FA853309R21835______0002.pdf

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

J

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

FA8533-09-R-21835-0002

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

FD2060-09-21835

5. PROJECT NO (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE

WR ALC GRVKBB, MAJOR PROGRAMS

460 RICHARD RAY BLVD STE 200

BLDG 301 CP 478 222 1902

ROBINS AFB GA 31098-1813

BUYER: Erica R. Martin/GRVKBB Erica.Martin@robins.af.mil Phone: (478) 222- 1893 Fax: (478) 222-1854 No Collect Calls

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6) CODEFA8533

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

CODE

X

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

FA853309R21835

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

17-FEB-2010

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. 4-OCT-2010 4:00 PM

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS

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

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

FMS REQUIREMENT

URGENT

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

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

BY ________________________________________________________

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED

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

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BY ____________________________________________________

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

FACILITY CODE

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE

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

PRESCRIBED BY GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

X

X X

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

Amendment/Modification FA8533-09-R-21835-0002

Continuation of block 14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

The purpose of this modification is as follows:

A. Incorporate Purchase Description PD08WRGBGBEA10 Revision C, dated 17 May 2010 attached hereto.

B. Incorporate Engineering Data List dated 27 July 2010 attached hereto.

C. Incorporate Attachment 1 (FACTS Sheet), Attachment 2 (Performance Questionnaire), Attachment 4 ( Transmittal Letter), Attachment 5 (Client Letter) and Attachment 7 (Cross Reference Matrix) attached hereto.

D. Revise the first paragraph on page 3 of the RFP as follows:

FROM:

(a) The contractor shall provide Flight Control System Test Sets in accordance with the Purchase Description (PD)

PD08WRGBGBEA10, Revision B, dated 14 April 2009, and associated data requirements referenced in this document. The RFP will result in a requirements-type contract as defined in FAR 16.5.

TO:

(a) The contractor shall provide Flight Control System Test Sets in accordance with the Purchase Description (PD)

PD08WRGBGBEA10, Revision C, dated 17 May 2010, and associated data requirements referenced in this document. The RFP will result in a requirements-type contract as defined in FAR 16.5.

E. Revise statement in CLINs 0001, 1001, 1002, 2001, 2002, 3001, 3002, 4001, and 4002 as follows:

FROM: In accordance with PD08WRGBGBEA10, Revision B dated 14 Apr 2009.

TO: In accordance with PD08WRGBGBEA10, Revision C dated 17 May 2010.

F. Incorporate revised RFP Provisions, "Proposal Requirements" and "Evaluation Basis for Award" for information relative to proposal preparation and the Government's evaluation methodology.

G. Add the following clauses to the RFP:

52.203-13, Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct (Apr 2010) (Pub. L.

110-252, Title VI, Chapter 1 (41 U.S.C. 251 note)).

252.204-7008 EXPORT-CONTROLLED ITEMS (APR 2010)

(IAW DFARS 204.7304)

(Applicable to all solicitations and contracts)

52.222-99 NOTIFICATION OF EMPLOYEE RIGHTS UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR

RELATIONS ACT (JUN 2010)

(IAW DARS Tracking # 2010-O0013)

Amendment/Modification FA8533-09-R-21835-0002

(Applicable to solicitations and resultant contracts over the simplified acquisition threshold, not performed exclusively outside the U.S., and not covered by an exemption granted by the Secretary of Labor)

H. Revise the proposal due date from indefinite to 08 Oct 2010. See Specific closing date and time for proposals in Block 11.

I. Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the RFP remain unchanged and in effect.

