electronic copies shall be submitted in accordance with RFP Attachment 7. Offerors shall virus-scan all media before submittal to the Government. Offerors shall use the instructions set forth in RFPAttachment 7 to use the Past Performance Information (PPI) Tool to electronically submit the Past Performance Volume.

***Cost/Price Proposal information (Completed Excel Price Model, RFP Attachment 8 ) shall be submitted in written form (2 copies) and CD-R or DVD-R (write once/read only) (1 copy) that is “closed” so that no further writes can be made to the media. The Cost/Price Proposal information shall be submitted in .xls file format (Microsoft Excel 2010 or earlier version). CD-R/W or DVD-R/W media types are not acceptable.

Media must be virus scanned by the offeror prior to submitting to the Government.

In addition to the page limitations set forth above, proposals should comply with the following format:

(1) The sealed package used to submit the proposal package must show the time and date specified for receipt. Each volume shall be marked with the RFP number and the offeror’s name and address, and the number of the Volume, i.e. I, II, III, or IV . Proposals shall be in the English language and all monies shall be proposed in United States dollars.

(2) Print shall be no smaller than a font size of 12 and should be on 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper, excluding any charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, or spreadsheets, etc.. Charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, or spreadsheets, etc. shall not be greater than 11” x 17.” Each volume within the proposal notebook shall be separately tabbed and identified. Margins shall be no smaller than 1 inch and each page within a volume shall be numbered consecutively. Elaborate formats, bindings or color presentations are not desired or required.

(3) The page limitation for Volume II, Written Technical Proposal, is 40 pages. The page limitation includes any charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc., but excludes any cover page, table of contents or list of acronyms (if utilized). Offerors are cautioned that any pages that exceed the page limitation shall not be read but shall be removed and either retained in the contract file without being considered in the evaluation or sent back to the offeror.

(4) Page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs), if issued. The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to offerors or on the EN form itself.

(5) Each page containing proprietary information should be so marked.

(6) Each page should contain the following legend at the bottom of each sheet:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION--SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

(7) Submission of the initial proposal packages via electronic mail will not be accepted. Initial proposal packages shall either be mailed or hand-delivered.

Offerors are cautioned that Warner Robins Air Logistics Complex has visitor control procedures requiring individuals not affiliated with the installation to obtain a visitor pass prior to entrance. Some delay should be anticipated when hand-delivering proposal packages. Offerors should allow for sufficient time to obtain a visitor pass and arrive at the specified office PRIOR to the time specified for receipt of proposals.

Communications:

Exchanges of source selection information after submission of the initial proposal packages between the Government and offerors will be controlled by the Contracting Officer. Email may be used to transmit such information only if the email can be sent encrypted, and must include “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104” in the subject line of the email. Otherwise, source selection information may be transmitted via direct mailing or facsimile. In order to facilitate the sending and receiving of encrypted emails, offerors must use MS Outlook email configured to support encryption or a different email product that is S/MIME compatible and configured to support encryption. After the initial submission, if you intend to submit your source selection information via encrypted email, you will need to contact the Buyer/Contracting Officer indicated on the face page of the solicitation prior to that first submittal in order to exchange certificates used for encryption. To ensure the process is working correctly, send a test encrypted message first (without including any source selection information). When submitting source selection information via email, file suppression utilities, to include but not limited to zip files, will not be accepted.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP shall consist of the completed and signed RFP with a cover letter delineating any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions with accompanying rationale. However, offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP may cause their proposal to be determined unacceptable and therefore not considered eligible for award. Offerors shall ensure that all clauses and provisions that require “fill-in” information are appropriately completed. Proposed rates and prices associated with the applicable contract line items shall not be entered in the Schedule of the RFP; rather, they shall be entered in Attachment 8 to the RFP (see paragraph E for instructions). Any rates or prices entered in the Schedule will not be considered, and those entered in Attachment 8 shall take precedence.

