FA853008R21758______0005.doc

Amendment/Modification FA8530-08-R-21758-0005

Continuation of block 14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

REPRESENTATIONS, INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATIONS

The purpose of this amendment is to revise Clause M-900, as follows:

1. Clause M-900, as revised by RFP Amendment 0001 and RFP Amendment 0003, is hereby revised as follows (changes indicated by underlined bold text):

FROM:

M-900

EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

1.

This acquisition will utilize the Technically Acceptable-Performance/Price Tradeoff (TA-PPT) source selection procedure to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. A decision on the technical acceptability of each Offeror’s proposal will be made. For those Offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs will be made between past/present performance and price. Past/present performance is considered significantly more important than 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. The Government intends to make an award without discussions. Discussions, if necessary, will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror(s) whose proposal 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 paragraph (2) below.

2.

The TA-PPT evaluation process will be accomplished as follows:

a.

Factor 1 – Mission Capability. Each Offeror’s technical proposal will be evaluated to determine if the Offeror meets the requirements of the Future Flexible Acquisition and Sustainment Tool (F2AST) Program solicitation.

i.

Subfactor 1, Certifications: This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates to the extent practicable the Offeror’s compliance with the certification requirements of the Minimum Capabilities Matrix (RFP Attachment 4), set forth below.

A. Offeror as prime contractor and team must fulfill all of the following certification requirements:

a. Documentation evidencing AS 9100 Rev B registration.

b. Documentation evidencing ISO 9001:2000 registration.

c. Documentation evidencing CMMI 3 – SEI certification.

d. Documentation evidencing nondestructive inspection (NDI) capabilities.

e. Documentation evidencing Ground Engine Run Qualifications.

f. Documentation evidencing Aircraft Alignment and Symmetry/Wing Joint Planarity Check Qualifications.

g. Documentation evidencing Fastener Hole Cold-Work Qualification.

ii. Subfactor 2, Facilities. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates to the extent practicable the Offeror’s compliance with the facilities requirements of the Minimum Capabilities Matrix (RFP Attachment 4).

a.

Documentation evidencing possession of and/or access to facilities as listed in the Minimum Capabilities Matrix (RFP Attachment 4) and defined by the Minimum Capabilities Matrix Specification (RFP Attachment 5). This documentation must identify the facilities provided by the prime contractor and each critical subcontractor with which the offeror will fulfill the Minimum Capabilities Matrix and Specification, as well as provide documentation evidencing DCMA or other Government agency approval of Offeror’s Fire Suppression Plan.

iii. Subfactor 3, Processes. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates to the extent practicable the Offeror’s compliance with the processes requirements of the Minimum Capabilities Matrix (RFP Attachment 4).

a. Documentation evidencing the following plans: Foreign Object Damage (FOD) and Tool Control; Hazardous Material Management; and Severe Weather.

b. Documentation evidencing the offeror’s possession of the following:

1. Workload Planning and Scheduling Process

2. Part Ordering/Handling Process

b. Performance. The past performance assessment will assess the confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully manage subcontractors based on the Offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstrated record of subcontractor management. 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. The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s present/past performance will be made. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The Government may consider an Offeror’s contracts in the aggregate in determining relevancy, should the Offeror’s present and past performance lend itself to this approach. For example, an Offeror’s work experience on three contracts may, by definition, represent only a somewhat relevant effort when each contract is considered as a stand-alone effort. However, when these contracts are performed concurrently (in part or in whole) and are assessed in the aggregate, the work may more accurately reflect a very relevant effort. The following relevancy criteria apply:

Very Relevant – Present/past performance efforts involved management of multiple subcontractors who performed much of the overall work which is/was similar to this effort.

Relevant – Present/past performance efforts involved management of multiple subcontractors who performed some of the work which is/was similar to this effort.

Somewhat Relevant – Present/past performance efforts involved management of multiple subcontractors who performed work of any nature.

Not Relevant – Present/past performance efforts involved little to no management of subcontractors.

