RFP Amend 4.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

See Block #2

PAGE OF PAGES

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

31 AUG 2010

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ.NO.

5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY AAC/PKES CODE FA9201 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AAC/PKES

205 WEST D AVENUE, STE. 467

EGLIN AFB FL 32542

ROBIN L. GIBSON 850-882-0170

robin.gibson@eglin.af.mil

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

FA9201-10-R-0001

X

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, X 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 0 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 ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

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

(X )

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

10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE 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 copies to the issuing office.

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

SEE SCHEDULE

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.

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

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

LORNA J. HENDRIX

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

BY________________________________________

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070 30-105 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV.10-83)

PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE Prescribed by GSA ConWrite Version 6.12.0 FAR (48 CFR) 53.243 Created 31 Aug 2010 11:37 AM

SCHEDULE OF CHANGES

FA9201-10-R-0001 0004

The purpose of this amendment is to revise the Request For Proposal (RFP) as follows:

1. Section L-15, Para 6.8. Early Proposal Information.

The offeror is requested to submit the Past and Present Performance Volume (Volume II) forty-two (42) calendar days after the RFP issuance date or no later than the closing date for receipt of proposals to the Contracting Officer at the following address: AAC/PKES, 210 West D Ave, Bldg 373, Eglin AFB FL 32542. Failure to submit this information early will not result in offeror disqualification.

Note: If the offeror does not wish to make changes to the past performance information already submitted, please notify the Government Point of contact, Ms. Robin Gibson, 850-882-0170.

Questionnaires already received will be resubmitted by the Government.

2. Section L, Page L-15, Para 6.9, Recent and Relevant Contracts or Task Orders

The Government clarified the definition of "relevancy" in paragraphs 2 and 3 to read as follows:

To provide relevant support data the offeror shall submit evidence of effort, complexity, and scope as related to each of the Technical Proposal Subfactors (TA-1 and TA-2) and price. Relevancy data shall include the type of effort (delivery order contracts, task order contracts, manpower support, services, etc.), amount of effort (man-years and contract dollars invoiced), and type of contract (firm-fixed price, cost, etc.). The relevancy data shall include the complexity of past efforts, i.e. how much or how little did the effort require any of the following: unique and/or specialized hardware and software prototype systems to develop/modify the facilities and infrastructure required for test/training and evaluation of C4I and Munitions systems, DoD research and development, weapons systems development, information systems, engineering services, test and evaluation support, skill/technical expertise, etc. The relevancy data shall include the scope of past efforts, i.e. how broad was the effort for the following general areas of work: design, development, test, modification, installation, training, and/or transition support, all as related to the Eglin Test and Training Complex (desired) or other Range Complex (required) test hardware and software systems, facilities, and infrastructure improvements, etc.

Relevancy information may include data on efforts performed by other divisions, critical subcontractors, or teaming contractors, if such resources will be brought to bear or significantly influence the performance of the proposed effort. General areas of work include design, development, test, modification, installation, training, and/or transition support, all as related to the Eglin Test and Training Complex (desired) or other Range Complex (required) test hardware and software systems, facilities, and infrastructure improvements, etc.

3. Section L, Attachment L-5, Pages 24-35, - Past Performance Customer Questionnaire:

a) Page L- 25, Section II, Para F. - The last four digits of the Commercial Voice and DSN Voice telephone numbers have changed: FROM: 0185 TO: 0171

b) Page L- 26 - 33 Part IV, Past Performance Evaluation, Section A, Mission Capability Performance

i. All of the assessment ratings in the boxes beneath the questions have been changed to match the assessments listed on Page L-24 and L-25.

ii. Question # 4 has been removed and the subsequent questions have been renumbered.

iii. The verbiage in Questions 2, 3, (and the renumbered) 4, 10, and 21 has been revised.

iv. Question #23 has been removed.

c) Page L-26 - 33 Part IV, Past Performance Evaluation, Section B - Cost Performance

i. The verbiage in Question #3 has been revised.