Request for Proposal FA8533-09-R-21835-0002

LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS OR ATTACHMENTS

Form Number Description/File Name Date Number of Pages ATTACHMENT 1 Present/Past Performance "FACTS" Sheet UNDATED 3

ATTACHMENT 2 Performance Questionnaire UNDATED 1

ATTACHMENT 4 Transmittal Letter UNDATED 1

ATTACHMENT 5 Client Authorization Letter UNDATED 4

ATTACHMENT 7 Cross Reference Matrix UNDATED 2

Purchase Description PD08WRGBGBEA10 Revision C

11AUG2010 22

Engineering Data List 27JUL2010 2

ADDENDUM TO PROVISION 52.212-1

PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

(Aug 2010)

The following instructions cover the preparation and submittal of an offeror’s proposal for this solicitation.(a

(a) Proposals shall be submitted in three (3) separate volumes as set forth below:

VOLUME PAGE LIMITS FORMAT DESCRIPTION

I Not Applicable 1 Electronic*/ 2 Paper Completed RFP with Clauses, Cross Reference Matrix

II 25 Pages 1 Electronic*/ 2 Paper Technical Proposal

III Not Applicable 1 Electronic*/ 2 Paper Past/Present Performance

* Cost /Price proposal information shall be submitted in written form (1 copy) 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.

Offerors shall prepare proposals in the following format:

- Each volume shall be marked with the RFP number and the offeror’s name and address. Proposals shall be in the English language and monies shall be proposed in U.S. currency.

- Paper size shall be 8 1/2” X 11” and print shall be no smaller than a font of 12. Margins shall be no smaller than 1”.

- Each page shall be numbered consecutively. The page limitation includes any drawings, diagrams, and/or illustrations, but excludes any table of contents or list of acronyms (if utilized). Offerors are cautioned that any pages that exceed the limitations shall not be read and shall be removed and sent back to the offeror or retained in the contract file without being considered in the evaluation.

- The page limitation for Volume II, Technical Proposal, is _25_ pages. Drawings, diagrams, illustrations, supporting empirical data, etc., are included in the page count. Volumes I and III do not have page limitations.

- Each page containing proprietary information should be so marked.

- 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

-Proposals shall be sent to the address below depending on mode of shipment:

U.S. Postal Mail UPS and Fed EX Packages

WR-ALC/GRVK

Attn: Erica Martin 460 Richard Ray Blvd Ste 200 Robins AFB GA 31098-1813

WR-ALC/GRVK

ATTN: Erica Martin 295 Byron St Bldg 300 WW South End Bay D Door 27A Robins AFB GA 31098-1670

(b) Volume I, Completed RFP and Clauses. Volume I shall consist of the completed and signed RFP with a cover letter delineating any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions. Offerors shall ensure that all clauses and provisions that require “fill-in” information shall be appropriately completed including the proposed prices associated with the contract items in the Schedule of the RFP. A cross reference matrix will be utilized as a tool to help offerors ensure they have responded to all the evaluation criteria and proposal submittal requirements identified in the solicitation. The offeror shall fill out the cross reference matrix at RFP Attachment ( # 7) indicating where in their proposal the information can be found as it relates to Section L (Instructions to Offerors), Section M (Evaluation Basis for Award), the technical requirements document (Statement of Work (SOW), Purchase Description (PD), etc), the Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) and the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL). Failure by the offeror to complete the matrix will result in the offeror being considered as failing to meet the RFP terms and conditions.

All CLINs not directly designated as Not Separately Priced (NSP) shall be completed with a price. 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. The Government intends to make award without discussions. Discussions, if necessary, will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. Proposals received are subject to the requirements specified in FAR 52.212-1, unless otherwise tailored in the Addendum to the solicitation.

Proposals are due in WR-ALC/GRVK, Attention: Erica Martin by the time and date specified in Block 8 on the face page of the RFP.

(c) Communications. Exchanges of source selection information between the Government and offerors will be controlled by the Contracting Officer. Electronic mail (e-mail) may be used to transmit such information only if the e-mail can be sent and encrypted, and must include “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104” in the subject line of the e-mail. Otherwise, source selection information will be transmitted via direct mailing or facsimile. In order to facilitate the sending and receiving of encrypted e-mails, an offeror must use MS Outlook email configured to support encryption, or, a different e-mail product that is S/MIME compatible and configured to support encryption. If an offeror intends to submit its source selection information via an encrypted email, it 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).

(d) Volume II, The Technical Proposal. The technical proposal shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation. Offerors shall cross reference the requirements document, by paragraph number, to the corresponding proposal paragraph which addresses the referenced item. Offerors shall not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet the requirements. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience, and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror’s technical proposal.