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

i. Information utilized may be obtained from the references listed in the proposal, as well as from other sources known to the Government. Although Section L asks the Offeror to address the five (5) most relevant contracts, the Performance Confidence Assessment Group (PCAG) evaluation is not limited to review of only those five (5) submitted contracts, but may include performance information from other sources such as spreadsheet lists, interviews, CPARS, etc. Interviews, if held, will be performed utilizing a list of questions that will be used for all interviews. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant. Evaluation of present and past performance will include consideration of overall customer satisfaction and conclusions of informed judgment.

ii. Offerors may be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the Offeror 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 Offeror’s overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

iii. If an Offeror, or the proposed key employees of the Offeror, do not have past performance history demonstrating subcontractor management, the Offeror will receive an unknown confidence rating. The unknown confidence rating will be considered in the overall assessment for a best value decision.

iv. An overall confidence assessment rating will be made. The following performance confidence assessment ratings apply:

Rating

Definition High Confidence Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has high confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Significant Confidence Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has significant confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Normal contractor emphasis should preclude any problems.

Unknown Confidence No performance record identifiable (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii) and (iv)).

Little Confidence Based on the Offeror’s performance record, substantial doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, extreme doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Pursuant to DFARS 5215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider the extent to which the Offerors evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and/or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. That is, did the offeror carry out the policy of the United States in the awarding of 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. Please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL offerors.

c.

Cost/Price Proposal: The Offeror's Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated for Reasonableness and Balance, and a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated. The evaluation will be based on the following:

i.

Reasonableness. The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness of the proposed labor rates and add-on factors. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government-obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.4 may be required to support the proposed price.

ii. Balance. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more labor rates for the basic ordering period or option ordering periods is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced labor rates. Labor rates submitted will be compared and evaluated to assure that a logical progression exists within each Offeror’s response to the pricing structure in Section B. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

iii. Realism. It is anticipated that the proposed FP/LH, T&M, and CR rates will be the same for all labor categories through the cost line. In the extraordinary event that the proposed CR rates differ from the FP/LH and T&M rates at the cost line, the offeror must provide in his proposal a complete breakdown of the specific cost elements included in the CR rates with appropriate rationale and explanations. The Government will then perform a detailed cost realism analysis on the proposed CR rates.

iv. Total Evaluated Price. A TEP will be calculated for evaluation purposes only and will be a consideration in the best value award decision. The TEP will include two evaluated prices: evaluated price for labor and evaluated price for material.

Evaluated price for Labor includes FP/LH labor, T&M labor, CR labor, and Subcontract Add-on Factor calculation. Evaluated price for Material includes material plus Material Add-on Factor for FP/LH only.

A. Evaluated Price for Labor. The AF has estimated a number of hours applicable to FP/LH labor categories, CR labor categories, and T&M labor categories. These hours will not be disclosed to Offerors. For each labor category, Offerors will propose a percentage (based on the anticipated work to be performed by the prime contractor and each critical subcontractor) that will be applied to the AF estimated hours for that labor category. These percentages will be listed on the Labor Hour and Material Percentage Breakout Spreadsheet contained in the Prime Contractor Pricing Submission (RFP Attachment 9). The total for each labor category must add up to 100%. (A critical subcontractor is one upon whom the prime contractor relies to fulfill the requirements of the Minimum Capabilities Matrix.) The percentages proposed by each Offeror will be used by the AF to calculate the labor hours/dollars for each labor category.

1. FP/LH. The percentages proposed by the prime contractor will be applied to the AF estimated number of hours to calculate the hours to be used for the prime contractor and its critical subcontractor(s) for that FP/LH labor category. Those hours will be multiplied by the proposed FP/LH rates submitted by the prime contractor and its critical subcontractor(s). The sum of these will be the evaluated price for the FP/LH labor portion of the TEP.

2.

T&M. The percentages proposed by the prime contractor will be applied to the AF estimated number of hours to calculate the hours to be used for the prime contractor and its critical subcontractor(s) for that T&M labor category. Those hours will be multiplied by the proposed T&M rates submitted by the prime contractor and its critical subcontractor(s). The sum of these will be the evaluated price for the T&M labor portion of the TEP.

3. CR. The percentages proposed by the prime contractor will be applied to the AF estimated number of hours to calculate the hours to be used for the prime contractor and its critical subcontractor(s) for that CR labor category. Those hours will be multiplied by the proposed CR rates submitted by the prime contractor and its critical subcontractor(s). The sum of these will be the evaluated price for the CR labor portion of the TEP.

4.

Prime Contractor’s Proposed Subcontract Add-on Factor. For FP/LH, CR, and T&M, the total of each critical subcontractor’s labor cost will be multiplied by the prime contractor’s proposed Subcontract Add-on Factor. The sum of the FP/LH labor, T&M labor, CR labor, and Subcontract Add-on Factor calculations constitutes the evaluated price for labor.