The total compensation plan required by FAR 52.222-46 shall be submitted as part of Volume I and shall be no more than two (2) pages. The plan shall set forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for professional employees and include supporting information to enable the Government to review the proposed salaries and fringe benefits in accordance with FAR 52.222-46. Note: The compensation plan pertains to the offeror only. However, if a populated joint venture is formed (a joint venture in which the employees are employed by the joint venture itself and not by any individual joint venture partner), the joint venture must submit the total compensation plan for the joint venture. If an unpopulated joint venture is formed, each individual joint venture partner must submit its own total compensation plan.

Air Force Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) requirements are applicable to this acquisition as work on an Air Force installation will be required by contractor employees working 1,000 hours or more in any calendar quarter and the employees are not directly supervised by the Air Force installation. As part of Volume I, for each of the past three (3) calendar years ending with the calendar year immediately prior to the calendar year in which this solicitation is being issued, submit your Total Case Incidence Rates (TCIR) and Day Away, Restricted, and or Transfer Case Rates (DART) for the standard Industrial Classification System (SIC) code or North American Industrial Classification Systems (NAICS) code for the applicable industry as identified on the face page of this solicitation. If TCIR/DART rates are not maintained, submit comparable insurance rates or compensation injury rates. The VPP information shall be no more than 10 pages. Note:

This VPP information pertains to the offeror. If an unpopulated joint venture is formed (a joint venture in which the employees are employed by the joint venture partners and not the joint venture itself), each joint venture partner must submit these rates. Any proposed subcontractor with employees working 1,000 or more hours in any calendar quarter on an Air Force installation whose subcontractor employees are not directly supervised by the Air Force installation must submit these rates as well. For information on TCIR/DART rates, visit the following VPP site:

http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/vpp/index.html.

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. Proposals must be received by WR-ALC/AFLCMC/WLS/235 Byron Street, Suite 19A, Robins AFB, GA 31098-1670, Attention: Valerie Kirchhefer, Contract Specialist, no later than 4:00 PM Need Date, Eastern Standard Time. However, offerors are requested to submit Volume III, Past Performance Information, so that it is received ten (10) calendar days prior to the required due date for proposals. Failure to submit Volume III by the earlier date will not result in offeror disqualification as long as Volume III is received by the proposal due date.

C. Volume II, Written Technical Proposal

1. The written technical proposal shall be clear, concise, and include all the information required by this provision in sufficient detail for effective evaluation. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume the Government has no prior knowledge of their capabilities, work processes, facilities and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror’s technical proposal.

2. The following information shall be provided in the written technical proposal and will be evaluated to assess technical acceptability (which includes the consideration of technical risk) in accordance with Section M-900, Evaluation Factors for Award. The written technical proposal shall address each of the following subfactors describing the offeror’s proposed approach to performing the requirements set forth in the Performance-based Work Statement (PWS). For each subfactor, the offeror shall identify risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach.

Subfactor One: Maintenance Task Reviews. The offeror shall provide their preliminary plan for the evaluation of aircraft Structural Significant Items (SSI’s), Other Structural Items (OSI’s), Maintenance Significant Items (MSI’s) and Zonal tasks including their approach for ensuring adjustments are made to the program based on reliability data (PWS paragraph 4.2.7.7). The offeror shall provide a preliminary plan for accomplishing annual task reviews on 12.5% of 3,000 scheduled maintenance tasks and associated standard visual work card updates (PWS paragraph 4.2.2). The offeror’s planned approach shall include their qualifications, capabilities, and processes for accomplishing the required tasks.

Subfactor Two: Analysis. The offeror shall provide their preliminary plan for performing functional system analysis (PWS para 4.2.7.1), engineering analysis (PWS paragraph 4.2.7.2), and Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) and Systems Safety Analysis (PWS paragraph 4.2.7.3) requirements which impact Operational Safety, Suitability and Effectiveness (OSS&E).

The offeror shall provide documentation evidencing their qualifications for accomplishing engineering analysis of aircraft maintenance tasks and task intervals.