The following information shall be provided in the Proposal and such will be evaluated to assess technical acceptability and technical risk in accordance with the provision, “Evaluation Basis for Award”. The technical proposal shall address the following subfactors. Included in each subfactor, the offeror shall identify any risks associated with the approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risk.

Subfactor One: Design and Construction. The Technical Proposal shall provide a detailed narrative to illustrate that the offeror’s design approach meets the following requirements of Purchase Description (PD) PD08WRGBGBEA10, Revision C:

1. Weight requirements in paragraph 3.3.1, Weight, of PD PD08WRGBGBEA10. Information submitted to show compliance with the requirements of the PD and shall include specification/cut sheets from the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) of major components that include the weight of those components, detailed drawing(s) of the major component locations along with their associated weight, and a detailed narrative to include the total weight of the tester (including the remote unit weight).

2. Dimension requirements in paragraph 3.3.2, Dimensions, of PD PD08WRGBGBEA10. Information submitted to show compliance with the requirements of the PD and shall include a top level drawing(s) with, at minimum, the length, width, and height of the flight control test station and the remote unit. Detailed narrative shall include calculations of the volume of the test station.

3. Handles and Grasp Area requirements in paragraph 3.3.3, Handles and Grasp Areas, of PD PD08WRGBGBEA10. Information submitted to show compliance with the requirements of the PD and shall include drawing(s) with, at minimum, the dimensional location of the center of gravity of the flight control test station and the dimensional location and actual dimensions of the handles and/or grasp areas. Detailed narrative shall include discussion as to how the test station design shall meet MIL-STD-1472F, Section

5.9.11.5 requirements.

4. Maneuverability requirements in paragraph 3.3.4, Maneuverability, of PD PD08WRGBGBEA10.

Information submitted to show compliance with the requirements of the PD and shall include the wheel specification/cut sheets from the OEM as well as the center of gravity location of the tester when it is in the wheeled position. Detailed narrative shall include how the flight control test station incorporates maneuverability and ergonomics as part of the design (i.e. how the center of gravity of the tester was kept low and close to the wheels to make it easier to maneuver, how the handle extends so the person transporting the tester does not have to lean over, etc.)

Subfactor Two: Vacuum Pump Design and Unit Under Test Protection. The Technical Proposal shall provide a detailed narrative of the vacuum pressure pump and how the flight control test station design meets the following requirements of PD08WRGBGBEA10, Revision C and protects the unit under test and the flight control test station:

1. Vacuum pressure pump in paragraphs 3.3.12, Pressure-Vacuum Pump, Performance specifications in section 3.11, Performance, and Static Pressure Limiting in paragraph 3.3.16 of PD PD08WRGBGBEA10.

Information submitted to show compliance with the requirements of the PD and shall include specification/cut sheets from the Original equipment manufacturer (OEM) for the vacuum pressure pump design, analysis and supporting data needed to verify the proposed pump requirements, and detailed explanation as to how the utilized pump shall be used to meet the performance requirements of section 3.11 and paragraph 3.3.16 of the

PD.

2. Protection to the Unit Under Test in paragraph 3.3.14, Protection to the Unit Under Test, of PD PD08WRGBGBEA10. Information submitted to show compliance with the requirements of the PD and shall include diagrams/schematics and a detailed narrative needed to verify that paragraph 3.3.14 of the PD shall be met.

3. Temperature requirements in section 3.9.1, Temperature of PD PD08WRGBGBEA10. Information submitted to show compliance with the requirements of the PD and shall include a detailed narrative as to how the flight control test station is designed to meet the Operating and Non-Operating temperature requirements in Section 3.9.1 of the PD.

(e) Volume III, Present and Past Performance. The offeror shall submit Present and Past Performance Information for itself in accordance with the format contained in the “FACTS Sheet” (See RFP Attachment 1) and the following paragraphs. The evaluation of the offeror’s present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any subcontractor(s) even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

(1) The requested present and past performance information shall be provided in a separate section labeled, "Volume III - Present and Past Performance Information." Offerors shall complete a separate "FACTS Sheet" for each active or completed contract (with preferably at least one year of performance history) in the past five years, that the offeror considers relevant in demonstrating its ability to perform the proposed effort. If the total number of such contracts exceeds three efforts, the offeror shall address its three most recent and relevant contracts.