B. Evaluated Price for Material. Each prime contractor and critical subcontractor will propose a Material Handling Add-on Factor for FP/LH only. No Material Handling Add-on Factor will be proposed for T&M. The AF has estimated a material cost based on analysis of historical data. This material cost will not be disclosed to the Offerors. Offerors will assign a percentage of the material cost to the prime and each critical subcontractor. These percentages will be listed on the Labor Hour and Material Percentage Breakout Spreadsheet contained in the Prime Contractor Pricing Submission (RFP Attachment 9). These percentages must add up to 100%, and the percentages will be used by the Government to determine how much of the material cost will be assigned to each prime contractor and its critical subcontractor(s). The product of these calculations will then be multiplied by the material Add-on Factor proposed by the respective prime contractor and critical subcontractor. The sum of these calculations constitutes the evaluated price for material.

The sum of the evaluated price for labor and the evaluated price for material will constitute the TEP.

Example of calculation for labor evaluated price:

Example of Calculations:

Offeror’s Proposal:

Gov’t Calculation:

Calculations:

Prime Labor Cost:

$25,000.00

Sub Labor Cost:

$31,250.00

Prime’s labor cost

The Prime and critical subcontractors will propose rates for each labor category. The Prime will propose an estimated percentage of usage. The Government will calculate the Evaluated Labor Cost similar to the example above. A similar calculation will be conducted to arrive at the Evaluated Material Cost.

TO:

M-900

EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

1.

This acquisition will utilize the Technically Acceptable-Performance/Price Tradeoff (TA-PPT) source selection procedure to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. A decision on the technical acceptability of each Offeror’s proposal will be made. For those Offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs will be made between past/present performance and price. Past/present performance is considered significantly more important than 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. The Government intends to make an award without discussions. Discussions, if necessary, will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror(s) whose proposal 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 paragraph (2) below.

2.

The TA-PPT evaluation process will be accomplished as follows:

a.

Factor 1 – Mission Capability. Each Offeror’s technical proposal will be evaluated to determine if the Offeror meets the requirements of the Future Flexible Acquisition and Sustainment Tool (F2AST) Program solicitation.

i.

Subfactor 1, Certifications: This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates to the extent practicable the Offeror’s compliance with the certification requirements of the Minimum Capabilities Matrix (RFP Attachment 4), set forth below.

A. Offeror as prime contractor and team must fulfill all of the following certification requirements:

a. Documentation evidencing AS 9100 Rev B registration.

b. Documentation evidencing ISO 9001:2000 registration.

c. Documentation evidencing CMMI 3 – SEI certification.

d. Documentation evidencing nondestructive inspection (NDI) capabilities.

e. Documentation evidencing Ground Engine Run Qualifications.

f. Documentation evidencing Aircraft Alignment and Symmetry/Wing Joint Planarity Check Qualifications.

g. Documentation evidencing Fastener Hole Cold-Work Qualification.

ii. Subfactor 2, Facilities. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates to the extent practicable the Offeror’s compliance with the facilities requirements of the Minimum Capabilities Matrix (RFP Attachment 4).

a.

Documentation evidencing possession of and/or access to facilities as listed in the Minimum Capabilities Matrix (RFP Attachment 4) and defined by the Minimum Capabilities Matrix Specification (RFP Attachment 5). This documentation must identify the facilities provided by the prime contractor and each critical subcontractor with which the offeror will fulfill the Minimum Capabilities Matrix and Specification, as well as provide documentation evidencing DCMA or other Government agency approval of Offeror’s Fire Suppression Plan.

iii. Subfactor 3, Processes. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates to the extent practicable the Offeror’s compliance with the processes requirements of the Minimum Capabilities Matrix (RFP Attachment 4).

a. Documentation evidencing the following plans: Foreign Object Damage (FOD) and Tool Control; Hazardous Material Management; and Severe Weather.

b. Documentation evidencing the offeror’s possession of the following:

1. Workload Planning and Scheduling Process

2. Part Ordering/Handling Process

b. Performance. The past performance assessment will assess the confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully manage subcontractors based on the Offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstrated record of subcontractor management. 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. The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s present/past performance will be made. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The Government may consider an Offeror’s contracts in the aggregate in determining relevancy, should the Offeror’s present and past performance lend itself to this approach. For example, an Offeror’s work experience on three contracts may, by definition, represent only a somewhat relevant effort when each contract is considered as a stand-alone effort. However, when these contracts are performed concurrently (in part or in whole) and are assessed in the aggregate, the work may more accurately reflect a very relevant effort. The following relevancy criteria apply:

Very Relevant – Present/past performance efforts involved management of multiple subcontractors who performed much of the overall work which is/was similar to this effort.

