Summary of Amendment 1 changes to SEI.pdf

Summary of Amendment 1 changes to SE&I RFP:

In Sec H

Corrected SMC‐H033 paragraph c second sentence to read as follows:

For this contract, small business subcontracting achievements are measured as the percentage of the number that small business subcontract FTEs represent of the total number of FTEs on contract.

In Sec J

Attachment 1 PWS date 4 Oct 2009: removed PWS paragraph 1.4.2.1.2. REMOTE LAUNCH CONTROL CENTER (RLCC) ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT and subs, and replaced with 1.4.2.1.2 LAUNCH SITE APPLICATION SOFTWARE SUSTAINMENT and subs

In sec L‐1:

Sec L‐1 Page 2, changed hand delivery address to Ft MacArthur San Pedro, CA added additional phone number contacts for CO

Section L‐1 page 6 changed paragraph III(b)10) to read as follows:

10) The following table represents the Government budget (including fee and travel) by Government Fiscal Year in thousands of escalated $. Offerors shall propose realistic costs consistent with their proposed skills mix to meet PWS requirements.

Section L‐1 page 7 subfactor 7, has been corrected to read as follows:

“. . . the percent of total small business subcontracted shall be no less than 20% of the number of FTEs on contract .” Removed reference to “and FAR 52.219-9(d)(1) and (2),” in first sentence.

Section L‐1 page 9

Changed delivery address for early delivery of OCI mitigation plan to 483 N Avaition Blvd Bldg 270 rm A2‐360 El Segundo CA.

Sec L-1 In Attachment 3, Past Performance Information, the 1st paragraph states: “Provide the information requested in this form for each contract/program being described. … Provide a separate completed form for each contract/program submitted. Limit the number of past efforts submitted and the length of each submission to the limitations set forth at paragraph III (c), of Section L of this solicitation.”

a. Reference intended to be to paragraph V.(g).5).D in Section L‐1?

L‐1 Attachment 3 has been updated to reference V.(g).5).D

b. The form provided is inconsistent with the margins and type size allowed in paragraphs V.(g).3) and 4) of L-1. Must the provided form be used or can a contractor form providing the same information and conforming with L-1 formatting instructions be used?

The Attachment 3 form has been updated to conform with L-1 formatting instructions (margins & type size); however the offeror may use its own form if it complies with L-1 formatting.

In Attachment 3, Past Performance Information, Paragraph H states: “For each of the applicable task areas under Mission Capability in Section M, illustrate/explain how your experience on this program applies to that task area.” We can find no “Mission Capability” section nor any “task areas” in Section M. Was the reference intended to be to the eight function areas in the PWS?

Corrected as follows:

H. For each of the applicable eight task areas in the PWS, illustrate/explain how your experience on this program applies to that task area.

Sec L-1 Attachment 1 Pricing Format

In the rates schedule tab changed to read GFY10, GFY11, etc for government

Fiscal year. Also added GFY20 since the contract will now extend to at least Feb 2020.

G = Government.

Sec L-1 Attachment 5 PWS Potential OCI Matrix:

Change reference PWS paragraphs 1.2.1.5.6.1 and 1.2.1.5.6.2 to 1.2.1.5.5.1 and 1.2.1.5.5.2 respectively.

In Sec M002:

M002 A Technical Acceptability: deleted “Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable”

Section M 2 B added items in Blue

ii) The labor rates, G&A, Facility Capital Cost of Money (FCCOM), and Overhead rates will be validated against DCMA approved FPRAs if provided and/or DCMA recommended/interim rates.

vi) Cost realism analysis is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal.

Added the word “most” to “probable cost” to maintain consistency in section M 2 B vi) in all instances of use.

Unbalanced pricing had not been addressed in the RFP therefore the following sentence was added to Sec M002 B

vii) In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g) all offers with separately priced line items or subline items shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced.

Sec M002 C added:

iv) If the lowest price evaluated technically acceptable offer is judged to have a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment, that offer represents the best value for the government and the evaluation stops at that point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.