Note: 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 should be submitted in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself.

Each submitted order shall be considered a separate effort unless information is provided indicating follow-on or series of orders for continued performance of the same scope and such can be verified by the user/customer. In this event, such submitted multiple orders shall be considered as a single effort for evaluation purposes.

For all submittals, the performance on efforts identified shall be restricted to those completed or ongoing during the past five years from the issuance date of this RFP. The offeror's present and past performance information may include data on efforts performed by other divisions or corporate management, if such resources will be used in the performance of the proposed effort. Contracts listed may include those with the Federal Government, state and local Governments or their agencies, and commercial customers. Offerors that are newly formed entities, 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 FACTS Sheets 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. Note, however, that the quality of the key personnel’s performance under the submitted contract must be able to be verified by the Performance Confidence Assessment Group (PCAG) in order to be considered in the assessment of confidence. Include relevant information concerning the offeror’s compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns if the clause is or was contained in any of the three contract efforts identified in Volume III, Past and Present Performance Information, of the offeror’s proposal. If the clause wasn’t contained in these three contracts, submit this information on two additional contracts which contained the clause.

Note that FAR 52.219-8 applies to ALL offerors. Each offeror shall address whether or not the offeror carried 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.

(2) The offeror shall focus its FACTS Sheet responses so that they clearly correlate present and past performance with the requirements of this RFP. The FACTS Sheet submitted by the offeror must clearly describe the relevance of the effort to the work proposed by that entity. The offeror may expand the answering space on the FACTS Sheet so that the filled-in FACTS Sheet for each relevant contract covers no more than both sides of two 8 ½ x 11 inch pages. The offeror shall provide the most current information for the Points of Contact (POCs) identified on the FACTS Sheets.

(3) In addition to the FACTS Sheets, offerors shall include two spreadsheet pages in their Volume III that lists all the contracts that the offeror is performing or has performed in the past five years. If the listing(s) of said contracts exceeds two (2) pages per entity, only the most recent contracts ongoing/completed shall be listed. The purpose of the spreadsheet is to capture the total scope of work (whether the offeror deems the work relevant or not to this instant RFP) that the offeror has ongoing or has completed in the past five (5) years. The Government may obtain and use performance information on any or none of these programs. The spreadsheet(s) shall include (as a minimum) current information as follows:

Contract Number

Brief Program Description, include Relevancy and Quantities

Period of Performance (Start and End Dates)

Contracting Agency or Customer

Maximum Total Estimated Dollars

Phone & Fax Numbers of at least 2 Points of Contact

(4) If problems were encountered during the performance of the identified contracts, provide evidence of the offeror's 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. Problems not addressed by the offeror, 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 the offeror’s input has already been provided and the rationale/ circumstances have not changed, DO NOT repeat them here.

(5) The Present/Past Performance Questionnaire, provided as an attachment to this RFP, 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 to the offeror(s). The offeror shall send out the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires (See RFP Attachment 2) to each of the points of contact identified on the FACTS Sheets. The responsibility to send out and track the completion of the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires rests solely with the offeror, and shall not be delegated to any other entity. The Transmittal Letter (See RFP Attachment 4) shall be used by the offeror in sending out the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires. The offeror shall exert its best efforts 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 in this RFP. Each of the offeror’s POCs may submit its completed Present/Past Performance Questionnaire either electronically, by fax or by mail. If sending electronically, follow the procedures outlined in paragraph (c) above, and e-mail to Erica.Martin@robins.af.mil or Salena.Arrington@robins.af.mil. If mailing, the POCs may return the completed questionnaire via mail to:

WR-ALC/GRVK

Attn: Erica Martin or Salena Arrington 460 Richard Ray Blvd, Suite 200 Robins AFB GA 31098-1813

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

NOTE: TO BE OPENED BY ADDRESSEE ONLY

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

POCs may send the completed questionnaires via telefax numbers to (478) 222-1854. Please have your POCs call Erica Martin, (478) 222-1893 or Salena Arrington, (478) 222-1755 before telefaxing their response.

Once the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires are completed by your POCs, the information contained therein shall be considered sensitive and shall not be released to you, the offeror. 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:

(a) Procuring Contracting Officer/Contract Negotiator or equivalent

(b) Program/Project Manager, or equivalent

(c) Administrative Contracting Officer/Administrator or equivalent

(d) Other (As specified in your FACTS Sheet)

(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 authorizing/instructing them to complete a Present/Past Performance Questionnaire. A sample client authorization letter is attached to this RFP (see Attachment 5 to this RFP). 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 closing.

(7) A Present/Past Performance Questionnaire Tracking Record, (See RFP Attachment 3), or equivalent form(s), containing the same information, shall be maintained by the offeror, documenting all exchanges between and follow-ups made to each of the POCs identified in the FACTS Sheets. All Present/Past Performance Questionnaire Tracking Records shall be submitted with the offeror’s Present/Past Performance Volume. This exchange/contact between the offeror and its POCs shall cease upon submission of the offeror’s proposal to the Government in response to this RFP. The Government may conduct follow-up discussions with any of the people identified in the Tracking Records 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 1, 2, and 3 (FACTS Sheet, Past/Present Performance Questionnaire, and Performance Questionnaire Tracking Record) shall include the following legend on each page:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Attachments 4 and 5 (Transmittal Letter and Client Authorization) do not require the legend as the forms comprise internal documents between the offeror and its customers.

EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD (Aug 2010)

(a) This acquisition will utilize the Technically Acceptable-Risk/Performance/Price Tradeoff (TA-RPPT) source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.3 as supplemented to include AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.305, paragraphs 5.5.2 and 5.6.2.1, 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 technical risk, past and present performance, and cost/price.

Technical risk and past and present performance are equal in importance and when combined are significantly more important than cost/price.

(b) 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 will make one award to one offeror. The Government intends to award without discussions. Discussions, if necessary, will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. Award will be made to one responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all solicitation requirements such as terms and conditions, meets all the requirements set forth in the RFP, provides representations and certifications as required, and provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation described in this provision. Contract terms and conditions are specified in FAR 52.212-4 unless otherwise tailored in the Addendum to the solicitation/contract. A cross reference matrix will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements document (Statement of Work(SOW), Purchase Description (PD), etc), the Contract Line Item Number (CLIN), the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), Section L (Instructions to Offerors) and Section M (Evaluation Basis for Award). The matrix ensures that all requirements are addressed, requirements do not conflict and solicitation sections are internally consistent. If the matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction or provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over this matrix. Additionally, to the extent this matrix discloses details as to the extent or manner by which the government intends to evaluate offeror’s proposals for award, Section M references in the matrix are for information purposes only, and the Government shall be obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with the provisions of Section M of the solicitation. Failure by the offeror to complete the matrix will result in the offeror being considered as failing to meet the RFP terms and conditions.

(c) The TA-RPPT evaluation process will be accomplished as follows:

1. Technical Acceptability. Each offeror’s technical proposal shall be evaluated to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of Purchase Description (PD) PD08WRGBGBEA10, Revision C based on the subfactors below and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail. For each subfactor, the offeror identifies any risks associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risk.

Subfactor One: Design and Construction. This subfactor is met when the detailed narrative clearly illustrates the offeror’s design approach and meets the following requirements of Purchase Description (PD)

PD08WRGBGBEA10:

Weight requirements in paragraph 3.3.1, Weight, of PD PD08WRGBGBEA10. Information submitted adequately demonstrates compliance with the requirements of the PD and includes specification/cut sheets from the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) of major components that include the weight of those components, detailed drawing(s) of the major component locations along with their associated weight, and a detailed narrative to include the total weight of the tester (including the remote unit weight).

Dimension requirements in paragraph 3.3.2, Dimensions, of PD PD08WRGBGBEA10. Information submitted adequately demonstrates compliance with the requirements of the PD and includes a top level drawing(s) with, at minimum, the length, width, and height of the flight control test station and the remote unit.