Relevant – Present/past performance efforts involved management of multiple subcontractors who performed some of the work which is/was similar to this effort.

Somewhat Relevant – Present/past performance efforts involved management of multiple subcontractors who performed work of any nature.

Not Relevant – Present/past performance efforts involved little to no management of subcontractors.

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

i. Information utilized may be obtained from the references listed in the proposal, as well as from other sources known to the Government. Although Section L asks the Offeror to address the five (5) most relevant contracts, the Performance Confidence Assessment Group (PCAG) evaluation is not limited to review of only those five (5) submitted contracts, but may include performance information from other sources such as spreadsheet lists, interviews, CPARS, etc. Interviews, if held, will be performed utilizing a list of questions that will be used for all interviews. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant. Evaluation of present and past performance will include consideration of overall customer satisfaction and conclusions of informed judgment.

ii. Offerors may be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the Offeror 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 Offeror’s overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

iii. If an Offeror, or the proposed key employees of the Offeror, do not have past performance history demonstrating subcontractor management, the Offeror will receive an unknown confidence rating. The unknown confidence rating will be considered in the overall assessment for a best value decision.

iv. An overall confidence assessment rating will be made. The following performance confidence assessment ratings apply:

Rating

Definition High Confidence Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has high confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Significant Confidence Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has significant confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Normal contractor emphasis should preclude any problems.

Unknown Confidence No performance record identifiable (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii) and (iv)).

Little Confidence Based on the Offeror’s performance record, substantial doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, extreme doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Pursuant to DFARS 5215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider the extent to which the Offerors evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and/or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. That is, did the offeror carry out the policy of the United States in the awarding of 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. Please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL offerors.

All proposals will be evaluated as to the extent of participation of SDB firms in performance of this resultant contract. Offerors will provide targets, expressed as dollars and percentages of total contract value, for SDB participation in any of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Industry Subsectors as determined by the Department of Commerce. NAICS codes and titles are posted at: http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/naicod02.htm. The targets may provide for participation by a prime contractor, joint venture partner, teaming arrangement member, or subcontractor; however, the targets for subcontractors must be listed separately.

c.

Cost/Price Proposal: The Offeror's Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated for Reasonableness and Balance, and a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated. The evaluation will be based on the following:

i.

Reasonableness. The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness of the proposed labor rates and add-on factors. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government-obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.4 may be required to support the proposed price.

ii. Balance. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more labor rates for the basic ordering period or option ordering periods is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced labor rates. Labor rates submitted will be compared and evaluated to assure that a logical progression exists within each Offeror’s response to the pricing structure in Section B. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

iii. Realism. It is anticipated that the proposed FP/LH, T&M, and CR rates will be the same for all labor categories through the cost line. In the extraordinary event that the proposed CR rates differ from the FP/LH and T&M rates at the cost line, the offeror must provide in his proposal a complete breakdown of the specific cost elements included in the CR rates with appropriate rationale and explanations. The Government will then perform a detailed cost realism analysis on the proposed CR rates.

iv. Total Evaluated Price. A TEP will be calculated for evaluation purposes only and will be a consideration in the best value award decision. The TEP will include two evaluated prices: evaluated price for labor and evaluated price for material.

Evaluated price for Labor includes FP/LH labor, T&M labor, CR labor, and Subcontract Add-on Factor calculation. Evaluated price for Material includes material plus Material Add-on Factor for FP/LH only.

A. Evaluated Price for Labor. The AF has estimated a number of hours applicable to FP/LH labor categories, CR labor categories, and T&M labor categories. These hours will not be disclosed to Offerors. For each labor category, Offerors will propose a percentage (based on the anticipated work to be performed by the prime contractor and each critical subcontractor) that will be applied to the AF estimated hours for that labor category. These percentages will be listed on the Labor Hour and Material Percentage Breakout Spreadsheet contained in the Prime Contractor Pricing Submission (RFP Attachment 9). The total for each labor category must add up to 100%. (A critical subcontractor is one upon whom the prime contractor relies to fulfill the requirements of the Minimum Capabilities Matrix.) The percentages proposed by each Offeror will be used by the AF to calculate the labor hours/dollars for each labor category.