NOTE: The Government will upload the revised Attachment # L-5 in its entirety as a separate document to FedBizOpps.

4. Section M, Page M-8, Para 5.4 Relevancy

The Government will evaluate relevancy by considering effort, complexity, and scope as related to each of the Technical Subfactors (TA-1 and TA-2) and price. Relevancy will consider the type of effort (delivery order contracts, task order contracts, manpower support, services, etc.), amount of effort (man-years and contract dollars invoiced) and type of contract (firm-fixed price, cost, etc.). Relevancy will consider the complexity of past efforts, i.e. how much or little did the effort require any of the following: unique and/or specialized hardware and software prototype systems to develop/modify the facilities and infrastructure required for test/training and evaluation of C4I and Munitions systems, DoD research and development, weapon systems development, information systems, engineering services, test and evaluation support, skill/technical expertise, etc. Relevancy will consider the scope of past efforts, i.e. how broad was the effort for the following general areas of work: design, development, test, modification, installation, training, and/or transition support, all as related to the Eglin Test and Training Complex (desired) or other Range Complex (required) test hardware and software systems, facilities, and infrastructure improvements, etc.

Relevancy will also consider information submitted that includes relevant data on efforts performed by other divisions, critical subcontractors, or teaming contractors, if such resources will be brought to bear or significantly influence the performance of the proposed effort.

The Government will assess higher relevancy for contracts/delivery orders that are most similar to the current acquisition requirements and will have a greater impact on the offeror's overall performance confidence assessment rating. The Government is not bound by the offeror's opinion of relevancy.

5. Section M, Page M-9, Para 5.4.1 Relevancy Factors

a. The relevancy definitions in Table 1 have been changed to read as follows:

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexities found in many or all of the enumerated sub-paragraphs of the technical acceptability factors (TA-1 and TA-2).

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved a significant amount of the magnitude of effort and complexities found in any or many of the enumerated sub-paragraphs of the Technical acceptability subfactors (TA- 1 and TA-2).

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance contractual effort involved some of the magnitude of effort and complexities found in any or some of the enumerated sub-paragraphs of the Technical acceptability subfactors (TA- 1 and TA-2).

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved none of the magnitude of effort and complexities enumerated in the sub-paragraphs of the Technical acceptability subfactors (TA-1 and TA-2).

b. Section M, Page M-9, Para 5.4.1.1 and 5.4.1.2 verbiage was clarified to read as follows:

5.4.1.1. For the purposes of evaluation, magnitude is defined as a measure of the level of the prior project effort for the same or similar type of contract or delivery order with regards to Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence (C4I) and/or Munitions Test Improvement projects.

5.4.1.2. For the purposes of evaluation, complexity is defined as a measure of the unique, specialized and advanced scientific/technical aspects involved in implementing a prior project effort for C4I and/or Munitions Test Improvement projects. An example of higher complexity is a project involving a device such as an interferometer. An example of lower complexity is a project involving a software patch to allow serial communication between two electronic boxes.

c. Section M, Page M-11-12, Para 5.6 Performance Quality Assessment and Table were added to read as follows:

5.6 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 Technical Acceptability subfactors and Cost/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 past performance questionnaire responses, 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 sources without a formal rating system.

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 measureable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts.

Quality Assessment Rating/Color Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E)/BLUE 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.

VERY GOOD (VG)/PURPLE 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.

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

MARGINAL (M)/YELLOW 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.

UNSATISFACTORY(U)/RED During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or failed) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent and/or extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

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

6. Section I, Clauses Incorporated By Reference, is hereby amended to add the following mandatory clause:

FAR 52.204-10 REPORTING EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND FIRST-TIER SUBCONTRACT

AWARDS (JUL 2010)

7. In accordance with Block 11 on the Standard Form 30, the offeror shall acknowledge all amendments by returning the signed amendments with its proposal.