Also, detailed narrative includes adequate calculations of the volume of the test station.

Handles and Grasp Area requirements in paragraph 3.3.3, Handles and Grasp Areas, of PD PD08WRGBGBEA10. Information submitted adequately demonstrates compliance with the requirements of the PD and includes drawing(s) with, at minimum, the dimensional location of the center of gravity of the flight control test station and the dimensional location and actual dimensions of the handles and/or grasp areas.

Also, detailed narrative includes adequate discussion as to how the test station design shall meet MIL-STD-1472F, Section 5.9.11.5 requirements.

Maneuverability requirements in paragraph 3.3.4, Maneuverability, of PD PD08WRGBGBEA10. Information submitted adequately demonstrates compliance with the requirements of the PD and includes the wheel specification/cut sheets from the OEM as well as the center of gravity location of the tester when it is in the wheeled position. Also, detailed narrative adequately includes how the flight control test station incorporates maneuverability and ergonomics as part of the design (i.e. how the center of gravity of the tester was kept low and close to the wheels to make it easier to maneuver, how the handle extends so the person transporting the tester does not have to lean over, etc.)

Subfactor Two. Vacuum Pump Design and Unit Under Test Protection. This subfactor is met when the detailed narrative clearly illustrates the offeror’s design approach and meets the following requirements of Purchase Description (PD) PD08WRGBGBEA10:

Vacuum pressure pump in paragraphs 3.3.12, Pressure-Vacuum Pump, Performance specifications in section 3.11, Performance, and Static Pressure Limiting in paragraph 3.3.16 of PD PD08WRGBGBEA10.

Information submitted adequately demonstrates compliance with the requirements of the PD and includes specification/cut sheets from the Original equipment manufacturer (OEM) for the vacuum pressure pump design, analysis and supporting data needed to verify the proposed pump requirements, and detailed explanation as to how the utilized pump shall be used to meet the performance requirements of section 3.11 and paragraph 3.3.16 of the PD.

Protection to the Unit Under Test in paragraph 3.3.14, Protection to the Unit Under Test, of PD PD08WRGBGBEA10. Information submitted adequately demonstrates compliance with the requirements of the PD and includes diagrams/schematics and a detailed narrative to verify that paragraph 3.3.14 of the PD shall be met.

Temperature requirements in section 3.9.1, Temperature , of PD PD08WRGBGBEA10. Information submitted adequately demonstrates compliance with the requirements of the PD and includes a detailed narrative as to how the flight control test station is designed to meet the Operating and Non-Operating temperature requirements in Section 3.9.1 of the PD.

2. Technical Risk. Technical risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of this solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, or degraded performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation shall address the offeror’s identified risk and proposed mitigation (if applicable) and document why that it is or is not acceptable. One of the following technical risk ratings will be assigned to the Technical Acceptability factor. Offers may be determined technically acceptable based on meeting the minimum technical requirements, but if the proposed approach poses too great a risk, an offer may be determined to have a high technical risk rating.

Rating Definition

Low * Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance.

Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate * Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High * Likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance.

Extraordinary contractor emphasis and rigorous Government monitoring may be able to overcome difficulties.

Unacceptable The existence of a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses that is very likely to cause unmitigated disruption of schedule, drastically increased cost or severely degraded performance.

Proposals with an unacceptable rating are not awardable.

* A plus “+” rating may be used as an option when risk is evaluated to be in the upper boundaries of a technical risk rating, but not enough to merit the next inferior rating. The use of a (+) shall not apply to the “Unacceptable” risk rating.

3. Performance. The present and past performance assessment will assess the confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s 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 five (5) years. The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. 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:

Very Relevant: Present / past performance efforts that involved essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Very relevant efforts shall include the design and manufacture of a pitot static test set which is portable, weighs less than or equal to 100 pounds, and includes remote unit capability meeting RVSM compliance requirements.

Relevant: Present / past performance efforts that involved much of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Relevant efforts shall include the manufacture or remanufacture/rebuild of portable test sets with major components to include a pump.

