FA855317R0015_______0003.pdf

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

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

FA8553-17-R-0015-0003

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

FD2060-17-30011

5. PROJECT NO (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE

FMS TACTICAL AIRLIFT (C-130), AFLCMC/WLKCB

235 BYRON ST STE 19A

BLDG 300 CML PHN 478 926 7204

ROBINS AFB GA 31098-1670

BUYER: Daniel K. Magrino/WLKCB daniel.magrino@us.af.mil Phone: (478) 926- 6582 Fax: (000) 000-0000 No Collect Calls

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6) CODEFA8553

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

CODE

X

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

FA855317R0015

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

23-JAN-2017

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not extended. Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods. ( a ) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; ( b ) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or ( c ) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS

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

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

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

FMS REQUIREMENT

ROUTINE

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

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

BY ________________________________________________________

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED

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

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BY ____________________________________________________

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

FACILITY CODE

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE

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

PRESCRIBED BY GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

X

X X

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

Amendment/Modification FA8553-17-R-0015-0003

Continuation of block 14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

A. The purpose of this amendment is to correct an administrative oversight in Section M 2A(b) as follows:

Delte:

"The technical team will review flight plan for adequacy to include"

Request for Proposal FA8553-17-R-0015-0003

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SSP Attachment 4 Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

1. Basis for Contract Award.

A. This acquisition will utilize the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedure in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 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, award will be made to the offeror having the lowest total evaluated price. 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 paragraph 2 below.

B. 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. 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.

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

A. Technical Factor.

Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the PWS sections 4.0 (a & k) and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements.

(a) Subfactor One: Aircrew Qualifications. This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal adequately provided:

Based on the PWS requirement paragraph 4.0 (a), the Contractor shall provide FAA certificates of current employees documenting qualified C-130H-1 aircrew/flight certifications to perform a ferry flights to/from any designated repair station and to/from Kabul, Afghanistan (ICAO Code OAKB) or another designated South West Asia Area of Responsibility (AOR) location as determined by the United States Government. In addition, the contractor shall provide A&P License or United States Air Force 5 Level or higher certification for the Crew Chief. Aircrew composition includes qualified 1xC-130H-1 Pilot, 1x C-130H-1 Co-pilot, 1x C-130H-1 Flight Engineer, 1xC-130H-1 Navigator with APN-59 radar experience, 1xC-130H-1 Loadmaster, 1xC-130H-1 Crew Chief.Detailed and sufficient documentation that will pass a DCMA Government Flight Representative (GFR) review process. The technical team will review all aircrew certificates for adequacy.

(b) Subfactor Two: C-130 Flight Operation Plan. This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal adequately provided: Based on the PWS requirement section 4.0 (k), the Contractor shall provide a GFR compliant flight plan IAW the Foreign Clearance Guide concerning ferrying military/commercial aircraft from Kabul, Afghanistan to OGMA, Lisbon, Portugal. This flight plan is based on the C130H having no external tanks and with three (3) Afganistan military observers on-board. Additionally, if the actual departure date is delayed 5 days after approval of diplomatic clearances, list the impacts (if any) that could result from the delay.

The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. 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 for the technical subfactors. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating for the subfactors.

Technical Rating Acceptable/Unacceptable Description Ratings:

Request for Proposal FA8553-17-R-0015-0003

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

B. Cost/Price Factor.

The Government will evaluate each offeror’s proposed prices submitted in Volume I, Completed RFP and Clauses, for reasonableness and balance as discussed in paragraphs 2.4.2 and 2.4.3 below. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete or unreasonable will not be considered for award. Additionally, an offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. The Government will calculate a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for each offeror’s proposed prices in accordance with paragraph 2.4.4 below.

2.4.1 Completeness. The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L of the solicitation.

2.4.2 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. If adequate price competition 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 prices.

2.4.3 Balanced/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 Section B (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.

2.4.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The TEP will be calculated by multiplying the identified quantity by the proposed unit price to obtain an extended price for each CLIN (and Sub-CLIN). The sum of all the CLINs’ evaluated prices will represent the total evaluated price. Offeror’s are required to price all CLINs (and Sub-CLINs), unless designated Not Separately Priced (NSP) or To Be Determined (TBD), with reasonable and balanced prices. All unit prices shall be rounded to the nearest whole dollar.