Subfactor Three: IDE Sustainment. The offeror shall provide their preliminary plan for enhancing, updating and sustaining the Integrated Data Environment (IDE) including documentation evidencing their capability to support and sustain existing IDE software application (PWS paragraph 4.2.8.2). The offeror shall also provide their preliminary plan for registering and maintaining Certification and Accreditation (C&A) packages via Enterprise Information Technology Data Repository (EITDR) (PWS paragraph 4.2.8.2.7).

Subfactor Four: Program Management. The offeror shall provide a detailed and comprehensive narrative discussion which describes the offeror’s approach in its program management plan to ensure performance metrics and requirements mandated in PWS paragraphs 4.2.7.1, 4.2.7.2, and 4.2.8.

The detailed and comprehensive narrative shall include the following information:

14. A sound and comprehensive organizational structure by shift, skill mix, function and numbers that will be used to meet PWS requirements. The proposal shall provide rationale used to develop the organizational structure and provide a staffing/manpower matrix to accomplish the requirements of the PWS paragraphs 4.2.7.1, 4.2.7.2, and 4.2.8.

15. A sound and comprehensive plan to hire, train, maintain and retain qualified staff from contract start and throughout the period of performance to meet all PWS requirements.

This plan shall also specifically address obtaining and retaining any required certifications.

16. A sound and comprehensive approach that provides a description of the teaming arrangements with any subcontractors or joint ventures including the organizational relationship and the lines of responsibilities between the prime and subcontractors.

D. Volume III - Past Performance: (1) Offerors shall utilize the Past Performance Information (PPI) Tool in order to electronically submit Volume II Past Performance. The offeror shall submit Present and Past Performance Information for itself and any joint venture member, as well as each proposed critical subcontractor in accordance with the instructions contained in RFP Attachment 7, PPI for Offerors,and the following paragraphs. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming contractor), other than the offeror itself that will perform more than 25 percent of the tasks relating to any engineering analysis or any other analysis that directly impacts aircraft OSS&E, performs more than 25 percent of the tasks directly related to enhancing, updating and sustaining the IDE, or performs more than 25 percent of the tasks that directly impact the development of C&A packages. A joint venture is defined as a contractual agreement joining together two or more parties to undertake a particular business transaction or project and is intended to exist for a limited time period. The individual entities may retain their individuality and operate under a joint venture agreement or the joint venture creates a separate corporation, limited liability company, or membership.

(2) a. The requested present and past performance information shall be provided in a separate volume (i.e., 3-ring binder) labeled "Volume III - Past Performance.” A summary page shall be provided describing the proposed role of the offeror, any joint venture member and critical subcontractor percentage of overall work and place of work. Summary page information must clearly communicate that proposed critical subcontractor(s) meet the definition of a critical subcontractor established above. Efforts submitted for proposed critical subcontractors not meeting the established definition will not be evaluated. Each offeror/joint venture member/critical subcontractor shall utilize the PPI Tool to complete information for each active or completed contract (with preferably at least one year of performance history) in the past three (3) years that the offeror/joint venture member considers relevant in demonstrating its ability to perform the proposed effort. If the total number of such contracts exceeds three (3), each offeror/joint venture member shall address its three (3) most recent and relevant contracts. The offeror's/joint venture member’s or critical subcontractor’s present and past performance information may include data on efforts performed by other predecessor companies, affiliates, other divisions or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the instant proposed effort. The information provided in the PPI Tool shall clearly indicate the division or corporate organization that performed or is presently performing the contract. Contracts listed may include those with the Federal Government, state and local governments or their agencies, and commercial customers.

b. IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS FOR INDEFINITE DELIVERY CONTRACT SUBMISSION. If the contract you are submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (e.g., an Indefinite Delivery "D" type contract per FAR 16.5), only after issuance of a delivery/task order does performance occur. Given this, an individual order (or orders) under the basic ordering contract shall be submitted in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. If you are submitting a "D" type contract in the PPI Tool, include all delivery orders for continued performance of the same scope as one effort.

Example for Series of Orders:

Contract Number: FA8533-14-D-0005 (This is the Basic Contract Number) Order Number: 0001 through 0009 (This is the Series of Orders)

Contract Dollar Value:

Original: $3,000,000 (This number is for the Basic Contract Period) Current: $8,000,000 (This number is for Series of Orders 0001 through 0009)

Period of Performance:

Start Date: 1/3/2014 (This is the Start Date for Order 0001)* End Date: 7/30/2015 (This is the End Date for Order 0009)*

Series of orders for continued performance of the same scope, shall be considered, as a single effort, if they can be verified by the user/customer. Basic ordering contracts will not be evaluated. *For all submittals, the performance on efforts identified shall be restricted to those completed or ongoing during the past three (3) years from the issuance date of this RFP.

ATTENTION: REFERENCE SECTION M, PARAGRAPH 2B, NOTE: SCOPE AND MAGNITUDE OF

EFFORT AND COMPLEXITIES IN THE RELEVANCY DEFINTITONS, NOT ONLY INCLUDES THE

TECHNICAL FEATURES AND CHARACTERISTICS IDENTIFIED FOR EACH EFFORT, BUT ALSO THE

LOGISTICAL AND PROGRAMMATIC CONSIDERATIONS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LENGTH

OF EFFORT, DOLLAR VALUES, TYPE AND COMPLEXITY OF DATA DELIVERABLES. (See section M, paragraph 2B, for full details of NOTE)

c. Offerors, joint venture members, or critical subcontractors that are newly formed entities (in existence less than three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation) who either have no prior contracts or do not possess relevant corporate past performance, but have key personnel with relevant past performance while employed by another company, may demonstrate the performance of such key personnel, by submitting the information in the PPI Tool, for three (3) of their most recent and relevant contracts under which such key personnel performed the same role currently being proposed on the instant acquisition and this performance occurred during the past three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. Note however, that the quality of the key personnel’s performance under the submitted contract must be able to be verified by the Past Performance Team in order to be considered in the assessment of confidence. Any such key personnel must already be employed by the offeror /joint venture member, or in the case of a critical subcontractor, must already be employed by the critical subcontractor). In addition to the information in the PPI Tool for each entity as required above, the offeror must submit a consent letter executed by each of its proposed critical subcontractors authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the prime offeror to allow the prime offeror an opportunity to respond. A sample Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Form is attached to this RFP (see RFP Attachment 3). The consent form should be completed by the critical subcontractors identified in your proposal. The completed consent forms should be submitted as part of your Past Performance Volume.

d. On the three (3) contracts submitted in Volume III, Past Performance, include relevant information concerning the offeror’s/joint venture member’s (and critical subcontractor’s, if applicable) compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, if these clauses are or were contained in the contract. (Please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL businesses, whereas FAR 52.219-9 only applies to large businesses). When subcontracting possibilities existed on the contracts submitted by the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor, address whether or not the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor awarded subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. If none of the submitted contracts included these clauses, whenever subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror’s/joint venture member’s and critical subcontractor’s policy to utilize small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

(3) The offeror/joint venture member or critical subcontractor, shall focus its information provided in the PPI Tool so that it clearly correlates present and past performance with the requirements of this RFP.

The responses must clearly describe the relevance of the effort to the work proposed. Provide the most current information for the Points of Contact (POCs) listed for each effort/contract identified in the PPI Tool.

In addition to the information provided in the PPI tool, each offeror/joint venture member shall complete a separate Relevancy Table (RFP Attachment 2) for each effort/contract identified in the PPI tool for evaluation.

(4) If problems were encountered during the performance of the identified contracts, provide evidence of the ability to isolate the root causes of problems and include in the FACTS Sheet a description of programs or actions taken to resolve those causes in the PPI Tool for each effort/contract identified.

Problems not addressed, but found by the Government during the evaluation of the information in this volume, will be assumed to still exist. Note: In the case of Contractor Performance Assessment Report

System (CPARS), if your input has already been provided and the rationale/circumstances have not changed, DO NOT repeat them here.

(5) The Present/Past Performance Questionnaire (see RFP Attachment 4) will be one means used by the Government to obtain present/past performance information. The Government reserves the right to change, alter, and/or supplement the questionnaire without further notice. The offeror shall send out – and track the completion of - the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires (See RFP Attachment 4) to each of the offeror’s, joint venture members and/or critical subcontractors’ (i.e., each entity’s) POCs identified in each FACTS Sheet. The responsibility to send out – and track the completion of the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires rests solely with the offeror - i.e., it shall not be delegated to any other entity.

The Transmittal Letter (see RFP Attachment 5) shall be used by the offeror in sending out the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires. Exert your best effort to ensure that at least two POCs per relevant contract submit a completed Present/Past Performance Questionnaire directly to the Government not later than the date established for receipt of proposals. POCs may submit their completed Present/Past Performance Questionnaire either electronically or by mail. If sending electronically, follow the procedures outlined in paragraph B above, and email to: valerie.kirchhefer@us.af.mil with copy to jill.thornton@us.af.mil. If mailing, mail directly to:

AFLCMC/WLSK

ATTN: Valerie Kirchhefer 235 Byron St., Suite 19A Robins AFB, GA 31098-1607

If mailing, the outside envelope must be marked as follows:

NOTE: TO BE OPENED BY ADDRESSEE ONLY

The completed questionnaires should be contained in a second envelope marked with the mailing address and the following legend:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Once the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires are completed by your POCs, the information contained therein shall be considered source selection sensitive and shall not be released to you, the offeror. Therefore, any exchange/contact between the offeror/joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor and its own POCs in regards to comments made on the questionnaire is not permitted. Questionnaires shall be sent to and best efforts made to ensure completion and submission directly back to the Government from at least two of the following (in descending order of availability):

13. Program/Project Manager, or equivalent

14. Engineer

15. Procuring Contracting Officer

16. Other (As specified in the PPI Tool )

(6) In the event that commercial contracts are presented as present/past performance sources of information, a client authorization letter shall be issued to those commercial POCs requesting/authorizing them to complete a Present/Past Performance Questionnaire. A sample client authorization letter is attached to this RFP (see RFP Attachment 6). The offeror is required to send the client authorization letter(s) with the Present/Past Performance Questionnaire(s) to each POC on commercial contracts. A separate copy of client authorization letter(s) for each commercial contract shall be included in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance submission for the Government’s use in case additional questionnaires need to be sent by the Government after RFP due date.

(7) The Government may conduct follow-up discussions with any of the people identified in the FACTS Sheets or in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance Volume. The Government may obtain other information by sending out additional questionnaires and/or through other sources.

(8) RFP Attachments 2 and 4 (Relevancy Table and Present/Past Performance Questionnaire) must include the following legend at the top and bottom of the page:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

E. Volume V, Cost/Price Proposal (Attch. 8 to RFP): Offerors shall complete “fill-in” information (yellow highlighted cells) in Attachment 8 with:

Contractor information (lines 4-9) *Fully burdened, firm-fixed price (FFP) labor rates: lines 20-27 (Basic and Ordering periods I - IV) Unit Prices Basic Period – lines 42-44, 81, and 82 (CLINs 0001, 0002, 0003, 0008, and 0009) Ordering Period II – lines 91-93, 130, and 131 (CLINs 1001, 1002, 1003, 1008, and 1009) Ordering Period III – lines 140-142, 179, and 180 (CLINs 2001, 2002, 2003, 2008, and 2009) Ordering Period IV – lines 189-191, 228, and 229 (CLINs 3001, 3002, 3003, 3008, and 3009) Ordering Period V – lines 238-240, 277, and 278 (CLINs 4001, 4002, 4003, 4008, and 4009) Ordering Period VI – Note: The proposed unit price for CLIN 4001 will automatically become the proposed unit price for CLIN 5001 (option to extend services).

* A fully burdened FFP labor rate is a direct labor rate burdened with indirects (overhead and G&A), profit, and cost of money as applicable. All proposed labor rates shall be rounded to two decimal places. If any proposed labor rate does not meet the required rounding, the Government will round that labor rate to two decimal places. The Government adjusted labor rate will become the offeror’s proposed labor rate.

Attachment 8 is locked and password protected. All entries are to be made only in the aforementioned “fill-in” cells. Failure to follow these instructions, or any alteration of Attachment 8, may result in rejection of the offeror’s proposal.

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-900 Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

17. Basis for Contract Award

17. This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. Among those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs may be made between past performance and cost/price. Past performance is approximately equal to cost/price. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable, conforms to all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, technical requirements, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation described in Section 2 (Proposal Evaluation) below.

18. The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserve the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussion will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

19. The total compensation plan and supporting information will be evaluated per FAR 52.222-46 to assure it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. Failure by the offeror/populated joint venture/each joint venture partner in an unpopulated joint venture to submit this total compensation plan will result in the offeror being considered as failing to meet the RFP terms and conditions.

20. The submitted TCIR/DART rates or other comparable rates for the past three (3) calendar years ending with the calendar year immediately prior to the calendar year in which this solicitation is being issued, shall be compared to the most recently published Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) national average for the specific SIC or NAICS code identified on the face page of this solicitation. Failure by the applicable offeror/joint venture partner(s)/subcontractor to submit TCIR/DART or other comparable rates may result in the offeror being considered as failing to meet the RFP terms and conditions.

2. Proposal Evaluation. The Tradeoff source selection evaluation process will be accomplished as follows.

Technical Factor.

Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated based on the subfactors below to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the PWS and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The technical proposal must address each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail. For each subfactor, the offeror identifies risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach.

Subfactor One: Maintenance Task Reviews. This subfactor is met when the proposal provides an adequate:

Preliminary plan for the evaluation of aircraft Structural Significant Items (SSI’s), Other Structural Items (OSI’s), Maintenance Significant Items (MSI’s) and Zonal tasks including their approach for ensuring adjustments are made to the program based on reliability data (PWS paragraph 4.2.7.7).

Preliminary plan for accomplishing annual task reviews on 12.5% of 3,000 scheduled maintenance tasks and associated standard visual work card updates (PWS paragraph 4.2.2).

Planned approach that includes the offeror’s qualifications, capabilities, and processes for accomplishing the required tasks.

Subfactor Two: Analysis. This subfactor is met when the proposal provides an adequate:

Preliminary plan for performing functional system analysis (PWS para 4.2.7.1), engineering analysis (PWS paragraph 4.2.7.2), and Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) and Systems Safety analysis (PWS paragraph 4.2.7.3) requirements which impact Operational Safety, Suitability and Effectiveness (OSS&E).

Documentation evidencing the offeror’s qualifications for accomplishing engineering analysis of aircraft maintenance tasks and task intervals.

Subfactor Three: IDE Sustainment. This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal provides an adequate:

Preliminary plan for enhancing, updating and sustaining the Integrated Data Environment (IDE) including documentation evidencing the offeror’s capability to support and sustain existing IDE software application (PWS paragraph 4.2.8.2).

Preliminary plan for registering and maintaining Certification and Accreditation (C&A) packages via Enterprise Information Technology Data Repository (EITDR) (PWS paragraph 4.2.8.2.7).

Subfactor Four: Program Management. This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal provides an adequate detailed and comprehensive narrative discussion which describes the offeror’s approach in its program management plan to ensure performance metrics and requirements mandated in PWS paragraphs 4.2.7.1, 4.2.7.2, and 4.2.8. The detailed and comprehensive narrative includes the following information:

A sound and comprehensive organizational structure by shift, skill mix, function and numbers that will be used to meet PWS requirements.

The rationale used to develop the organizational structure. A staffing/manpower matrix to accomplish the requirements of the PWS paragraphs 4.2.7.1, 4.2.7.2, and 4.2.8.

A sound and comprehensive plan to hire, train, maintain and retain qualified staff from contract start and throughout the period of performance to meet all PWS requirements.

A plan for obtaining and retaining any required certifications.

A sound and comprehensive approach that provides a description of the teaming arrangements with any subcontractors or joint ventures including the organizational relationship and the lines of responsibilities between the prime and subcontractors.

(1) The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. The technical risk associated with the offeror’s proposed technical approach will also be considered as part of the technical acceptability decision. Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degraded performance, the need for increased government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation shall address the Government’s identification of any weakness as well as the offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation (if applicable) and document why that is or is not acceptable. The Government may independently identify risks not identified by the offeror and assess its impact to the successful performance of the contract. Should the Government determine that any risks identified by either the offeror or the Government poses too great a risk to the program and does not address a suitable mitigation, the Government may consider the proposal technically unacceptable. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below.

One technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every subfactor.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

B. Past Performance Factor. The past performance assessment will assess the confidence in the offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability (which includes, if applicable, the extent of its critical subcontractors’ involvement) to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming contractor), other than the offeror itself, that will perform more than 25 percent of the tasks relating to any engineering analysis or any other analysis that directly impacts aircraft operational safety, suitability and effectiveness (OSS&E), performs more than 25 percent of the tasks directly related to enhancing, updating and sustaining the Integrated Data Environment (IDE), or perform more than 25 percent of the tasks that directly impact the development of Certification and Accreditation (C&A) packages. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture members’ and if applicable, the critical subcontractors’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. More recent and more relevant performance usually has a greater impact in the confidence assessment than less recent and less relevant performance. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort. The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent three (3) submitted contracts. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s Volume III of its proposal:

VERY RELEVANT:

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. The effort must have included Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Continuing Analysis and Surveillance System (CASS), Continuing Analysis Maintenance Program (CAMP) or Maintenance Steering Group -3 (MSG-3) support and three of the following five items:

Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) and System Safety Analysis

Integrated Data Environment (IDE) Software Support

Certification and Accreditation (C&A) Compliance Support

Maintenance/Supply

Standard Visual Workcard and/or Technical Order (TO) development

RELEVANT:

Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. The effort must have included FAA CASS, CAMP or MSG-3 support and one of the following five items:

Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) and System Safety Analysis

Integrated Data Environment (IDE) Software Support

Certification and Accreditation (C&A) Compliance Support

Maintenance/Supply

Standard Visual Workcard and/or Technical Order (TO) development

SOMEWHAT

RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. The effort must have included one of the following six items:

FAA CASS, CAMP or MSG-3 support

Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) and System Safety Analysis

Integrated Data Environment (IDE) Software Support

Certification and Accreditation (C&A) Compliance Support

Maintenance/Supply

Standard Visual Workcard and/or Technical Order (TO) development

NOT RELEVANT:

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOTE: Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the above definitions not only includes the technical features and characteristics identified for each effort, but also the logistical and programmatic considerations including but not limited to length of effort, dollar values, type and complexity of data deliverables, etc. When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical complexities, and the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort as separate aspects.

If both of these aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract effort, the overall relevancy rating assigned to that contract will be affected. For example, if the submitted contract meets essentially the same technical complexities, but involves only some of the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, a lesser relevancy rating will be assigned.

In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

(i). The Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume. Present/Past performance information shall be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

(ii). Offerors/joint venture members/critical subcontractors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member(s) and/or critical subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The confidence assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record.

Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

(iii). For offerors/joint venture members or critical subcontractors that are newly formed entities (in existence less than three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation) who either have no prior contracts or do not possess relevant corporate past performance, but have key personnel with relevant past performance while employed by another company, the quality of such key personnel’s performance as verified by the Past Performance Team will be considered if the submitted contract involves the key personnel performing the same role currently being proposed on the instant acquisition and this performance occurred during the past three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. Any such key personnel must already be employed by the offeror/joint venture member, or in the case of a critical subcontractor, must already be employed by the critical subcontractor.