Somewhat Relevant: Present / past performance efforts that involved some of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Somewhat relevant efforts shall include the manufacture or remanufacture/rebuild of an aircraft test set.

Not Relevant: Present / past performance efforts did not involve any of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Note: Offerors are reminded that “magnitude of effort and complexities” in the above definitions denotes not only technical features and characteristics but also programmatic and logistical considerations including but not limited to quantities produced, dollar values, type of contract, length of effort, type and complexity of data contractually required of the offeror, etc.

Expected Magnitude of Work/Complexities

Quantities: Total 1,211 units; Average 252 for first four years, Average 202 for last year.

Duration of Time: Six Years

Program Dollar Value: As associated with quantities reflected above

Type of Contract: Firm, Fixed Price

Logistical/Programmatic: Includes, but is NOT limited to, program management duties, packaging, on-time delivery, customer satisfaction, problem resolution, contract management, fulfilling testing, technical, provisioning, and data requirements.

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

(i) The Performance Confidence Assessment Group (PCAG) 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 Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). 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.

(ii) Offerors shall 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) For offerors that are newly formed entities, 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 Performance Confidence Assessment Group will be considered if the submitted contract involves the key personnel performing the same role currently being proposed on the instant acquisition.

(iv) 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. That is, an offeror’s three contracts may, by definition, represent only a rating less than very relevant 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 higher relevancy rating. In this situation, work performed in aggregate will be considered in the assignment of a confidence assessment rating.

As a result of the recency, relevancy, and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, a confidence assessment rating will be made. The following performance confidence assessment ratings apply:

Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no confidence that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence No performance record is identifiable or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Offerors without a record of past performance or for whom information is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an “Unknown Confidence” rating. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an “Unknown Confidence” rating.

(d) Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past and present performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, for the efforts submitted for evaluation in its Volume III. The Government will review the offerors’ performance to ascertain if the offeror carried 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. Note that FAR clause 52.219-8 applies to ALL offerors.

4. Cost/Price. The Government will evaluate each offeror's proposed prices submitted in Volume I, Completed RFP, for reasonableness and balance as discussed in the following paragraphs (i) and (ii). Offerors are reminded that in order to maintain reasonable/balanced pricing, the Government will not accept “Not Separately Priced (NSP)”, No Charge (NC), $0, etc. on any line items other than those already designated as “NSP” in the Schedule.

Offerors are advised to review all data items and ensure that they are proposing to the specific data requirements and level of effort involved. For data items, where the quantity of (1) one lot is specified, the quantity of (1) one shall be used.

The Government will calculate a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for each offeror’s proposed prices in accordance with paragraph (iii) below.

(i) Reasonableness: The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to validate price reasonableness. 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: Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of proposal analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze the proposed prices to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced line items or sub-line items. Prices submitted will be compared and evaluated to assure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each offeror’s response to the pricing structure in the Schedule. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing; offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(iii) Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The Government will utilize the following methodology to determine the TEP of each proposal. All unit prices shall be rounded to the nearest whole dollar. The TEP will be calculated for evaluation purposes. Offerors are reminded that the evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the options. The TEP will be calculated as follows:

For price proposals that have a quantity range of 1 to the BEQ or a fixed quantity, the evaluated price for each CLIN or Sub-CLIN including the Basic and option years will be calculated by multiplying the proposed unit price by the corresponding BEQ or the corresponding fixed quantity. The TEP will be determined by adding the price of the Basic Contract Period to the price of each Option year (I-V).

For CLINs that have multiple quantity ranges, the evaluated price for each CLIN will be calculated as follows: each proposed unit price for the same CLIN is multiplied by its corresponding quantity per range, yielding a total price. The sum of the total prices of the quantity ranges for that CLIN will be the evaluated price for the CLIN. The TEP will be determined by adding the price of the Basic Contract Period to the price of each Option year (I-V) as follows:

QUANTITY RANGE EXAMPLE

CLIN From To Quantity Per Range Unit Price Total Price

X00X 1 10 10 $100 $1,000

11 30 20 $90 $1,800

31 60 30 $85 $2,550

Total Evaluated Price for CLIN X00X $5,350