1. FP/LH. The percentages proposed by the prime contractor will be applied to the AF estimated number of hours to calculate the hours to be used for the prime contractor and its critical subcontractor(s) for that FP/LH labor category. Those hours will be multiplied by the proposed FP/LH rates submitted by the prime contractor and its critical subcontractor(s). The sum of these will be the evaluated price for the FP/LH labor portion of the TEP.

2.

T&M. The percentages proposed by the prime contractor will be applied to the AF estimated number of hours to calculate the hours to be used for the prime contractor and its critical subcontractor(s) for that T&M labor category. Those hours will be multiplied by the proposed T&M rates submitted by the prime contractor and its critical subcontractor(s). The sum of these will be the evaluated price for the T&M labor portion of the TEP.

3. CR. The percentages proposed by the prime contractor will be applied to the AF estimated number of hours to calculate the hours to be used for the prime contractor and its critical subcontractor(s) for that CR labor category. Those hours will be multiplied by the proposed CR rates submitted by the prime contractor and its critical subcontractor(s). The sum of these will be the evaluated price for the CR labor portion of the TEP.

4.

Prime Contractor’s Proposed Subcontract Add-on Factor. For FP/LH, CR, and T&M, the total of each critical subcontractor’s labor cost will be multiplied by the prime contractor’s proposed Subcontract Add-on Factor. The sum of the FP/LH labor, T&M labor, CR labor, and Subcontract Add-on Factor calculations constitutes the evaluated price for labor.

B. Evaluated Price for Material. Each prime contractor and critical subcontractor will propose a Material Handling Add-on Factor for FP/LH only. No Material Handling Add-on Factor will be proposed for T&M. The AF has estimated a material cost based on analysis of historical data. This material cost will not be disclosed to the Offerors. Offerors will assign a percentage of the material cost to the prime and each critical subcontractor. These percentages will be listed on the Labor Hour and Material Percentage Breakout Spreadsheet contained in the Prime Contractor Pricing Submission (RFP Attachment 9). These percentages must add up to 100%, and the percentages will be used by the Government to determine how much of the material cost will be assigned to each prime contractor and its critical subcontractor(s). The product of these calculations will then be multiplied by the material Add-on Factor proposed by the respective prime contractor and critical subcontractor. The sum of these calculations constitutes the evaluated price for material.

The sum of the evaluated price for labor and the evaluated price for material will constitute the TEP.

Example of calculation for labor evaluated price:

Example of Calculations:

Offeror’s Proposal:

Gov’t Calculation:

Calculations:

Prime Labor Cost:

$25,000.00

Sub Labor Cost:

$31,250.00

Prime’s labor cost

The Prime and critical subcontractors will propose rates for each labor category. The Prime will propose an estimated percentage of usage. The Government will calculate the Evaluated Labor Cost similar to the example above. A similar calculation will be conducted to arrive at the Evaluated Material Cost.

2. The due date for proposals is not extended as a result of this amendment. Proposals are due on 27 Feb 08 at 4:00 pm EST.

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

ROUTINE �

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return 1 copies to the issuing office.

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.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

6. ISSUED BY CODE

WR ALC PKF, CML PHN 478 222 1346

235 BYRON ST

ROBINS AFB GA 31098-1670

BUYER: STEPHANIE M GISSEMAN/PKF

Stephanie.Gisseman@robins.af.mil

Phone: (478) 222- 1319 Fax: (478) 926-4543 No Collect Calls

5. PROJECT NO (If applicable)

N/A

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

FD20600821758, 01, 02

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

11 FEB 2008

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

FA8530-08-R-21758-0005

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

CODE

X

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

PRESCRIBED BY GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

30-105

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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).

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.

FACILITY CODE

16C. DATE SIGNED

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BY ____________________________________________________

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

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

� COMMENTS \* Upper \* MERGEFORMAT PCOAWARD �

15C. DATE SIGNED

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

BY ________________________________________________________

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

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

THIS APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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. -___- :00 __

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

23-JAN-2008

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

FA853008R21758

FA8530