FA8773-09-R-0001 Amendment 0002.docx

FA8773-09-R-0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION H - SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

The following have been modified:

Service Contract Act Wage Determination Nrs:

05-2449 Rev 8 dated 07/01/09 (Burlington County);

05-2351 Rev 6 dated 05/26/09 (Ocean County); and

Davis Bacon Act General Decision Nr. NJ2, dated 07/24/09 are hereby incorporated by reference. Wage Determinations and Decisions can be downloaded at http://www.wdol.gov/.

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

52.211-5 MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS (Authorized Substitution) MAR 2006

NOTE TO CONTRACTOR: Other than new material may be provided for CLINS 0001, X002 and Customer Premise Equipment items. Items provided under this clause must be in "like new" condition and warranted as new.

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The Table of Contents has changed from:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

11-JUN-2009

to:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-1 EVALUATION OF OFFERS

1.0 Source Selection.

1.1 Basis for Contract Award. This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), when appropriate, and the Air Force Source Selection Mandatory Procedures (MP5315.3), dated January 2008. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Mission Capability, Past Performance, and Price. A contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical superiority, overall business approach, and/or superior past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the price difference. The SSA will base the decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all the criteria in the solicitation. While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.2 Number of Contract to Be Awarded. The Government intends to award one contract, on an all or none basis, for the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of the specified Base Telecommunications System (BTS).

1.3 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers. The SSET may reject any proposal that it considers is unrealistic in terms of contract terms and conditions, or is unrealistically high or low in price when compared to Government estimates and/or competitive pricing. The SSET may reject a proposal that reflects an inherent lack of competence or fails to comprehend the complexity and risks of the requirement for the aforementioned reasons.

1.4 Correction Potential of Proposals. The SSET will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency or uncertainty. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. The Government may eliminate an Offeror from the competitive range if an aspect of the proposal does not meet the solicitation requirements and is not considered correctable.

2.0 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors.

(a) The SSET will use Mission Capability, Past Performance, and Price evaluation factors and subfactors to evaluate each proposal. The responsive and responsible Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described herein will be considered the best value for award.

(b) Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor is as follows in descending order: Factor 1 (Mission Capability), Factor 2 (Past Performance), and Factor 3 (Price). Within the Mission Capability Factor, the subfactors are also in descending order of importance. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are more important than price; however, price will contribute substantially to the selection decision.

2.1 Mission Capability Evaluation. The Mission Capability evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Mission Capability Technical Rating and the Mission Capability Risk Rating. These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of each Mission Capability subfactor.

2.1.1 Mission Capability Technical Rating. The mission capability technical rating provides an assessment of the Offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s requirements. Each Mission Capability subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in AFFARS MP5315.3, Mission Capability Ratings (excerpted below). They focus on the strengths, deficiencies, and uncertainties of the Offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the Mission Capability subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings will not be combined into an overall color rating for the Mission Capability factor.

TABLE 1- MISSION CAPABILITY TECHNICAL RATINGS

COLOR RATING DESCRIPTION

Blue Exceptional Exceeds the specified minimum performance or capability requirements in a way beneficial to the Government. A proposal must have one or more strengths and no deficiencies to receive a blue.

Green Acceptable Meets specified minimum performance or capability requirements. A proposal must have no deficiencies to receive a green but may have one or more strengths.

Yellow Marginal There is doubt regarding whether an aspect of the Proposal meets a specified minimum performance or capability requirement, but any such uncertainty is correctable.

Red Unacceptable Fails to meet specified minimum performance or Capability requirements. The proposal has one or more deficiencies and is not awardable.

FACTOR 1 – MISSION CAPABILITY.

SUBFACTOR 1.1 - MAINTENANCE AND WORKLOAD PRACTICES. This is met when the Offeror presents a detailed plan for O&M of the equipment specified in the PWS that meets all of the following criteria:

(i) Switching system monitoring methodology during duty and non-duty hours, including but not limited to staffing approach and alarm response

(ii) Adequate security measures to restrict switch access to only authorized personnel

(iii) Discussion of QAP and customer notification of trouble ticket status and/or completion; how trouble tickets are received, authorized, tracked, and worked by the contractor; and how multiple trouble calls will be handled during duty/non-duty hours including but not limited to how conflicts will be coordinated and/or resolved

(iv) Addresses how response and/or completion times will be met

SUBFACTOR 1.2 – Work Orders. This subfactor is met when the Offeror provides a detailed plan for ensuring adequate and timely completion of various types of work orders that meets all of the following criteria:

(i) Sound procedure for completing work orders within time limitations listed in PWS section 1.4

(ii) A well-developed process that allows for planning and implementing tasks in such a manner that workload conflicts will be minimized, and if they do occur, specific guidelines on how these conflicts will be resolved to include coordination with base personnel

(iii) Demonstrates ability to manage large projects not generally considered routine installation requirements (e.g., large outside plant installation, manhole/handhole system installation, building re-wire of premise or ISP cable systems, etc); addresses how delays will be avoided when completing O&M requirements or work orders during performance of these larger projects

(iv) Provides an effective and detailed plan for demonstrating its ability to concurrently support O&M requirements (PWS Section 1.3) and simultaneous work order requirements (PWS Section 1.4) without compromising the quality or timeliness of either

SUBFACTOR 1.3 – COMPANY RESOURCES. This subfactor is met when the Offeror provides a detailed discussion that assures the Government that it will meet or exceed all contractual requirements by addressing all of the following criteria:

(i) A table of labor categories, number of on-site personnel in each category, and short position title(s) indicating a sufficient number of on-site personnel in each category required to meet all contractual requirements

(ii) An in-depth discussion and evidence of necessary training, experience, qualifications and certifications of the proposed on-site personnel relative to equipment specified in PWS Appendix 5.2.

(iii) Discussion of how on-site employees will remain proficient on site-specific systems listed in Appendix 5.2 of the PWS (include the major system nomenclature, not just the manufacturer)

(iv) A detailed discussion of how on-site personnel (by labor category) are recruited if a position is vacated

(v) A detailed discussion on how the Offeror will replace on-site personnel on short notice; how positions will be covered for absences of varied duration (such as leave or vacations); how Offeror will be adding employees (including the use of permanent, temporary, term employees, prime or sub-contractor use), and how coverage for workload surges or base mission changes will be accomplished

(vi) provide procedures for ensuring sufficient quantities of parts, materials, tools, equipment, etc are maintained on site; a complete list of equipment that will be available on site to effect repairs or handle O&M trouble tickets, PMIs, work orders, testing, and other contractual requirements

SUBFACTOR 1.4 – QUALITY CONTROL. This subfactor is met when the Offeror provides an adequate overview of how quality control will be implemented on this requirement and how quality principles will be applied to specific actions required by the PWS.

SUBFACTOR 1.5 – SAFETY AND SECURITY. This subfactor is met when the Offeror provides the following:

(i) Discussion of company's safety and environmental practices to include evidence of compliance with federal and OSHA citation(s) and resolution of disciplinary action(s) for the current and past two years

(ii) Discussion of the company's accident prevention that includes applicable resolution of any investigative findings; determination of cause; and preventive measures for similar incidents/accidents

(iii) Discussion of specific procedures for ensuring the security of Government property and/or facilities to include adequate procedures for key control/lock combination measures and end-of-day security checks

(iv) Discussion of process for ensuring password protection and security measures to ensure access to the switching system is restricted to authorized personnel.

2.1.2 Mission Capability Risk Rating. The Mission Capability Risk evaluation focuses on the weaknesses associated with the Offeror's proposed approach and includes an assessment of the potential for disruption of schedule, increased price, or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The Mission Capability subfactors will receive one of the Risk ratings described in AFFARS MP5315.3, excerpted below. The ratings focus on the risks, i.e., weaknesses and significant weaknesses, of the Offeror’s proposed approach to each of the Mission Capability subfactors. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the Offeror's proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

TABLE 2 – MISSION CAPABILITY RISK RATINGS

RATING DESCRIPTION

Low* Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased price 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 price 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 price 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 price 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 Mission Capability Risk Rating, but is not high enough to merit the next inferior rating. For example, where in the judgment of the evaluator, an offeror has risk that approaches or is nearly rated as a Moderate risk, a Mission Capability Risk Rating of “Low+” may be assigned.

2.2 Past Performance Evaluation. The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an Offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs based on a demonstrated record of performance, including price and schedule.

FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE.

(1) Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in AFFARS MP5315.3, excerpted below.

TABLE 3- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

RATING DESCRIPTION

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 expectation that the offeror will be able to successfullyperform 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.

(2) Evaluation Process. The Past Performance evaluation considers the Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet users’ needs. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance. The assessment will focus on performance that is relevant to the Mission Capability subfactors and Price factor taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated herein. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal and information obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

(i) Recency Assessment. Only recent past performance information (PPI) will be evaluated. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past five years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

(ii) Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of recent PPI obtained to determine how closely it relates to the Mission Capability subfactors and Price factor, including the relative order of importance specified herein. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Mission Capability subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance (for example the PWS) that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to product/service similarity, complexity, similar technology, type of effort [O&M, repair, installation, etc.], contract scope and type, and performance period. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

DEGREE DESCRIPTION

HIGHLY RELEVANT (HR) Past/present performance effort involved essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT (R) Past/present performance effort involved much of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT (SR) Past/present performance effort involved some of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT (NR) Past/present performance effort did not involve any of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(iii) Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Mission Capability subfactors and Price Factor; however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the PPIRS information, CPARS, interviews with Government customers, and if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from various sources. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

COLOR RATING DESCRIPTION

BLUE EXCEPTIONAL During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

PURPLE VERY GOOD During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered. Contractor took timely corrective action.

GREEN SATISFACTORY During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

YELLOW MARGINAL During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

WHITE NOT APPLICABLE Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

(3) Assigning Color/Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the mission capability subfactors and price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom PPI is not available or 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 for the Past Performance factor. More recent and relevant PPI will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant PPI may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

2.3 Price Evaluation. If a discrepancy exits between the information contained on the disk and the printed copy, the printed copy will prevail. Entering text in cells set up for numerical format will result in calculation errors within the spreadsheets and may render the proposal non-responsive. The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is fair and reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information, see FAR 31.201-3.

FACTOR 3 – PRICE FACTOR.

(1) The SSET will evaluate the realism of each Offerors’ proposed prices. This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed prices are sufficient for the work to be performed, reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements, and consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s proposal (FAR 15.404-1(d)(1) and 2.101). The Price Realism Assessment (PRA) will consider mission capability risks (weaknesses) identified during the evaluation of the proposal.

(2) The SSET will evaluate the affordability of each Offeror’s price proposal by comparing the total proposed price as well as the price for O&M and other significant cost drivers to the independent Government estimate (IGE), and budgetary information. The evaluation shall be made on the basis of a separate comparison for each fiscal year of the contract as well as a comparison between the total proposed prices and the total for budgetary information.

(3) The total evaluated price will be derived by multiplying the estimated quantity times the unit price for the CLINs/SLINs. O&M and Labor Hour CLINs have been determined to represent a greater value and concern to the Government than pre-priced CLINs (Purchase, Installation, Relocate, and Removal). O&M and Labor Hour CLINs/SLINs shall be evaluated at 100% of the proposed price. Pre-priced work order support CLINs/SLINs/PIDs will be evaluated at 35% of their total price. The proposed price will be evaluated as follows:

X001-X003 (O&M) 100% Total Price

amount times proposed material factor)

(i) The product of these calculations will be added for the base period and all option periods. The amount on the Cost-reimbursable Materials CLIN will then be added to arrive at a total contract value. The Government reserves the right to adjust the Offeror's extended prices for the correction of mathematical errors that are determined to be caused by apparent clerical errors.

(ii) Evaluation of proposed prices will include a review for:

(A) Reasonableness -- Each proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the proposed prices are reasonable. The evaluation will assess whether the proposed prices have been developed by using appropriate and acceptable methodologies, whether proposed prices are supported by factual and verifiable data, and whether estimates are supported by valid and suitable assumption and estimating techniques.

(B) Completeness -- Each proposal will be evaluated to determine whether all pricing information required by the solicitation has been submitted and correlates to the operations, maintenance, management, and logistics efforts described in the corresponding sections of the technical proposal. Blank cells will be evaluated as “no-bid/no proposal” and may result in elimination of your proposal from competition.

(C) Balance -- In addition, prices will be reviewed for unbalanced offers in accordance with FAR 15.4041(g). Offers that do not meet these criteria may be rejected.

(D) Apparent Mathematical Errors -- Overriding formulas within the Government-provided workbook may result in calculation errors and cause the proposal to be considered non-responsive.

3.0 Discussions. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. The Contracting Officer may elect to hold limited exchanges with offerors in order to clarify past performance issues, or to resolve minor errors. These exchanges shall not be construed as discussions. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions.

4.0 Pre-award Survey. The Government may conduct a pre-award survey (PAS) as part of this source selection. Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be evaluated to determine each Offeror's capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

5.0 Other Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. Failure to include assumptions and/or exceptions within the proposal will be deemed as acceptance of all terms and conditions of the solicitation (as amended) and resulting contract.

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf